This Plan focuses on source control, control of the environment, safe work practices and the use of respiratory protective devices when needed.
Included in the Plan are:
• A comprehensive infection prevention program to prevent transmission of all infectious agents among employees, patients, clients, and inmates.
• An on‐going employee medical surveillance program
• An employee training program
All identified City employees are responsible for complying with this Plan. Employees are strongly encouraged to comply with the TB screening and medical surveillance program, including the recommended vaccinations. Participation in the TB screening is mandatory for all employees identified to be working in at‐risk classifications (Appendix A), high‐risk facilities or in positions where compliance is determined to be mandatory.
The intent of the Plan is to eliminate or reduce employee occupational exposures to ATD’s, BBP’s, TB and/or waterborne diseases, including influenza / novel influenza, tuberculosis and other airborne viral or bacterial diseases; bloodborne diseases such as Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and other bloodborne diseases; Hepatitis A, a non-bloodborne disease; and Tetanus. To assure compliance with this Plan the City will:
• Provide protection for employees whose job classifications may seasonally, frequently, or occasionally place them in contact with ATD’s, BBP’s , TB and/or waterborne diseases; through universal precautions training, a voluntary vaccination program, engineering controls, work practice controls, housekeeping controls, and use of approved Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) where applicable. • Provide protection for all employees whose job classifications do not place them in contact with ATD’s, BBP’s, TB and/or waterborne diseases, but may on rare occasion encounter ATD’s, BBP’s, TB, and/or waterborne disease exposures while at work, through awareness training, including how to safeguard themselves’ in the event of ATD, BBP, TB and/or waterborne disease exposures while at work or at home.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 5 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • Provide appropriate testing, treatment, follow-up, and counseling to employees who have been exposed to ATD’s, BBP, TB and/or waterborne diseases while performing their duties for the City.
SCOPE
This Plan applies to all the City of Santa Monica’s departments which have personnel (Appendix A) who may be exposed to individuals with ATD’s, BBP’s, TB or where procedures may be utilized which would result in the spread of airway secretions in the air. It is inclusive of all full‐time, part‐time and extra‐help employees who have been identified as being at higher risk for exposure or disease than the general employee population.
Providing up-to-date information starts with initial training for all new employees and continues with annual refresher training by Risk Management for those employees in identified job classifications (Appendix A) or, by the Fire Department Designated Infection Control Officer for Sworn Fire and Police employees, or by the Aquatics Staff for the Swim Center.
The majority of job classifications at the City have little or no exposure to airborne, bloodborne, and/or waterborne diseases. Job classifications with potential for exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens or ATD’s have been identified in Appendix A. These employees will require in-depth training, a voluntary program for ATD’s, BBP’s and communicable disease vaccinations, engineering controls, work practice controls, housekeeping controls, and the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), when / where applicable.
This Plan also requires that:
• Source control measures be implemented.
• Procedures for identification and isolating suspected cases be implemented. • Procedures for exposure incidents be implemented.
• Procedures for communication with employees and affected personnel regarding exposure incidents be implemented.
• Procedures be developed for those employees designated to provide services duringsurge events.
REFERENCES
California General Industry Safety Order Group 16, Article 109 • CCR Title 8 §5193. Bloodborne Pathogens.
• CCR Title 8 §5199. Aerosol Transmissible Diseases
o §5199.1
o §5199 A
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 6 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY o §5199 C1
o §5199 D
RESPONSIBILITIES
City Manager and Department Heads
The City Manager and Department Heads are responsible for supporting and complying with the City’s Plan and providing a safe and healthy work environment for affected employees in the department.
The responsibility for the effective implementation and maintenance of the City’s Plan include:
• Safety Officer/Risk Management
• Designated Infection Control Officer (DICO) for sworn employees • Designated Infection Control Officer (DICO) for non-sworn employees • Department Managers and Supervisors
• Education/Training Instructors at Police, Fire and Risk Management • Employees
Safety Officer/Risk Management
The Safety Officer/Risk Management Division will be responsible for the development, support, annual regulatory review and revision if necessary of the Plan.
Risk Management is responsible for:
• Updating the City of Santa Monica’s Planas changes occur. • Administering the TB screening and required vaccinations through the designated medical facility. (In coordination with Human Resources)
• Administering the medical surveillance and vaccination program for employees. • Ensuring post‐exposure follow‐ups with the Cities Occupational Health provider. • Maintaining required medical records.
• Assisting departments with the development of written ATD Exposure Control Plans.
DICO (Designated Infection Control Officer) for Sworn Employees
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 7 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY The EMS Educator of the Fire Department will serve as the Designated Infection Control Officer of the Plan for sworn employees at the Fire Department and Police Department. Responsibilities include liaison duties between City employees and treating medical facilities and physicians regarding ATD’s. BBP’s, TB and communicable disease exposures and post-exposure management.
DICO (Designated Infection Control Officer) for Non-Sworn Employees The Workers’ Compensation Administrator from the Risk Management Division will serve as the Designated Infection Control Officer of the Plan for non-sworn employees. Responsibilities include liaison duties between City employees and treating medical facilities and physicians regarding ATD’s, BBP’s, TB and communicable disease exposures and post-exposure management.
Department Managers and Supervisors
Department Managers and Supervisors are responsible for informing employees of the City’s Plan. When new or transferred employees are introduced into a work area that may include the possibility of exposure to blood and airborne diseases, the Supervisor will discuss the work practice controls that apply in that area. They will work directly with the Safety Officer and / or Designated Infection Control Officers to ensure that training programs, PPE, medical equipment (where applicable), and exposure control procedures are in place and available to employees. Departments will keep vaccination tracking records in their confidential employee records.
Education/Training Coordination
The Human Resources Department, Safety Officer, Fire Department and outside contractors may all contribute to employee training for the exposure control Plan. Training may be given through new employee orientation, current airborne, bloodborne, and / or waterborne disease information from handouts and booklets, safety meetings and through safety committees.
Technical training for the primary/secondary job exposure classifications will be provided by the Safety Officer, the Fire Department Designated Officer, Aquatic Staff, and/or outside consultants.
Primary/secondary job exposure classifications will be given annual refresher training on current information regarding ATD;s. BBP’s, TB and/or waterborne diseases, and regulatory changes to the law as indicated.
The Cities Occupational Health Care Provider
The City’s Occupational Health Care Provider will be responsible for:
• Notifying Public Health and Risk Management of any positive TB cases, ATD, BBP or water borne diseases.
• Providing medical follow‐up after an exposure.
• Maintaining required medical records.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 8 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • Communicating with employees’ primary medical providers.
Employees
The City employees who are listed in Appendix A are responsible for:
• Becoming familiar with the contents of the department’s Plan. • Utilizing safe and healthful work practices.
• Reporting potential exposure incidents.
• Complying with the procedures and work practices learned through training. • Compliance with medical surveillance and follow‐up procedures. • Compliance with vaccination program.
DEFINITIONS
Aerosol Transmissible Disease (ATD) means an epidemiologically significant disease that is transmitted via droplet or airborne route. A list of these diseases is included in Appendix G. When a person coughs, sneezes or speaks, particles that may contain viable aerosol transmissible pathogens are expelled from the respiratory tract of the infected person. Droplets are larger particles that fall out of the air rather quickly.
The smaller particles are carried in normal air currents and can remain airborne for prolonged periods of time (hours) until they are removed by building ventilation. Transmission occurs when a susceptible person inhales these particles containing viable pathogens. Anyone who breathes in air containing these pathogens is at risk of acquiring infection. Various City departments provide services for a population who are at high risk for ATD and BBP’s.
Airborne Infection Isolation (AII) means infection control procedures that are designed to reduce the transmission of airborne infectious pathogens. Airborne infection isolation procedures apply to patients known or suspected to be infected with epidemiologically important pathogens that can be transmitted by the airborne route.
Airborne Infection Isolation Room or Area (AIIR) means a room, area, booth, tent or other enclosure that is maintained at negative pressure to adjacent areas in order to control the spread of aerosolized M.
Tuberculosis or other airborne infectious pathogens, and that meets the requirements of title 24, Part 4, for Isolation Rooms.
Airborne Infectious Disease (AirID) Either: (1) an ATD transmitted through dissemination of airborne droplet nuclei, small particle aerosols, or dust particles containing the disease agent for which AII is recommended by the CDC or CDPH, as listed in Appendix G or (2) the disease process caused by a novel or unknown pathogen for which there is no evidence to rule out with reasonable certainty the possibility that
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 9 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY it is transmissible through dissemination or airborne droplet nuclei, small particle aerosols, or dust particles containing novel or unknown pathogens.
Bacille Calmette‐Guerin Vaccine (BCG) is a vaccine for TB disease. BCG is used in many countries with a high prevalence of TB to prevent TB, however, it is not generally recommended for use in the U.S. because of the variable effectiveness.
Biohazardous Material potentially contaminated with a biological agent, such as an infectious microorganism that constitutes a threat to humans or to the environment.
Bloodborne Pathogens Microorganisms present in human blood that are capable of causing disease in humans. These pathogens include, but are not limited to, hepatitis B virus (HBV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV), and Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Cal/OSHA means the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health that protects workers and the public from safety hazards.
CDC means the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDPH means the California Department of Public Health and its predecessor, the Department of Health Services (CDHS).
Confirmed Case means an individual who meets the definition of a confirmed case of an ATD under diagnostic criteria accepted by the CDC, CDHS or the infection control physician or other licensed health care professional.
Droplet Precautions means infection control procedures designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious agents through contact of the conjunctivae or mucous membranes of the nose or mouth of a susceptible person with large‐particle droplets containing microorganisms generated from a person who has a clinical disease or who is a carrier of the microorganism.
Exposure Incident means an event in which employee or other personnel has had an exposure to an individual with a diagnosed reportable disease or condition for which droplet precautions or airborne infection isolation is recommended.
Hepatitis A (Non-bloodborne disease) A viral infection of the liver caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV).
Hepatitis A is not spread via blood. Transmission occurs through direct person-to-person contact, through exposure to contaminated water, ice, or shellfish, or from fruits, vegetables, or other foods eaten uncooked that were contaminated during harvesting. A yeast-based HAV vaccine is available for those employees in identified job classifications.
Hepatitis B is a viral infection of the liver caused by the hepatitis B virus (HBV). Hepatitis B is spread by direct or indirect contact with infected blood or other body fluids. Complications of HBV infection include cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Infection from Hepatitis B can be prevented, by
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 10 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY taking the 3 shot series Hepatitis B vaccine. The yeast derived Hepatitis B vaccine will be offered to employees in exposure identified job classifications.
Hepatitis C is a viral infection of the liver caused by the hepatitis C virus (HCV) which is found in the blood of persons who have the disease. HCV is spread by direct or indirect contact with the blood of an infected person. Approximately 50% of infected persons develop chronic liver disease. There is no HCV vaccine available at this time.
High Hazard Procedures means procedures performed on an individual with a suspected or confirmed ATD in which the potential for being exposed to aerosol transmissible pathogens is increased due to the reasonably anticipated generation of aerosolized pathogen.
The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a virus that attacks the immune system and destroys its ability to fight infection. HIV that progresses to the later stages of disease is called AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). In prospective studies of health care workers, the average risk of HIV transmission after a percutaneous exposure to HIV-infected blood has been estimated to be approximately
0.3% and after a mucous membrane exposure, approximately 0.09%. There is no FDA approved vaccine currently available for HIV.
Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) means a condition in which living M. Tuberculosis bacilli are present in the body without producing clinically active disease. Although the infected individual has a positive TB test, they may have no symptoms related to the infection and are not capable of transmitting the disease.
Local Health Officer means the health officer for the local jurisdiction responsible for receiving reports of communicable diseases, as defined in Title 17 of the California Code ofRegulations.
M. Tuberculosis means Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, the scientific name of the bacillus that causes tuberculosis.
MMR – Measles, Mumps, and Rubella are three ATD’s. There is a vaccine to protect against all three of these diseases and it is delivered by a series of 2 injections.
Negative Pressure means the relative air pressure difference between two areas. A room that is under negative pressure has lower pressure than adjacent areas, which keeps air from flowing out of the room into adjacent rooms or areas.
NIOSH means the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. It is the federalagency responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work‐ related injury and illness.
Novel or Unknown ATP means a disease or agent that meets at least one of the following criteria, i.e.: (1) it is a newly recognized pathogen, (2) it is a newly recognized variant of an existing pathogen for which there is reason to believe that the variant differs significantly in virulence or transmissibility, (3) it is a pathogen that has been recently introduced into the human population, or (4) it is an unknown pathogen; and, in addition, meets all of the following criteria: (a) it is capable of causing serious human disease, (b) there is
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 11 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY credible evidence that itis transmissible to humans by aerosols, and (c) there is insufficient evidence to rule out transmission of the pathogen by the airborne route.
OPIM (Other Potentially Infectious Material) Semen, vaginal secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, pericardial fluid, peritoneal fluid, amniotic fluid, saliva in dental procedures, tissue, organs, and other human body fluid (urine, feces, nasal secretions, vomitus, etc.) that is visibly contaminated with blood.
Occupational Exposure means reasonably anticipated exposure to a source of ATD under conditions that, without protective measures, create a significant risk that the exposed employee other personnel will contract the disease caused by the ATD.
Physician or Other Licensed Health Care Professional (PLHCP) means an individual whose legally permitted scope or practice (i.e., license, registration or certification) allows him or her to independently provide, or be delegated the responsibility to provide, some of or all of thehealth care services required by this section.
Rabies An infectious disease of dogs, cats, and other animals transmitted to humans by the bite of an infected animal and usually fatal if prophylactic treatment is not administered. A vaccine is available for those employees in identified job classifications.
Respiratory Protection P-100, N-100 or N-95 respirators where applicable will be the primary respirators used by employees who may be exposed to ATD’s while performing duties at work, primarily sworn Fire and Police department employees.
Referral means the directing or transferring of a possible ATD case to another facility, service or operation for the purpose of transport, diagnosis, treatment, isolation, housing or care.
Sharps (Contaminated) Contaminated Sharps are any contaminated needle, syringe, or razor type of implement.
Significant Exposure means an exposure to a source of ATD in which the circumstances of the exposure make the transmission of a disease sufficiently likely the employee will require further evaluation by a PLHCP.
Source Control means the use of procedures, engineering controls and other devices or materials to minimize the spread of airborne particles and droplets from an individual who has or exhibits signs or symptoms of having an ATD, such as persistent coughing.
Surge means a rapid expansion beyond normal services to meet the increased demand for qualified personnel, medical care, public health professionals, and all other employees required to continue continuity of operations in the event of large‐scale public health emergencies or disasters, such as in a pandemic or earthquake.
Surge Plan means the Plan that each department must prepare to operationally function during a surge event. Surge Plans deal with both increased demand for services and significant loss of staff able to work.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 12 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Suspected Case means either of the following: (1) a person whom a health care provider believes, after weighing signs, symptoms, and/or laboratory evidence, to probably have a particular disease or condition listed in Appendix G (2) a person who is considered a probable case, or an epidemiologically‐linked case, or who has supportive laboratory findings under the most recent communicable disease surveillance case definition established by CDC and published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) or its supplements as applied to a particular disease or condition listed in Appendix G.
TB Conversion means a change from negative to positive as indicated by TB test results and based upon current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or CDHS guidelines.
Test for Tuberculosis Infection (TB Test) means an interferon gamma release assay (IGRAs), a blood assay for M. Tuberculosis. For the purpose of this Plan, it is limited to Quantiferon TB Gold In Tube. As newer tests come on the market, the Local Health Officer will review them for acceptability.
Tetanus is a bacterial disease that affects the nervous system. It is contracted through a cut or wound from a sharp object, like a rusty nail or knife that has tetanus bacteria from soil, dust or manure. There is a combination shot called a Td vaccine that provides protection from tetanus.
Varicella commonly known as chickenpox. Vaccine is available to protect against the Varicella virus when an employee has never been inoculated or has been previously exposed and diagnosed with Chickenpox.
Waterborne diseases that may be found in grey water, stagnant water and sewer water include cholera, polio, dysentery and Hepatitis A. Cholera for example is a bacterial infection spread by drinking dirty water or ingesting contaminated food, affecting the intestines and dehydrating its victims. Hydration that includes clean water and essential nutrients like glucose and salt is the cure.
Zoonotic Disease a disease that can be passed between animals and humans. Zoonotic diseases can be caused by viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungi. There are specific guidelines/protocols, engineering controls and training for the Animal Control Department to address the handling of animals that may be sick, euthanizing of animals and the use of PPE with emphasis on novel influenza/feral animal and bird handling.
WORK PRACTICE PROCEDURES
Specific work practices are required to be used by employees to reduce the risk of potential exposure to ATD’s and BBP’s. These procedures shall include methods to inform individuals entering the facility or otherwise in close contact with employees of the source control practices.
There are a number of areas that must be addressed in order to effectively eliminate or minimize exposure to ATD’s, BBP’s, TB and/or waterborne diseases in City operations. The City's Plan covers:
• The use of Universal Precautions and Body Substance Isolation (BSI) • Establishing appropriate Engineering Controls.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 13 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • Implementing appropriate Work Practice Procedures and Controls. o TB, and other ATD’s.
o Communicable diseases in blood and blood products (BBP’s) • Wearing the required PPE
• Implementing appropriate housekeeping procedures
Universal Precautions – Aerosol Transmissible and Bloodborne Pathogens Universal Precautions involves treating all blood, blood products and body fluids containing blood encountered on the job as if they were infectious, as well as encountering and handling persons with suspected ADT’S from chronic coughing as if they were infectious. Body substance isolation is a practice of isolating all body substances of individuals undergoing medical treatment. This includes the mandatory use of protective barriers that may include barrier creams, respirator masks, aprons, gloves, and face shields.
Engineering Controls
One of the key aspects of the Plan is the use of engineering controls to eliminate or minimize employee exposure to blood and airborne diseases. The Safety Officer works with Department Managers and Supervisors to review tasks and procedures performed by employees. Those tasks that may bring the employee into contact with blood or blood products will be evaluated to ensure that the best PPE, latest medical equipment, disinfectants, biohazard disposal, vacuums/exhausts, fume hoods, and other engineering controls are considered to eliminate or reduce employee exposure. Engineering controls may include:
• Leak proof Contaminated Sharps: containers for contaminated sharps, that are color coded and labeled with a biohazard logo.
• Contaminated Sharps are any contaminated needle, syringe, or razor type of implement. • Engineered Sharps Injury Protection delivery systems for medication administered to patients being serviced by Fire Department Paramedics.
• Hand washing facilities supplied with disinfectant cleansers, barrier creams, and/or packages of antiseptic wipes when water is unavailable.
• Environmentally controlled rooms to isolate, filter, and remove airborne contaminants or diseases. • Biohazard disposal containers are located in all affected Departments and are serviced by the City’s Biohazard Disposal vendor.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 14 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Work Practice Procedures- ATD Exposure Control
Source Control, Respiratory Hygiene, and Cough Etiquette The first line of defense to prevent ATD transmission is Source Control, Respiratory Hygiene, and Cough Etiquette. The following measures to contain respiratory secretions are recommended for all individuals with signs and symptoms of a respiratory infection. Employees, patients and detainees will be asked to comply to the best of their abilities.
• Cover the nose/mouth when coughing or sneezing.
• Use tissues to contain respiratory secretions and dispose of them in the nearest waste receptacle after use.
• Perform hand hygiene (e.g., hand washing with non‐antimicrobial soap and water, alcohol‐ based hand rub, or antiseptic handwash) after having contact with respiratory secretions and contaminated objects/materials
• Offer masks to persons who are coughing if ATD is suspected ATD Screening/Transfer/Isolation
Patients of EMS service shall be screened for ATD’s and transportation procedures shall take place as outlined in EMS Procedures (ECP1). Respiratory protection will be selected and worn according to the respiratory protection task list Appendix E.
Detained/arrested persons shall be screened for potential ATD’s. Persons suspected of having an ATD shall be transferred to the hospital or LA County jail as soon as possible. Persons awaiting transfer shall be isolated to minimize exposure and isolation precautions must be observed. Procedures are outlined in Police Patrol Procedures (ECP3) and Jail ATD Case Transfer Procedures (ECP4).
Work Practice Procedures- Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control Universal Precautions should be exercises whenever dealing with blood or OPIM. Upon bodily contact with blood, or products that may contain blood, like wastewater; employees are instructed to wash contact areas with soap and water, antiseptic solutions, or antiseptic wipes. If there is exposure to the eyes, nose or mouth, these areas must be irrigated thoroughly as well. Occupational Exposures should be reported and followed up according to Exposure Incidents Procedures (ECP5) Contaminated clothing and PPE must be removed and placed in a yellow biohazard bag with a red biohazard label, or container for disposal or decontamination (Also see section on PPE for further information). Emergency Medical Equipment Decontamination procedures are outlined in Emergency Medical Equipment Decontamination Procedures (ECP2).
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 15 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Contaminated equipment must be inspected and tagged with a biohazardous warning label until it can be disinfected (Also see section on PPE for further information). Fire Department procedures are outlines in Emergency Medical Equipment Decontamination Procedures (ECP2).
Contaminated sharps used as medicinal delivery systems must be safely disposed of in a sharps container after use. Engineered Sharps Injury Protected devices will be used and no shearing, braking, bending, or recapping of needles is permitted. The sharps container must be disposed of when the container is or reaches 3/4 full, but in no case may the sharps container be on-site longer than 30 days.
Storage or consumption of food, application of lip balms, or eye, ear, nasal or throat medicinal products, and all cosmetics is prohibited in work areas where a potential for exposure to blood diseases may exist.
Areas where this may apply include paramedic vehicles, Police property storage room, Police jail work areas, Police ID Tech work areas, and areas containing sharps containers and other bio-hazardous waste products.
Work Practice Procedures- Zoonotic Exposure Control
The City’s Plan shall apply to zoonotic exposures. The City’s Plan will be available to all employees who may have a zoonotic occupational exposure and will include:
• Engineering controls, work practice controls, and exposure monitoring. • Procedures for the safe handling of hazardous substances, including hazardous substances used for disinfection and decontamination.
• Procedures for the application of toxic or asphyxiant gases, if such gases are to be used in the operation.
• Respiratory protection.
• PPE and protective clothing.
• Decontamination procedures.
• Disposal of animal waste and contaminated PPE.
• Medical services.
• Training.
• Recordkeeping.
Employees with an occupational exposure to a zoonotic infectious disease will be referred to a physician that is knowledgeable in zoonotic disease for evaluation. For procedures specific to Animal Control, please refer to Animal Control Procedures (ECP7).
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 16 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Biohazardous Spill Clean-up Procedures
Biohazardous spill clean-up kits are stored in the custodial storage supply rooms located in all the City’s facilities for custodians to access in the event of a spill. Biohazards include human blood, semen, vaginal secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, pericardial fluid, peritoneal fluid, amniotic fluid, saliva in dental procedures, tissue, organs, and other human body fluid (urine, feces, nasal secretions, vomitus, etc.) that is visibly contaminated with blood. Procedures for cleaning up a biohazard spill are outlined in the Biohazard Spill Clean-Up Procedure (ECP6).
It is the responsibility of the custodial staff at each City facility to ensure that the biohazardous spill cleanup kit is always stocked with the appropriate supplies. (Appendix F) Fire/EMS will maintain their own field supplies.
Sharps containers must be replaced when the container becomes three-quarters full or monthly. Biohazard disposal containers are located in all affected Departments and are serviced by the City’s Biohazard Disposal vendor.
Biohazardous wastes generated from a blood clean up or medical waste other than sharps shall be disposed of properly. The container must be closable, labeled and leak-proof. Should the outside of the container become contaminated, it shall be placed in a second container that is closable, labeled and leak-proof.
Biohazard disposal containers are located in all affected Departments and are serviced by the City’s Biohazard Disposal vendor.
Biohazard Containers and Labels
Biohazard Sharps containers and biohazard bags are red in color and identified by the biohazard warning label. Containers of this regulated waste are placed in areas where blood waste may be generated, and easily accessible to employees. Disposing of blood and blood product waste from sharps containers and biohazard bags are to be handled by qualified employees.
Yellow biohazardous bags with red biohazardous labels are provided to store clothing that needs to be decontaminated. Biohazard labels may also be placed on storage sites such as Police Property Room refrigerators to warn employees when blood evidence is stored within. Storage refrigerators for blood evidence cannot store food or other consumable products.
Personal Protective Equipment
The use of disposable PPE is required to be worn by the identified job classifications when they perform tasks that involve exposure to ATD’s, BBP’s, TB or body fluids containing blood. Disposable of PPE may include but is not limited to:
• Antiseptic barrier creams or lotions
• Latex, nitrile, or vinyl gloves impervious to biohazards
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 17 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • Safety glasses, goggles, and face shields
• P-100 and N-100, and N-95 respirators w/ training and fit testing • Coveralls, lab coats, and aprons impervious to bio-hazards Managers and Supervisors who have employees in the identified job classifications, susceptible to ATD’s, BBP’s, TB are responsible for ensuring that all work areas (including vehicles) have the appropriate PPE and disposal equipment available for use.
The use of respirators to protect against the transmission of ATD’s will be in full compliance with Title 8, CCR, 5144 and will require training, medical clearance, and initial and annual fit testing. Respirator selection for tasks and high hazard procedures can be referenced in Appendix E.
To ensure that PPE is not contaminated by blood, or blood products, the following work practices apply:
• All PPE is to be inspected immediately after use and disinfected, repaired, disposed of properly, or replaced as necessary.
• All PPE that has been used in the past must be inspected prior to reusing the equipment for possible contamination or defects. The PPE must be decontaminated or disposed of properly if damaged beyond use.
• Single use PPE must be removed and disposed of properly after use. Masks, shields, and aprons are to removed first, followed by removal of gloves. Gloves are to be removed properly in a manner to prevent further contamination. Gloves should be turned inside out to protect exposed skin during removal and disposed of properly.
To ensure that PPE is used properly, the following work practices apply:
• Latex, nitrile, or vinyl gloves impervious to biohazards must be worn whenever employees come upon the scene of a blood exposure, or anticipate hand contact with blood, blood products, or bodily fluids containing blood. A paramedic response call would be a time when hand contact with blood would be anticipated.
• Latex, nitrile, or vinyl gloves must be inspected when donned to make certain that the barrier is not compromised by a puncture or tear. If the barrier has been compromised, another pair of gloves must be used.
• Respirator masks, glasses, goggles and face shields must be inspected prior to use if they are not single use PPE to determine if the protection they provide is still effective and that they are free from contamination.
• Clothing that has been penetrated by blood or blood products must be removed immediately or as soon as practical to avoid contact with the skin. Clothing must be disposed of properly or
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 18 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY decontaminated. Saturated clothing must be disposed of in a biohazardous bag or container or stored in a yellow biohazardous bag with a red biohazardous label or container for decontamination. Soaking the garment in a 10% bleach solution will decontaminate any bloodborne pathogens present.
Laundering with hot water (at least 140° F) and detergent will also decontaminate bloodborne pathogens. Gloves should be worn when laundering contaminated articles and the contaminated articles should not be comingled with non-contaminated items.
Housekeeping Procedures
In work areas for the primary/secondary job classifications such as a Paramedic vehicle, Police vehicle, Police ID Tech Lab, Police Property Room, Police Jail, Animal Control and Santa Monica Swim Center, maintaining these areas in a clean and sanitary condition is an important part of the City’s Plan.
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
All City departments that have employees whose occupational exposure is based on entering work settings to perform tasks that put them at risk for exposure to ATDs must include these job classifications and duties in their department ATD Exposure Control Plan. Departments must also implement and maintain an effective written Respiratory Protection Program.
Respiratory protection procedures will be required in all high‐risk work areas, such as:
• An isolation room in which a confirmed or suspected infectious ATD patient/inmate is housed or a facility where an airborne infectious disease suspect or confirmed case is known to be present. • An enclosed transport vehicle in which a suspect or confirmed case is being transported. Respiratory PPE (PPE), such as a N95 rated respirator, will be provided and used by suspect individuals being transported.
• In direct contact and close proximity of a patient undergoing high‐risk procedures. Respiratory protection is not required in the exterior areas during such procedures if the patient is located within an enclosed room or booth.
• During decontamination procedures after the person has left the isolation room or area. • In an area during the performance of aerosol generating procedures on patients and/or cadavers that are suspected of, or confirmed as, being infected with airborne infectious pathogens. • For employees who are repairing or maintaining air systems or equipment that may be anticipated to contain or generate aerosolized pathogens.
Where respirators are required, they will be NIOSH approved N95 or higher. A power air purifying respirator (PAPR) with a high efficiency particulate aerosol (HEPA) cartridge or full-face elastomeric respirator with an N, P or R 100 cartridge shall be provided to employees who conduct, or are present, during high‐hazard procedures on ATD suspect or confirmed cases.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 19 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Initial and Annual Medical Evaluations and Fit Testing must be done in accordance with Title 8, Section 5144 (e) Respiratory Protection. Please refer to the cities Respiratory Protection Program for further information on these requirements.
If an N95 is used in the care of a patient with an ATD infection, it must be disposed of after use. If using a powered air‐purifying respirator, it is to be cleaned and maintained according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.
During surges, measures should be implemented to conserve respirator supplies to an extent that is reasonably possible, including re‐donning of used respirators. All required departments under this Plan should prepare for conservation measures and take advantage of opportunities to use a wide variety of NIOSH certified respirators and obtain respirators through a variety of suppliers.
DISEASE VACCINATION PROGRAM
All employees in identified at‐risk positions (Appendix A) shall be provided with medical surveillance for ATD’s, BBP’s, TB and other aerosol transmissible pathogens.
Required Vaccinations
All employees in identified at‐risk positions will be provided the MMR, Varicella, Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (TDAP), and seasonal flu vaccines as required by this Plan. Identified employees who do not wish to receive TDAP or seasonal flu vaccinations must sign a declination form.
Any new vaccines that may become required under the Aerosol Transmissible Diseases Standard shall be made available to employees within 120 days of the issuance of new CDC guidelines and will be included in the City’s Plan.
The City has in place a voluntary vaccination program for employees whose identified job classification (Appendix A) places them at greater risk of exposure to ATD’s or BBP’s including:
• T-Dap - Tetanus / Diphtheria / Pertussis (Whooping Cough) • Influenza / Novel influenzas
• MMR – Measles, Mumps, Rubella
• Varicella – Chicken pox
• Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, or Hepatitis A + B combination shots (Twinrix) • Rabies
Vaccinations are offered initially within 10 working days and the employee may elect to receive at any point thereafter as long as they remain employed under one of the identified job classifications.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 20 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Employees who decline the vaccination offerings at the time of hire must sign a letter of declination. (Appendix B). Departments will keep vaccination tracking records in their confidential employee records. If for some reason a vaccine is unavailable, efforts to obtain and estimated time of availability will be documented. Availability will be checked at least every 60 days.
Tuberculosis (TB) Testing/Screening
Employees listed in the primary job classifications identified in Appendix A will receive baseline TB screening upon hire or transfer to identified job classification. Additional TB screening will be available at least annually. Employees with baseline positive TB test shall have an annual symptom screen.
Should an employee test positive for TB, they will be referred to a Physician knowledgeable about TB. The Physician will be provided with a copy of Title 8, CCR, 5199, a copy of the employee’s TB test records, and information regarding the source of infection if known.
The Physician will, with the employee’s consent, provide diagnostic tests and inform employee of treatment options.
If the Physician finds that the employee is a TB case or suspected case they will be asked to:
• Inform the employee and the County Health Officer
• Inform the City of any infection control recommendations related to the employee’s activity in the workplace
• Make recommendations regarding precautionary removal from work • Provide a written opinion as described in the “Post-Exposure Evaluation and Follow-Up” section below Positive TB conversions will be recorded and will be investigated if found to be occupational exposures.
The following procedures will be followed for employees who are at‐risk of exposure to TB:
• 1 to 2-year TB screening will be administered and interpreted in accordance with current U.S. Public Health Services recommendations and will be recorded in the employee health record at the cities Occupational Health Clinic
• If an employee chooses to have the TB screening performed by his/her personal physician,they must have an approved TB test as defined in the definition section. • Employees who provide written documentation of a previously positive reaction must still have an approved TB test as defined in the definition section.
• For those requiring chest x‐rays, if the chest x‐ray shows evidence of old or new TB, employment shall be deferred until such time as clearance is obtained from the cities Occupational Health Physician.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 21 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • If an annual TB screening is reported as positive, and the prior screening results have been negative, then a chest x‐ray will be performed and follow‐up treatment will be provided through an infectious disease practitioner, according to the U.S. Public Health Services guidelines. • Employees with a history of a positive TB screening should complete a TB evaluation and questionnaire form during their scheduled TB screening.
• Employees with active pulmonary or laryngeal TB will be excluded from work until documentation has been provided from the treating physician that the staff member is determined to be no longer infectious. Employees must return to work with the above documentation from the cities Occupational Health Care Provider. An evaluation by the Occupational Health Physician and clearance from the Public Health Department will be required prior to returning to work.
POST-EXPOSURE EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
In the event of an occupational exposure, the roles and procedures are outlined in Exposure Incidents Procedures (ECP5) The treating physician will be provided a copy of Title 8, CCR, Section 5193 or 5199, a description of the employee’s duties and circumstances of exposure related to the incident, the employee’s vaccination history, and the sources blood test results if available (in the case of Fire Dept. or Police Dept. exposures, the Designated Officer will act as a liaison for obtaining the source’s blood test).
If an employee is involved in an incident where they are exposed to ATD’s, BBP’s, TB as determined by a treating physician based on the facts of the incident, testing, post exposure prophylaxis and counseling will be made available to the employee.
The City will obtain and provide the employee with a copy of the treating physician’s written opinion within 15 days of the post-exposure evaluation. The written opinion will consist of the need for Hepatitis vaccination, and if employee has received such vaccination, statement indicating the employee has been informed of the results of the evaluation, and verification that the employee has been told of any medical conditions resulting from the exposure that will require further evaluation or treatment. For suspected ATD exposures, recommendations for precautionary removal from assignment will be included. All other findings and diagnoses shall remain confidential and will not be included in the written opinion.
Documentation is important, and a number of forms must be completed including:
• The Aerosol Transmissible and Communicable Disease Exposure and Notification Report (Appendix C) are available from Departments that have primary job classifications, in Police squad cars, in Fire Department vehicles, or through Risk Management. This report and other workers’ compensation reports generated will remain confidential.
• Employee workers’ compensation claim forms, available through the employee’s Supervisor. In order for the City to provide prompt follow up on possible blood and airborne disease exposures, it is the employee’s responsibility to completely fill out this form detailing the circumstances surrounding the exposure.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 22 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • Supervisor Report of Accident Investigation Employee Injury/Illness form is available on-line or internally through the Department or Division. The Supervisor will complete this form after investigating the circumstances surrounding the exposure.
TRAINING
All identified employees under the City’s Plan will participate in a training program at no cost to them and during working hours. Training shall be provided at the time of initial assignment and at least every two years thereafter. Material appropriate in content and vocabulary to the educational level, literacy and language of the employee shall be used. Training will be individualized to the department and or division and will be documented in LMS.
The training program shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
• An explanation of the appropriate methods for recognizing tasks and other activities that may expose the employee to ATDs and BBP’s.
• An explanation of the basis for selection of PPE, its uses and limitations and the types, proper use, location, removal handling, cleaning, decontamination and disposal of the items of PPE employees will use.
• Information on the employer’s surge Plan as it pertains to the duty’s employees willperform. • An explanation of the City’s Plan, including the employer’s and employee’s responsibility under this Plan and the means by which an employee canobtain a copy of the written Plan. • Job titles and work tasks in their departments that are at‐risk for occupational exposure to ATDs and BBP’s.
• The basic concepts of transmission and symptoms of ATD’s including the differences between TB infection and active TB disease, and how to minimize infection risk factors. Information on available vaccines for ATD’s and BBP’s and the benefits of being vaccinated. • Use and limitations of methods to prevent exposure, including the hierarchy of infection control measures focusing on source control, safe work practice habits and situations with increased risk of exposure to ATD’s, BBP’s, TB and other communicable diseases, engineering controls and PPE. Site‐ specific control measures will be provided as needed.
• TB screening and chemoprophylaxis, including the significance of a positive result, the requirement for participating in the process, the principles of drug therapy, the difficulty of treating drug‐resistant TB, and the role of incomplete medical treatment in the development of drug‐resistant TB. • Information regarding appropriate actions to take in the event of an emergency orexposure incident. • Information on available vaccines and that they will be offered free of charge.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 23 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • An explanation of the basis for selection of personal equipment in accordance with Section 5144 for those people whose assignments include use of respirators. • An opportunity for interactive questions and answers with the person conducting thetraining session.
The person conducting the training shall be knowledgeable in the subject matter covered in the training program as it relates to the workplace. Training, or a portion of the training, may be made available online but must include department specific information.
DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDKEEPING
Medical Recordkeeping
The Risk Management Division will maintain all medical records pertaining to exposures in confidence.
Medical records will only be released with the consent of the employee involved in the exposure or as required by law.
A Sharps Injury Log will be maintained by Risk Management as a record of each exposure incident involving a sharp and logged within 14 days of notice.
Date and time of the exposure incident
Type and brand of sharp involved in the exposure incident Description of the incident including:
- The job classification of exposed employee
- The Department / Division of exposed employee
- The work area where the exposure occurred
- The procedure was the employee was performing at time of incident - How the incident occurred
- The body part involved in the exposure incident
- Engineered sharp protective mechanism used
- Employee’s opinion if engineering, administrative, or work practice controls could have prevented the injury.
- Other medical records regarding vaccination histories, annual physical examinations, or other medical information will be stored confidentially at Risk Management.
Records will be retained as follows:
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 24 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY • Training records kept on file for 3 years
• Annual Exposure Control Plan review and summary kept on file for 3 years • Vaccination records kept on file for 30 years plus length of employment • Records of post-exposure examination, testing and follow up, and Physician’s written opinion will be kept on file for 30 years plus length of employment
• Sharps injury log entries will be maintained for 5 years from incident • Flu Vaccination declination will be kept on file for current year Training Records
Departments will maintain and keep on file all ATD Exposure Control Plan training records and send a copy to Risk Management.
Training records will include the following information:
• Dates of training sessions.
• Course outline, content or summary of training sessions. • Names and qualifications of instructors; and names and job categories of persons attending the training.
Additional Records
• Risk Management will maintain medical surveillance records of employees as well as post‐exposure records, including copies of the Employee Claim Form, the Supervisor’s Report, and the Employer’s First Report of Work Injury and proof of medical follow‐up as required by the ATD Plan. • Public Health, if involved, will maintain records pertaining to the contact investigation. • Records of the unavailability of vaccines, isolation rooms and decisions not to transfer patients to another facility shall also be maintained for three years.
Departments will maintain other records of implementation of the ATD and Communicable Diseases Plan, such as the annual review, the person(s) conducting the review, the date the review was conducted and completed, employees involved and a summary of the conclusions.
SURGE PROCEDURES
See the Santa Monica Fire Department Multiple Casualty Incident Management Plan
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 25 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX A: Primary/Secondary Job Classifications
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 26 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix A: Primary Job Classifications based on regular job exposures to multiple aerosol transmissible and blood-borne diseases Job Classifications Potential Exposure Tasks
Asst Fire Marshal Medical Care
Asst Fire Marshal-Haz Mat Medical Care
Battalion Chief - Prevention Medical Care
Battalion Chief - Suppression Medical Care
Community Services Officer First Aid, Jail housing
Deputy Fire Chief Medical Care
Deputy Police Chief First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Fire Captain Medical Care
Fire Chief Medical Care
Fire Engineer Medical Care
Fire Inspector Medical Care
Fire Marshal Medical Care
Firefighter Medical Care
Firefighter - Lateral Transfer Medical Care
Firefighter Recruit Medical Care
Forensic Section Supervisor Evidence collection, Domicile investigation Forensic Specialist Evidence collection, Domicile investigation Forensic Technician Evidence collection, Domicile investigation Jail Management Supervisor First Aid, Jail housing
Jail Services Attendant Custodial, First Aid, Jail housing Jailer First Aid, Jail housing
Lead Community Svs Officer II First Aid, Jail housing
Lead Forensic Specialist Evidence collection, Domicile investigation Lead Jailer First Aid, Jail housing
Pier & Harbor Services Officer First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Police Captain First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing
Police Chief First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing
Police Lieutenant First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Police Officer First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing
Police Officer - Pre-service First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Police Officer-Lateral Transfer First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Police Officer-Trainee First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Police Sergeant First Aid, Transportation, Jail housing Public Services Administrator -- Forensics Evidence collection, Domicile investigation Public Services Administrator -- Jail First Aid, Jail housing Sr Fire Inspector Medical Care
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 27 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix A: Secondary Job Classifications based on
job exposures to blood-borne diseases
Job Classification Potential Exposure Task
Airport Maintenance Crew Ldr Custodial, Refuse related
Airport Maintenance Worker Custodial, Refuse related
Aquatics Maintenance Worker Custodial, Refuse related
Aquatic Site Supervisor First Aid
Aquatics Program Coord A/N First Aid
Beach Maintenance Supervisor First Aid
Beach Recreation Ldr As-Needed First Aid
Beach Recreation Supervisor First Aid
Chief Pool Lifeguard First Aid
Community & Cult Svs Asst A/N First Aid
Community & Cult Svs Leader First Aid
Community Svs Pgm Supv First Aid
Community Svs Pgm Supv-Cmty Sp First Aid
Community Svs Pgm Supv-Therapt First Aid
Community Svs Pgm Supv-Volunt First Aid
Community Svs Pgm Supv-Youth First Aid
Community Svs Program Coord First Aid
Community Svs Program Spec First Aid
Cultural Affairs Coord First Aid
Custodial Supervisor Custodial, Refuse related
Custodian I Custodial, Refuse related
Custodian II Custodial, Refuse related
Equipment Operator I Custodial, Refuse related
Equipment Operator II Custodial, Refuse related
Event Attendant II Custodial, Refuse related
Facilities Attendant Custodial, Refuse related
Funeral Services Technician Handling of corpse
Groundskeeper Custodial, Refuse related
Irrigation Crew Leader Custodial, Refuse related
Irrigation Technician Custodial, Refuse related
Jr Lifeguard First Aid
Laborer Trainee Custodial, Plumbing, Refuse related
Lead Motor Coach Cleaner Custodial, Refuse related
Lead Public Services Officer First Aid
Library Services Officer First Aid
Library Services Officer Supv First Aid
Maintenance Crew Leader Custodial, Refuse related
Maintenance Worker Custodial, Refuse related
Mechanic I Refuse vehicle maintenance
Mechanic II Refuse vehicle maintenance
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 28 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Motor Coach Cleaner Custodial, Refuse related
Parks Maintenance Crew Leader Custodial, Refuse related Pier Maintenance Worker Custodial, Plumbing, Refuse related Plumber Plumbing
Plumber Crew Leader Plumbing
Police Property Evidence Clerk Handling of evidence
Pool Lifeguard First Aid
Pr Community Svs Sup-Aquatics First Aid
Promenade Maintenance Supv Custodial, Refuse related
Property/Evidence Supervisor Handling of evidence
Public Services Officer First Aid
Public Services Officer Supervisor First Aid
Resource Rec & Recyc Crw Ldr Custodial, Refuse related
Resource Rec & Recyc Equip Op Custodial, Refuse related Resource Rec & Recyc Supv Custodial, Refuse related
Sewer Maintenance Worker I Sewage
Sewer Maintenance Worker II Sewage
Sr Mechanic Refuse vehicle maintenance
Sr Transit Maintenance Worker Custodial, Refuse related Sr Water Resources Protect Spc Sewage
Swim Instructor/Lifeguard First Aid
Trades Intern Custodial, Plumbing, Refuse related
Traffic Services Officer First Aid
Traffic Services Supervisor First Aid
Transit Maintenance Worker Custodial, Refuse related
Wastewater Crew Leader Sewage
Wastewater Supervisor Sewage
Wastewater Treatment Plant Opr Sewage
Water Resources Protect Pgm Cd Sewage
Water Resources Protection Spc Sewage
Welder Fabricator Refuse vehicle maintenance
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 29 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX B: Vaccination Consent/Declination Form
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 30 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix B: Cal OSHA Vaccination Program Consent/Declination Form Aerosol Transmissible Diseases, Bloodborne Diseases and OPIMs Primary or “P” Classification
I understand that due to my potential occupational exposure to aerosol transmissible diseases (ATDs), bloodborne diseases, and other potentially infectious materials (OPIMs), I may be at risk of acquiring:
Hepatitis A and/or B, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and varicella (chicken pox). I have been given the opportunity to be vaccinated against these diseases or pathogens at City expense. If I decline the vaccinations at this time, I understand that I continue to be at risk of acquiring the diseases identified above. I also understand that: 1) several of the vaccinations require multiple doses over a prescribed period of time to be effective; 2) each vaccination dose must be administered by the City’s medical provider; and 3) if I leave City employment prior to receiving the required doses, the City will not pay for the remaining vaccinations. Finally, I understand that if, in the future, I continue to have occupational exposures to ATDs, bloodborne diseases, and/or OPIMs, I can request the desired vaccinations and they will be provided to me at City expense.
At this time, I choose to:
• Hepatitis A only (requires two doses):
□ Accept □ Decline
1st Vaccine _______________ 2nd Vaccine ____________________(6 mo after 1st vaccine) • Hepatitis B only (requires three doses):
□ Accept □ Decline
1st Vaccine_______________ 2nd Vaccine _____________________ 3rd Vaccine __________________ (1 mo after 1st vaccine) (6 mo after 1st vaccine)
• Hepatitis A & B -- Twinrix (requires three doses):
□ Accept □ Decline
1st Vaccine_____________ 2nd Vaccine _______________ 3rd Vaccine ___________________ (1 mo after 1st vaccine) (6 mo after 1st vaccine)
• Tetanus, Diphtheria & Pertussis -- Tdap (requires one dose):
□ Accept □ Decline
1st Vaccine: _______________
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 31 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix B Consent/Declination Form Page 2
ATDs, Bloodborne Diseases and OPIMs
• Measles, Mumps & Rubella -- MMR (a)
□ Accept □ Decline
1st Vaccine _______________ 2nd Vaccine _____________________ (1 mo after 1st vaccine) (a) sworn fire personnel and Pier and Harbor Patrol Officers receive two doses; all other classification receives one dose
• Vericella – Chicken Pox (requires two doses):
□ Accept □ Decline
1st Vaccine _______________ 2nd Vaccine _____________________ (1 mo after 1st vaccine)
____________________________________ ___________________________________________ Employee Name (Please Print) Employee Signature
____________________________________
Date
If under 18 years of age:
____________________________________ ___________________________________________ Parent/Guardian Name (Please Print) Parent/Guardian Signature ____________________________________
Date
Instructions to Medical Clinic
(1) Please set appointments for follow-up vaccinations prior to employee leaving facility (2) Retain one copy of this form for employee medical file, provide one copy to employee, and return one copy to City Safety Officer
Instructions to Risk Management
(1) Please send one copy of form to Human Resources
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 32 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX C: Aerosol Transmissible and Communicable Disease Exposure Notification
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 33 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix C Aerosol Transmissible and Communicable
Disease Exposure Notification
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 34 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX D: Post Exposure Management Procedure
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 35 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix D: Post Exposure Management Procedure
Request to Medical Facility for Source Patient Testing
The Santa Monica Fire and Police Departments request that the following tests be ordered on any source patient involved in an occupational exposure to blood and/or body fluids to our personnel.
1. Hepatitis B Antigen
2. Hepatitis C Antibody
3. Rapid HIV if available
4. HIV 1 & 2 Antibody
Dr. Wally Ghurabi, Medical Director
Jodi Nevandro MSN, RN, Designated Infection Control Officer Office: 310-458-4929
Pager: 310-201-1071
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 36 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX E: Tasks Requiring Respiratory Protection from Aerosol Transmissible Disease
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 37 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix E: Tasks Requiring Respiratory Protection
from Aerosol Transmissible Diseases
Job Classifications Tasks Protection
Police and Jail • Temporary detention or
transportation of persons
reasonably anticipated to be
suspected ATD’s cases.
• Cleaning/disinfecting area
N95 face mask
Animal Control • Handling of unusually high
bird mortality event
• Entering animal isolation
area
• Handling of animals
suspected of upper
respiratory disease
• Cleaning/disinfecting area
• Exposure to animals giving
birth or associated fluids
N95 face mask
(Half Face with N95 or P100
filters if working with diseased
animals in enclosed areas)
Fire/EMS • Paramedic and medical
transport of persons
reasonably anticipated to be
suspected ATD’s cases.
• Cleaning/disinfecting area
N95 face mask
Fire /EMS High Hazard Procedures:
• Intubation
• Manual ventilation
• Non-invasive ventilation
(e.g., BiPAP, BPAP)
• Tracheostomy insertion
PAPR, N-100, R-100, P-100
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 38 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX F: Biohazard Spill Kit Supplies
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 39 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix F: Biohazard Spill Kit Supplies
Each Biohazardous Spill Clean-up Kit in custodial storage supply room will contain at all times:
• 1 box each of latex and nitrile gloves
• 3 reams of paper towels
• 2-quart sized spray bottles of City approved biocide (1) • 1 leak proof apron
• 1 face shield
• 1 pair of goggles
• 3 Red Bio-bags (2)
• 1 set of tongs
• 1 hand broom / brush w/ plastic dustpan
• 1 plastic scooping device
• 1 extended arm gripping tool
• 1 sharps container (3)
(1) Can be purchased locally
(2) Can be purchased locally
(3) Can be purchased locally or from Fire Department
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 40 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY APPENDIX G: Aerosol Transmissible Diseases/Pathogens
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 41 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Appendix G: Aerosol Transmissible Diseases/Pathogens
This appendix contains a list of diseases and pathogens which are to be considered aerosol transmissible pathogens or diseases for the purpose of Section 5199. Employers are required to provide the protections required by Section 5199 according to whether the disease or pathogen requires airborne infection isolation or droplet precautions as indicated by the two lists below.
Diseases/Pathogens Requiring Airborne Infection Isolation Aerosolizable spore-containing powder or other substance that is capable of causing serious human disease, e.g. Anthrax/Bacillus anthracis
Avian influenza/Avian influenza A viruses (strains capable of causing serious disease in humans) Varicella disease (chickenpox, shingles)/Varicella zoster and Herpes zoster viruses, disseminated disease in any patient. Localized disease in immunocompromised patient until disseminated infection ruled out
Measles (rubeola)/Measles virus
Monkeypox/Monkeypox virus
Novel or unknown pathogens
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
Smallpox (variola)/Varioloa virus
Tuberculosis (TB)/Mycobacterium tuberculosis -- Extrapulmonary, draining lesion; Pulmonary or laryngeal disease, confirmed; Pulmonary or laryngeal disease, suspected Any other disease for which public health guidelines recommend airborne infection isolation Diseases/Pathogens Requiring Droplet Precautions
Diphtheria pharyngeal
Epiglottitis, due to Haemophilus influenzae type b
Haemophilus influenzae Serotype b (Hib) disease/Haemophilus influenzae serotype b, Infants and children
Influenza, human (typical seasonal variations)/influenza viruses Meningitis
Haemophilus influenzae, type b known or suspected
Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal) known or suspected Meningococcal disease sepsis, pneumonia (see also meningitis) Mumps (infectious parotitis)/Mumps virus
Mycoplasmal pneumonia
Parvovirus B19 infection (erythema infectiosum)
Pertussis (whooping cough)
Pharyngitis in infants and young children/Adenovirus, Orthomyxoviridae, Epstein-Barr virus, Herpes simplex virus,
Pneumonia
Adenovirus
Haemophilus influenzae Serotype b, infants and children Meningococcal
Mycoplasma, primary atypical
Streptococcus Group A
Pneumonic plague/Yersinia pestis
Rubella virus infection (German measles)/Rubella virus
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 42 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY Streptococcal disease (group A streptococcus)
Skin, wound or burn, Major
Pharyngitis in infants and young children
Pneumonia
Scarlet fever in infants and young children
Serious invasive disease
Viral hemorrhagic fevers due to Lassa, Ebola, Marburg, Crimean-Congo fever viruses (airborne infection isolation and respirator use may be required for aerosol-generating procedures) Any other disease for which public health guidelines recommend droplet precautions
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 43 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP1: EMS Procedures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 44 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP1 EMS Procedures
1. Pre‐response/pre‐patient contact
a. Ensure you have all supplies and equipment available. i. Follow Department PPE resupply and stocking policies and/or procedures. b. Ensure PPE and supplies and equipment are stored in designated locations on vehicles.
2. Initial Contact
a. Use Body Substance Isolation (BSI)
b. Stand 6 feet from patient, assess, and don appropriate PPE i. Visible blood, body fluids, or OPIM = Gloves and Eye protection at minimum ii. Flu‐like symptoms or fever = Gloves, Eye protection, N95 at minimum c. When respiratory protection is required, follow these criteria:
i. Minimum respiratory protection for ATD exposure is N95 mask ii. High hazard procedures for ATD exposure require N100 d. Offer masks to persons who are coughing or show flu‐like symptoms i. For most situations offer a surgical mask surgical mask only N-95 protects patient from provider
ii. Consider non‐rebreather O2 mask for patients requiring O2 e. Perform normal patient care procedures
i. Monitor to ensure the mask will not negatively impact the patient ii. Avoid unnecessary aerosol producing procedures
iii. Utilize employee ‐recommended and selected needle protection and engineered sharps controls
iv. Perform safe handling and disposal of blood, OPIM, and sharps v. Perform all procedures involving blood or OPIM to minimize splashing, spraying, splattering, and generation of droplets of these substances
f. Properly remove and dispose of contaminated PPE
g. Use alcohol based hand rub and Wash hands after removing PPE
3. Transport
a. For patients with any of the following exposures:
i. Visible blood, body fluids, or OPIM
ii. Flu‐like symptoms or fever
iii. Pertinent history indicating possibility of infection with BBP or ATD b. Continue to wear appropriate PPE
c. Alert receiving facility of potential ATD cases
d. If feasible, open windows and allow outdoor air ventilation e. Avoid unnecessary aerosol producing procedures
4. Post Response Procedures
a. Follow procedures for any potential exposures
b. Decontaminate vehicle and equipment
c. Decontaminate clothing
d. Dispose of Medical Waste properly
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 45 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP2: Emergency Medical Equipment Decontamination Procedures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 46 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP2: Emergency Medical Equipment Decontamination Procedures
1. Disinfecting Facilities
a. Shall be separate from the kitchen, living, sleeping, and personal hygiene areas i. Shall be lighted
ii. Shall be vented to outside
iii. Shall be fitted with floor drains to a sanitary sewer iv. Shall be designed to prevent contamination of other areas of the station b. Should have racks or shelving to drip dry equipment, made of non-porous materials c. Should have a washer and dryer dedicated to the sole purpose of cleaning protective ensembles and contaminated uniforms
i. Employees should not take contaminated items home to be washed or into other areas of Fire Station
ii. Non-contaminated laundry must be washed in separate washer and dryer located in an area that is remote from the disinfecting area
2. Contaminated clothing or Reusable PPE
a. Doff contaminated equipment and dispose of in red Biohazard bag or transport in yellow Biohazard bag for decontamination
b. Wash contaminated clothing or turnouts in designated washer and dryer using approved detergent
i. Wear gloves when handling contaminated laundry and wash hands when finished c. Non-porous reusable PPE (i.e., boots, helmet) should be wiped of bulk matter and disinfected with approved disinfecting solution
i. Wear gloves at minimum when disinfecting contaminated PPE ii. Allow for manufacturer recommended contact time for disinfection iii. Properly remove and dispose of contaminated PPE, wash hands
3. Contaminated vehicle or equipment
a. Use gloves, eye protection, and apron
b. Assure proper ventilation
c. Remove all bulk matter with soap and water or approved disinfectant i. All runoff should be drained to a sanitary sewer
d. Apply additional round of disinfectant and allow for manufacturer recommended contact time for disinfection
e. Make sure to use disinfectants that are chemically compatible when disinfecting metal or electrical surfaces
f. Properly remove and dispose of contaminated PPE
g. Wash hands after removing PPE
4. Sanitizing equipment
a. Reusable emergency medical equipment that comes in contact with mucous membranes shall require cleaning and a high level disinfection or sterilization in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s instructions after each use
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 47 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP3: Police Patrol Procedures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 48 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP3: Police Patrol Procedures
1. Pre‐response/pre‐patient contact
a. Ensure you have all supplies and equipment available. i. Follow Department PPE resupply and stocking policies and/or procedures. b. Ensure PPE and supplies and equipment are stored in designated locations on vehicles.
2. Initial Contact
a. Use universal precautions
b. When feasible, stand 6 feet from detainee/patient, assess, and don appropriate PPE i. Visible blood, body fluids, or OPIM = Gloves and Eye protection at minimum ii. Flu‐like symptoms or fever = Gloves, Eye protection, N95 at minimum c. Perform normal Police procedures
i. Question detainees about ATD’s if signs of illness and be cautious of sharps ii. Perform safe handling and disposal of blood, OPIM, and sharps iii. Perform all procedures involving blood or OPIM to minimize splashing, spraying, splattering, and generation of droplets of these substances iv. Request donning of surgical mask or N95 to persons who are coughing or show flu‐like symptoms
d. Properly remove and dispose of contaminated PPE
e. Wash hands after removing PPE
3. Transport
a. For detainees with any of the following exposures:
i. Visible blood, body fluids, or OPIM
ii. Flu‐like symptoms or fever
iii. Pertinent history indicating possibility of infection with BBP or ATD b. Continue to wear appropriate PPE
c. Alert receiving facility of potential ATD cases
d. If feasible, open windows and allow outdoor air ventilation if suspected ATD e. Avoid unnecessary aerosol producing procedures
4. Post Response Procedures
a. Follow procedures for any potential exposures
b. Contaminated vehicle
i. Isolate vehicle and note/display why it is out of service ii. Contact vehicle maintenance for decontamination service provided by vendor c. Contaminated equipment
i. Wear gloves and wipe off bulk of potentially infectious material, followed by City approved disinfectant for established contact time
ii. If unable to decontaminate, see supervisor for disposal and replacement d. Contaminated clothing
i. Place in biohazard labeled bag, contact watch commander for dry cleaner authorization, drop off at SMPD authorized dry cleaning provider e. Dispose of Medical Waste properly
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 49 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP4: Jail ATD Case Transfer Procedures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 50 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP4: Jail ATD Case Transfer Procedures
1. Screening for Aerosol Transmissible Disease
a. Transfer of arrestee should be coordinated if any of the following apply i. Have a cough for more than 3 weeks that is not explained by non-infectious condition (Suspect TB if they answer yes to the questions below)
1. Unexplained weight loss (>5lbs)?
2. Night sweats?
3. Fever?
4. Chronic fatigue?
5. Coughing up blood?
ii. Exhibit flu-like symptoms from March- October (non- flu season) iii. State that they have an ATD other than a cold or the flu iv. State they have been exposed to an infectious ATD case other than flu v. Severe coughing spasms, especially if persistent; coughing fits may interfere with eating, drinking and breathing
vi. Fever, headache, muscle aches, tiredness, poor appetite followed by painful, swollen salivary glands, one side or both sides of face under jaw vii. Fever, chills, cough, runny nose, watery eyes associated with onset of an unexplained rash (diffuse rash or blister-type skin rash)
viii. Fever, headache, stiff neck, possibly mental status changes
2. Isolation
a. Suspected ATD case should be isolated in an individual cell b. Employee contact should be minimal and proper PPE worn (N95 and gloves minimum) if entering cell
c. Proper hand washing and disinfecting procedures used
3. Transfer
a. Transfer shall take place within 5 hours of identifying suspected ATD case i. If identification happens between the hours of 3:30 pm and 7:00 am, arrestee must be transferred no later than 11:00 am.
b. Notify County Health Services‐Public Health Division, and Receiving Facility of ATD case c. Attempt to have arrestee wear surgical mask or N95
d. If arrestee is transferred in patrol car, officers shall drive with windows down and N95 mask
4. Post Transfer Procedures
a. DICO will evaluate significant exposures and refer employees with significant exposure for medical evaluation within 72 hours. DICO will also notify other facilities of possible employee contact if known
b. Follow procedures for any potential exposures
c. Decontaminate vehicle and cell
d. Decontaminate clothing
e. Dispose of Medical Waste properly
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 51 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP5: Exposure Incidents Procedures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 52 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP5: Exposure Incidents Procedures
1. Exposed Employee Procedure
a. In the case of an Occupational Exposure, notify Supervisor and Designated Infection Control Officer (DICO) immediately and proceed to Emergency Room b. For Police and Fire Occupational exposures where the Source Individual is known i. Go to the receiving facility where the source patient is transported ii. Notify the receiving facility of the potential exposure when the source patient arrives
c. If a suspected ATD exposure has occurred, notify County Health Services‐Public Health Division of the exposure incident
d. Receive a post‐exposure medical evaluation by a Physician as soon as feasible after determination of a significant exposure
i. Provide the Physician with the completed Exposure Report Form ii. Employee shall follow treatment and monitoring as prescribed by the Physician
2. Designated Infection Control Officer(DICO) Procedure a. For BBP exposures, determine occupational exposure and proceed to step “d.” b. Upon notification of an ATD exposure incident:
i. Determine if the exposure incident is a “Significant Exposure” within a timeframe that is reasonable for the specific disease, but not more than 72 hours of notification of the incident and retain the exposure analysis for future reference. ii. Document employees included in the analysis and reasons why they are or are not included in the post exposure follow up, and the name of the person and Physician making this determination.
c. Notify employees who are determined to have had a “Significant Exposure” to an ATD of the date, time and nature of the exposure. Ensure that these employees receive a post exposure medical exam.
d. Assure that the Physician has a copy of CCR, Title 8, Section 5193 or 5199, a description of the employee’s duties and circumstances of exposure related to the incident, the employee’s vaccination history, and the sources blood test results if available e. In the case of suspected ATD, Ensure the County Health Services‐Public Health Division has been notified of the exposure incident
f. Contact the receiving hospital to follow‐up regarding the employee’s involvement in a potential exposure incident.
i. Request ATD and/or BBP testing of the exposed individual ii. If exposure involved Police or Fire personnel, request ATD and/or BBP testing of the source patient
g. Determine if a court order is needed for source patient testing
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 53 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY h. Obtain the Physician’s recommendation regarding precautionary removal from duty, to be followed by their written opinion.
3. Exposed Employee’s Manager Procedure
a. If notified of a significant exposure, complete and submit any required Worker’s Compensation forms, as well as Supervisor’s Report of Incident b. Ensure the employee has received the Physician’s recommendations regarding precautionary removal from duties/work and a written opinion within 15 days of completion of all medical evaluation
4. Exposure incidents involving employees from other employers a. DICO shall determine whether personnel from any other employers may have been exposed.
b. DICO or representative shall notify these other employers within a time frame that is reasonable for the specific disease, but in no case later than 72 hours of becoming aware of the exposure incident of the nature, date, and time of the exposure, c. DICO shall provide the contact information for the diagnosing Physician d. DICO shall not provide the identity of the source patient to other employers.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 54 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP6: Biohazard Spill Clean Up Procedure
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 55 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP6: Biohazard Spill Clean Up Procedure
1. Spill Discovery
a. Notify your Supervisor immediately. Secure the spill area by posting signs, flagging the area and/or or using barricade tape to secure the area.
b. Once the spill area is secured, only authorized personnel (i.e., custodial staff, fire personnel, or the Safety Officer) with appropriate PPE can enter the spill site. c. Determine the size of the spill.
i. If the spill is less than or equal to two square feet, the custodian will clean up the spill using the Biohazardous spill clean-up procedures noted below. ii. If the spill is larger than two square feet, the custodian will immediately contact the Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Team at 310-458-8671 or 911 to handle the clean-up. The custodian will remain at the spill site until the Fire Department arrives to insure no one is allowed to enter the spill area.
2. Clean-Up
a. Go to the custodian storage supply room and get the Biohazardous spill clean-up kit. b. Open the kit and put on the gloves (latex or nitrile) to protect your hands. Use additional personal protection equipment, as needed (e.g., leak-proof apron, long sleeved arm protection, face shield, goggles, etc.). Goggles must be worn when the possibility of blood splashes can occur.
c. Place absorbent towels over the spill and apply the biocide solution contained in the spill kit to the towels until biocide solution has saturated the towels and soaked the spill. Let the biocide solution soak on the spill for at least ten minutes.
d. Place all contaminated towels and waste into a Red Bio-Bag or other appropriate sealed and labeled (Biohazard symbol or label), leak-proof container located in the spill kit. This is regulated waste.
e. Once the bulk of the spill has been absorbed, apply additional biocide solution to spill area and let sit for at least 10 minutes before wiping up.
f. If the Biohazardous spill clean-up involves sharps, needles or syringes, remove these items with the appropriate tool(s) (e.g., tongs, hand broom/brush, dust pan, scoop, or other extended arm gripping tool located in the spill kit) and place them into the sharps container (located in the spill kit) and secure the lid.
3. Post Clean Up
a. Promptly disinfect (using the biocide solution) all cleaning equipment and reusable PPE. b. Wash hands and arms up to your elbows in warm soapy water, rinse, and wash again. c. Biohazard disposal containers (for red bags or sharps containers) are located in all affected Departments and are serviced by the City’s Biohazard Disposal vendor. d. Follow procedures for any potential exposures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 56 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP7: Animal Control Procedures
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) 57 This document is the property of the City of Santa Monica and will not be copied, reproduced, or used for any purpose without written permission.
IF PRINTED AND UNCONTROLLED, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY ECP7: Animal Control Procedures
1. Personal Protective actions and Equipment
a. Hand Hygiene- Be sure to follow proper hand washing/alcohol-based hand sanitizer procedures after handling animals or after contact with potentially infectious materials b. Gloves- Wear gloves for cleaning, coming in to contact with potentially infectious materials, or handling infected animals
c. Respirator mask- Wear N95 mask when :
i. Performing any splash producing procedures
ii. When performing procedures dealing with animal birth iii. When animals exhibit signs of respiratory disease
iv. After large mortality events or if Avian Flu is suspected v. When exposed to animal generated dusts
d. Protective outerwear
i. Eye protection when performing any splash producing procedures ii. Protective outer garments when working in isolation or around large amounts of infectious materials
iii. Shoe coverings or boots when heavy quantities of infectious material are expected
2. Zoonotic Environmental Infection Control
a. Isolation- Animals with infectious diseases should be isolated as soon as possible i. Clearly mark the isolation room to describe the status and precautions ii. Only necessary equipment should be left in isolation room, and decontaminated before removal
iii. All PPE should be discarded appropriately before exiting the isolations room iv. Keep a sign-in log of all people who enter (non-employees included) b. Cleaning and disinfecting- Remove all organic matter and then disinfect with approved product i. Clean cages, toys, food/water bowls, between uses and when soiled ii. Clean litter boxes daily
iii. Wet mopping should be used to minimize the creation of dusts iv. Keep checklist and regularly schedule cleaning of other areas c. Laundry- Wear gloves when handling soiled laundry
i. Wash with detergent and dry on highest setting allowed for material ii. Use separate bins for clean and dirty laundry
d. Spill response- See Biohazard Spill Clean-up Procedure (ECP4)
3. Employee Health
a. Pregnant and Immunocompromised personnel are at increased risk from zoonotic diseases and should make their supervisor aware as accommodation may need to be made.
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) ATTACHMENT 9
49 CFR Part 673-Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plans
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) Title 49 —Transportation
Subtitle B —Other Regulations Relating to Transportation Chapter VI —Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation Part 673 Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
Subpart A General
§ 673.1 Applicability.
§ 673.3 Policy.
§ 673.5 Definitions.
Subpart B Safety Plans
§ 673.11 General requirements.
§ 673.13 Certification of compliance.
§ 673.15 Coordination with metropolitan, statewide, and non-metropolitan planning processes.
Subpart C Safety Committees and Cooperation With Frontline Transit Worker Representatives
§ 673.17 Cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives. § 673.19 Safety Committees.
Subpart D Safety Management Systems
§ 673.21 General requirements.
§ 673.23 Safety Management Policy.
§ 673.25 Safety Risk Management.
§ 673.27 Safety Assurance.
§ 673.29 Safety Promotion.
Subpart E Safety Plan Documentation and Recordkeeping
§ 673.31 Safety plan documentation.
PART 673—PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY PLANS
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329, 5334; 49 CFR 1.91.
Source: 89 FR 25738, Apr. 11, 2024, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A—General
§ 673.1 Applicability.
This content is from the eCFR and is authoritative but unofficial. (a) This part applies to any State, local governmental authority, and any other operator of a public transportation system that receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
49 CFR Part 673 (June 28, 2024)
49 CFR 673.1(a) (enhanced display) page 1 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.3 Policy.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the principles and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. FTA will follow the principles and methods of SMS in its development of rules, regulations, policies, guidance, best practices, and technical assistance administered under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329. This part sets standards for the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, which will be responsive to FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program, and reflect the specific safety objectives, standards, and priorities of each transit agency. Each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan will incorporate SMS principles and methods tailored to the size, complexity, and scope of the public transportation system and the environment in which it operates. § 673.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(b) This part does not apply to an operator of a public transportation system that only receives Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311 unless it operates a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
Accountable Executive means a single, identifiable person who has ultimate responsibility for carrying out the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan of a transit agency; responsibility for carrying out the transit agency's Transit Asset Management Plan; and control or direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and maintain both the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and the transit agency's Transit Asset Management Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326.
Assault on a transit worker means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302, a circumstance in which an individual knowingly, without lawful authority or permission, and with intent to endanger the safety of any individual, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, interferes with, disables, or incapacitates a transit worker while the transit worker is performing the duties of the transit worker.
CDC means the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Chief Safety Officer means an adequately trained individual who has responsibility for safety and reports directly to a transit agency's chief executive officer, general manager, president, or equivalent officer. A Chief Safety Officer may not serve in other operational or maintenance capacities, unless the Chief Safety Officer is employed by a transit agency that is a small public transportation provider as defined in this part, or a public transportation provider that does not operate a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
Direct recipient means an entity that receives Federal financial assistance directly from the Federal Transit Administration.
Emergency means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5324, a natural disaster affecting a wide area (such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, severe storm, or landslide) or a catastrophic failure from any external cause, as a result of which the Governor of a State has declared an emergency and the Secretary has concurred; or the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170). 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
49 CFR 673.1(b)
49 CFR 673.5 “Emergency” (enhanced display) page 2 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) Equivalent entity means an entity that carries out duties similar to that of a Board of Directors, for a recipient or subrecipient of FTA funds under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, including sufficient authority to review and approve a recipient or subrecipient's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
FTA means the Federal Transit Administration, an operating administration within the United States Department of Transportation.
Hazard means any real or potential condition that can cause injury, illness, or death; damage to or loss of the facilities, equipment, rolling stock, or infrastructure of a public transportation system; or damage to the environment.
Injury means any harm to persons as a result of an event that requires immediate medical attention away from the scene.
Investigation means the process of determining the causal and contributing factors of a safety event or hazard, for the purpose of preventing recurrence and mitigating safety risk.
Joint labor-management process means a formal approach to discuss topics affecting transit workers and the public transportation system.
Large urbanized area provider means a recipient or subrecipient of financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that serves an urban area with a population of 200,000 or more as determined by the most recent decennial Census.
National Public Transportation Safety Plan means the plan to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
Near-miss means a narrowly avoided safety event.
Operator of a public transportation system means a provider of public transportation.
Performance measure means an expression based on a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition that is used to establish targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.
Potential consequence means the effect of a hazard.
Public transportation means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302, regular, continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that are open to the general public or open to a segment of the general public defined by age, disability, or low income; and does not include:
(1) Intercity passenger rail transportation provided by the entity described in 49 U.S.C. chapter 243 (or a successor to such entity);
(2) Intercity bus service;
(3) Charter bus service;
(4) School bus service;
(5) Sightseeing service;
(6) Courtesy shuttle service for patrons of one or more specific establishments; or (7) Intra-terminal or intra-facility shuttle services.
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan means the documented comprehensive agency safety plan for a transit agency that is required by 49 U.S.C. 5329 and this part. 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
49 CFR 673.5 “Equivalent entity”
49 CFR 673.5 “Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan” (enhanced display) page 3 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) Rail fixed guideway public transportation system means any fixed guideway system, or any such system in engineering or construction, that uses rail, is operated for public transportation, is within the jurisdiction of a State, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration. These include but are not limited to rapid rail, heavy rail, light rail, monorail, trolley, inclined plane, funicular, and automated guideway.
Rail transit agency means any entity that provides services on a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
Recipient means a State or local governmental authority, or any other operator of a public transportation system, that receives financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
Roadway means land on which rail transit tracks and support infrastructure have been constructed to support the movement of rail transit vehicles, excluding station platforms.
Safety Assurance means processes within a transit agency's Safety Management System that functions to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of safety risk mitigation, and to ensure that the transit agency meets or exceeds its safety objectives through the collection, analysis, and assessment of information.
Safety Committee means the formal joint labor-management committee on issues related to safety that is required by 49 U.S.C. 5329 and this part.
Safety event means an unexpected outcome resulting in injury or death; damage to or loss of the facilities, equipment, rolling stock, or infrastructure of a public transportation system; or damage to the environment.
Safety Management Policy means a transit agency's documented commitment to safety, which defines the transit agency's safety objectives and the accountabilities and responsibilities for the management of safety.
Safety Management System (SMS) means the formal, organization-wide approach to managing safety risk and assuring the effectiveness of a transit agency's safety risk mitigation. SMS includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for managing hazards and safety risk.
Safety Management System (SMS) Executive means a Chief Safety Officer or an equivalent.
Safety performance target means a quantifiable level of performance or condition, expressed as a value for the measure, related to safety management activities, to be achieved within a specified time period.
Safety Promotion means a combination of training and communication of safety information to support SMS as applied to the transit agency's public transportation system.
Safety risk means the composite of predicted severity and likelihood of a potential consequence of a hazard.
Safety risk assessment means the formal activity whereby a transit agency determines Safety Risk Management priorities by establishing the significance or value of its safety risk.
Safety risk management means a process within a transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for identifying hazards and analyzing, assessing, and mitigating the safety risk of their potential consequences.
Safety risk mitigation means a method or methods to eliminate or reduce the severity and/or likelihood of a potential consequence of a hazard.
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
49 CFR 673.5 “Rail fixed guideway public transportation system”
49 CFR 673.5 “Safety risk mitigation” (enhanced display) page 4 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) Subpart B—Safety Plans
§ 673.11 General requirements.
Safety set-aside means the allocation of not less than 0.75 percent of assistance received by a large urbanized area provider under 49 U.S.C. 5307 to safety-related projects eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5307.
Small public transportation provider means a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that has one hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in peak revenue service across all non-rail fixed route modes or in any one non-fixed route mode and does not operate a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
State of good repair means the condition in which a capital asset is able to operate at a full level of performance.
State Safety Oversight Agency means an agency established by a State that meets the requirements and performs the functions specified by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and (k) and the regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 674.
Subrecipient means an entity that receives Federal transit grant funds indirectly through a State or a direct recipient.
Transit agency means an operator of a public transportation system that is a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5307 or a rail transit agency.
Transit Asset Management Plan means the strategic and systematic practice of procuring, operating, inspecting, maintaining, rehabilitating, and replacing transit capital assets to manage their performance, risks, and costs over their life cycles, for the purpose of providing safe, cost-effective, and reliable public transportation, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 CFR part 625.
Transit worker means any employee, contractor, or volunteer working on behalf of the transit agency.
Urbanized area means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302, an area encompassing a population of 50,000 or more that has been defined and designated in the most recent decennial census as an urban area by the Secretary of Commerce.
(a) A transit agency or State must establish a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that meets the requirements of this part and, at a minimum, consists of the following elements:
(1) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and subsequent updates, must be signed by the Accountable Executive and approved by—
(i) For a large urbanized area provider, the Safety Committee established pursuant to § 673.19, followed by the transit agency's Board of Directors or an equivalent entity; or (ii) For all other transit agencies, the transit agency's Board of Directors or an equivalent entity. (2) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must document the processes and activities related to Safety Management System (SMS) implementation, as required under subpart D of this part. 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
49 CFR 673.5 “Safety set-aside”
49 CFR 673.11(a)(2) (enhanced display) page 5 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) (3) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include annual safety performance targets based on the safety performance measures established under the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. Safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program are only required for large urbanized area providers.
(4) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must address all applicable requirements and standards as set forth in FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program and the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. Compliance with the minimum safety performance standards authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C) is not required until standards have been established through the public notice and comment process.
(5) Each transit agency must establish a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. (6) A rail transit agency must include or incorporate by reference in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan:
(i) An emergency preparedness and response plan or procedures that addresses, at a minimum, the assignment of transit worker responsibilities during an emergency; and coordination with Federal, State, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency's service area; (ii) Any policies and procedures regarding rail transit workers on the roadway the rail transit agency has issued; and
(iii) The transit agency's policies and procedures developed in consultation with the State Safety Oversight Agency to provide access and required data for the State Safety Oversight Agency's risk-based inspection program.
(7) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan of each large urbanized area provider must include a safety risk reduction program for transit operations to improve safety performance by reducing the number and rates of safety events, injuries, and assaults on transit workers. The safety risk reduction program must, at a minimum:
(i) Address the reduction and mitigation of vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles that includes safety risk mitigations consistent with § 673.25(d)(3); (ii) Address the reduction and mitigation of assaults on transit workers that includes safety risk mitigations consistent with § 673.25(d)(4);
(iii) Include the safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee pursuant to § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program performance measures established in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. These targets must be set—
(A) Based on a three-year rolling average of the data submitted by the large urbanized area provider to the National Transit Database (NTD);
(B) For all modes of public transportation; and
(C) Based on the level of detail the large urbanized area provider is required to report to the NTD. The Safety Committee is not required to set a target for a performance measure until the large urbanized area provider has been required to report three years of data to the NTD corresponding to such performance measure.
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
49 CFR 673.11(a)(3)
49 CFR 673.11(a)(7)(iii)(C) (enhanced display) page 6 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.13 Certification of compliance.
§ 673.15 Coordination with metropolitan, statewide, and non-metropolitan planning processes.
Subpart C—Safety Committees and Cooperation With Frontline Transit Worker Representatives § 673.17 Cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives. (iv) Include or incorporate by reference the safety risk mitigations identified and recommended by the Safety Committee as described in § 673.25(d)(5).
(b) A transit agency may develop one Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for all modes of service or may develop a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for each mode of service not subject to safety regulation by another Federal entity.
(c) A transit agency must maintain its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements in subpart E of this part.
(d) A State must draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of any small public transportation provider that is located in that State. A State is not required to draft a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a small public transportation provider if that transit agency notifies the State that it will draft its own plan. In each instance, the transit agency must carry out the plan. If a State drafts and certifies a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan on behalf of a transit agency, and the transit agency later opts to draft and certify its own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, then the transit agency must notify the State. The transit agency has one year from the date of the notification to draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that is compliant with this part. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan drafted by the State will remain in effect until the transit agency drafts its own Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
(e) Agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) or rail fixed guideway public transportation service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are not required to develop Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for those modes of service. (a) Each direct recipient, or State as authorized in § 673.11(d), must certify that it has established a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan meeting the requirements of this part by the start of operations. A direct recipient must certify that it and all applicable subrecipients are in compliance with the requirements of this part. A State Safety Oversight Agency must review and approve a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan developed by a rail fixed guideway public transportation system, as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 674. (b) On an annual basis, a direct recipient or State must certify its compliance with this part. A direct recipient must certify that it and all applicable subrecipients are in compliance with the requirements of this part. (a) A State or transit agency must make its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process.
(b) To the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency must coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets. (a) Each large urbanized area provider must establish a Safety Committee that meets the requirements of § 673.19.
(b) Each transit agency that is not a large urbanized area provider must:
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.11(a)(7)(iv) 49 CFR 673.17(b) (enhanced display) page 7 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.19 Safety Committees.
(1) Develop its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and subsequent updates, in cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives; and
(2) Include or incorporate by reference in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan a description of how frontline transit worker representatives cooperate in the development and update of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
(a) Establishing the Safety Committee. Each large urbanized area provider must establish and operate a Safety Committee that is:
(1) Appropriately scaled to the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency; and (2) Convened by a joint labor-management process.
(b) Safety Committee membership. The Safety Committee must consist of an equal number of frontline transit worker representatives and management representatives. To the extent practicable, the Safety Committee must include frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service functions, such as operations and maintenance, across the transit system. (1) The labor organization that represents the plurality of the transit agency's frontline transit workers must select frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee. (2) If the transit agency's frontline transit workers are not represented by a labor organization, the transit agency must adopt a mechanism for frontline transit workers to select frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
(c) Safety Committee procedures. Each large urbanized area provider must include or incorporate by reference in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan procedures regarding the composition, responsibilities, and operations of the Safety Committee which, at a minimum, must address:
(1) The organizational structure, size, and composition of the Safety Committee and how it will be chaired;
(2) How meeting agendas and notices will be developed and shared, and how meeting minutes will be recorded and maintained;
(3) Any required training for Safety Committee members related to the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and the processes, activities, and tools used to support the transit agency's SMS;
(4) The compensation policy established by the agency for participation in Safety Committee meetings; (5) How the Safety Committee will access technical experts, including other transit workers, to serve in an advisory capacity as needed; transit agency information, resources, and tools; and submissions to the transit worker safety reporting program to support its deliberations; (6) How the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions; (7) How the Safety Committee will coordinate and communicate with the transit agency's Board of Directors, or equivalent entity, and the Accountable Executive; 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.17(b)(1) 49 CFR 673.19(c)(7) (enhanced display) page 8 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) Subpart D—Safety Management Systems
§ 673.21 General requirements.
Each transit agency must establish and implement a Safety Management System under this part. A transit agency Safety Management System must be appropriately scaled to the size, scope and complexity of the transit agency and include the following elements:
(8) How the Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure it carries out its operations. The Safety Committee may use the dispute resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's Collective Bargaining Agreement, or a different process that the Safety Committee develops and agrees upon, but the Accountable Executive may not be designated to resolve any disputes within the Safety Committee; and
(9) How the Safety Committee will carry out its responsibilities identified in paragraph (d) of this section. (d) Safety Committee responsibilities. The Safety Committee must conduct the following activities to oversee the transit agency's safety performance:
(1) Review and approve the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and any updates as required at § 673.11(a)(1)(i);
(2) Set annual safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program as required at § 673.11(a)(7)(iii); and
(3) Support operation of the transit agency's SMS by:
(i) Identifying and recommending safety risk mitigations necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of potential consequences identified through the transit agency's safety risk assessment, including safety risk mitigations associated with any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance target in the safety risk reduction program; (ii) Identifying safety risk mitigations that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended, including safety risk mitigations associated with any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance target in the safety risk reduction program; and
(iii) Identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous improvement as required at § 673.27(d), including any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance target in the safety risk reduction program. (a) Safety Management Policy as described in § 673.23;
(b) Safety Risk Management as described in § 673.25;
(c) Safety Assurance as described in § 673.27; and
(d) Safety Promotion as described in § 673.29.
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.19(c)(8) 49 CFR 673.21(d) (enhanced display) page 9 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.23 Safety Management Policy.
(a) A transit agency must establish its organizational accountabilities and responsibilities and have a written statement of Safety Management Policy that includes the transit agency's safety objectives and a description of the transit agency's Safety Committee or approach to cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
(b) A transit agency must establish and implement a process that allows transit workers to report safety concerns, including assaults on transit workers, near-misses, and unsafe acts and conditions to senior management, includes protections for transit workers who report, and includes a description of transit worker behaviors that may result in disciplinary action. (c) The Safety Management Policy must be communicated throughout the transit agency's organization. (d) The transit agency must establish the necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for the management of safety amongst the following individuals or groups within its organization, as they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's SMS:
(1) Accountable Executive. The transit agency must identify an Accountable Executive. The Accountable Executive is accountable for ensuring that the transit agency's SMS is effectively implemented throughout the transit agency's public transportation system. The Accountable Executive is accountable for ensuring action is taken, as necessary, to address substandard performance in the transit agency's SMS. The Accountable Executive may delegate specific responsibilities, but the ultimate accountability for the transit agency's safety performance cannot be delegated and always rests with the Accountable Executive.
(i) The Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider must implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program that are included in the Agency Safety Plan under § 673.11(a)(7)(iv).
(ii) The Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee, consistent with requirements in §§ 673.19(d) and 673.25(d)(6).
(2) Chief Safety Officer or Safety Management System (SMS) Executive. The Accountable Executive must designate a Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive who has the authority and responsibility for day-to-day implementation and operation of a transit agency's SMS. The Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive must hold a direct line of reporting to the Accountable Executive. A transit agency may allow the Accountable Executive to also serve as the Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive. (3) Safety Committee. A large urbanized area provider must establish a joint labor-management Safety Committee that meets the requirements of § 673.19.
(4) Transit agency leadership and executive management. A transit agency must identify those members of its leadership or executive management, other than an Accountable Executive, Chief Safety Officer, or SMS Executive, who have authorities or responsibilities for day-to-day implementation and operation of a transit agency's SMS.
(5) Key staff. A transit agency may designate key staff, groups of staff, or committees to support the Accountable Executive, Chief Safety Officer, Safety Committee, or SMS Executive in developing, implementing, and operating the transit agency's SMS.
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.23 49 CFR 673.23(d)(5) (enhanced display) page 10 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.25 Safety Risk Management.
(a) Safety Risk Management process. A transit agency must develop and implement a Safety Risk Management process for all elements of its public transportation system. The Safety Risk Management process must be comprised of the following activities: hazard identification, safety risk assessment, and safety risk mitigation.
(b) Hazard identification.
(1) A transit agency must establish methods or processes to identify hazards and potential consequences of the hazards.
(2) A transit agency must consider, as a source for hazard identification:
(i) Data and information provided by an oversight authority, including but not limited to FTA, the State, or as applicable, the State Safety Oversight Agency having jurisdiction; (ii) Data and information regarding exposure to infectious disease provided by the CDC or a State health authority; and
(iii) Safety concerns identified through Safety Assurance activities carried out under § 673.27. (c) Safety risk assessment.
(1) A transit agency must establish methods or processes to assess the safety risk associated with identified hazards.
(2) A safety risk assessment includes an assessment of the likelihood and severity of the potential consequences of identified hazards, taking into account existing safety risk mitigations, to determine if safety risk mitigation is necessary and to inform prioritization of safety risk mitigations. (d) Safety risk mitigation.
(1) A transit agency must establish methods or processes to identify safety risk mitigations or strategies necessary as a result of the transit agency's safety risk assessment to reduce the likelihood and severity of the potential consequences. For large urbanized area providers, these methods or processes must address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee. (2) A transit agency must consider, as a source for safety risk mitigation:
(i) Guidance provided by an oversight authority, if applicable, and FTA; and (ii) Guidelines to prevent or control exposure to infectious diseases provided by the CDC or a State health authority.
(3) When identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program related to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles, including to address a missed safety performance target set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2), each large urbanized area provider and its Safety Committee must consider mitigations to reduce visibility impairments for transit vehicle operators that contribute to accidents, including retrofits to vehicles in revenue service and specifications for future procurements that reduce visibility impairments. (4) When identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program related to assaults on transit workers, including to address a missed safety performance target set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2), each large urbanized area provider and its Safety Committee must 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.25 49 CFR 673.25(d)(4) (enhanced display) page 11 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.27 Safety Assurance.
consider deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on transit vehicles and in transit facilities. Assault mitigation infrastructure and technology includes barriers to restrict the unwanted entry of individuals and objects into the workstations of bus operators. (5) When a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee, as part of the transit agency's safety risk reduction program, identifies and recommends under § 673.19(c)(6) safety risk mitigations, including mitigations relating to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles or assaults on transit workers, based on a safety risk assessment conducted under § 673.25(c), the transit agency must include or incorporate by reference these safety risk mitigations in its ASP pursuant to § 673.11(a)(7)(iv).
(6) When a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee recommends a safety risk mitigation unrelated to the safety risk reduction program, and the Accountable Executive decides not to implement the safety risk mitigation, the Accountable Executive must prepare a written statement explaining their decision, pursuant to recordkeeping requirements at § 673.31. The Accountable Executive must submit and present this explanation to the transit agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors or equivalent entity.
(a) Safety Assurance process. A transit agency must develop and implement a Safety Assurance process, consistent with this subpart. A rail fixed guideway public transportation system, and a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 that operates more than one hundred vehicles in peak revenue service, must include in its Safety Assurance process each of the requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. A small public transportation provider only must include in its Safety Assurance process the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. (b) Safety performance monitoring and measurement. A transit agency must establish activities to:
(1) Monitor its system for compliance with, and sufficiency of, the transit agency's procedures for operations and maintenance;
(2) Monitor its operations to identify any safety risk mitigations that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended. For large urbanized area providers, these activities must address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee;
(3) Conduct investigations of safety events to identify causal factors; and (4) Monitor information reported through any internal safety reporting programs. (c) Management of change.
(1) A transit agency must establish a process for identifying and assessing changes that may introduce new hazards or impact the transit agency's safety performance. (2) If a transit agency determines that a change may impact its safety performance, then the transit agency must evaluate the proposed change through its Safety Risk Management process. (d) Continuous improvement.
(1) A transit agency must establish a process to assess its safety performance annually. (i) This process must include the identification of deficiencies in the transit agency's SMS and deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against safety performance targets required in § 673.11(a)(3).
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.25(d)(5) 49 CFR 673.27(d)(1)(i) (enhanced display) page 12 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.29 Safety Promotion.
Subpart E—Safety Plan Documentation and Recordkeeping
(ii) For large urbanized area providers, this process must also address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee, and include the identification of deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program required in § 673.11(a)(7). (iii) Rail transit agencies must also address any specific internal safety review requirements established by their State Safety Oversight Agency.
(2) A large urbanized area provider must monitor safety performance against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program in § 673.11(a)(7).
(3) A large urbanized area provider that does not meet an established annual safety performance target set by the Safety Committee under § 673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program in § 673.11(a)(7) must:
(i) Assess associated safety risk, using the methods or processes established under § 673.25(c); (ii) Mitigate associated safety risk based on the results of a safety risk assessment using the methods or processes established under § 673.25(d). The transit agency must include these mitigations in the plan described at § 673.27(d)(4) and in the Agency Safety Plan as described in § 673.25(d)(5); and
(iii) Allocate its safety set-aside in the following fiscal year to safety-related projects eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that are reasonably likely to assist the transit agency in meeting the safety performance target in the future.
(4) A transit agency must develop and carry out, under the direction of the Accountable Executive, a plan to address any deficiencies identified through the safety performance assessment as described in this section.
(a) Competencies and training.
(1) A transit agency must establish and implement a comprehensive safety training program that includes de-escalation training, safety concern identification and reporting training, and refresher training for all operations transit workers and transit workers directly responsible for safety in the transit agency's public transportation system. The training program must include refresher training, as necessary.
(2) Large urbanized area providers must include maintenance transit workers in the safety training program.
(b) Safety communication. A transit agency must communicate safety and safety performance information throughout the transit agency's organization that, at a minimum, conveys information on hazards and safety risk relevant to transit workers' roles and responsibilities and informs transit workers of safety actions taken in response to reports submitted through a transit worker safety reporting program. A transit agency must also communicate the results of cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives as described at § 673.17(b) or the Safety Committee activities described in § 673.19. 49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.27(d)(1)(ii) 49 CFR 673.29(b) (enhanced display) page 13 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) § 673.31 Safety plan documentation.
At all times, a transit agency must maintain documents that set forth its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, including those related to the implementation of its SMS, and results from SMS processes and activities. A transit agency must maintain documents that are included in whole, or by reference, that describe the programs, policies, and procedures that the transit agency uses to carry out its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. These documents must be made available upon request by FTA or other Federal entity, or a State or State Safety Oversight Agency having jurisdiction. A transit agency must maintain these documents for a minimum of three years after they are created.
49 CFR Part 673 (up to date as of 6/28/2024)
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 49 CFR 673.31 49 CFR 673.31 (enhanced display) page 14 of 14
5.F.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: BBB PTASP REVISED 2024 [Revision 1] (6497 : Approve Revisions to Big Blue Bus’ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2024
Agenda Item: 5.G
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Sarkis Metspakyan, Acting Chief Information Officer, Information Services Department
Subject: Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Implementation and Support of a Permitting and Land Use Management System
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. Award RFP# 364 to Speridian Technologies, LLC for a new permitting and land use management system for the Information Services Department;
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Speridian Technologies, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $3,837,353 (including a $348,852 contingency) for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
4. Authorize budget amendments as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).
Summary
The City currently uses an Accela system to enter, store, and manage permits and other record types for multiple City departments, including Community Development (CDD), Public Works, Santa Monica Department of Transportation (SMDoT), Finance, Fire, City Clerk, and Rent Control. Permit tracking and land management processes at the City of Santa Monica have changed over time, necessitating a new system to replace the current permitting system. The City’s workflows in Accela result in inefficiencies and duplicative data entry, highlighting the need for an integrated, modern solution.
Furthermore, support for the current permitting system is being phased out by Accela.
To address this, staff conducted a competitive solicitation process to evaluate
5.G
Packet Pg. 389
2 of 8
alternatives. After evaluating multiple proposals, staff seeks City Council approval to award an RFP and enter into a five-year agreement with Speridian Technologies, LLC (Speridian) in a total amount not to exceed $3,837,353, which includes a 10% contingency, to implement a new Clariti permitting and land use management system and furnish annual software licensing, maintenance, and support services for a five-year period. Speridian is an authorized reseller and implementor of the Clariti system.
Implementing a new Clariti system with Speridian will ensure the City can maintain and enhance its permitting processes using a modern, efficient platform.
Discussion
The systems and processes supporting the City’s permitting and land management services have been under review by staff following input from customers, local businesses and Council itself. In May 2021, the City engaged its auditor, Moss Adams LLP (Moss Adams) to conduct a Permitting System Efficiency Study. This study highlighted several inefficiencies in the City’s processes which require duplicative, manual entry by both customers and staff, lack of integration of systems within the process, and opportunities to streamline existing workflows. These inefficiencies could be significantly improved by implementing a new, integrated technology system.
Therefore, Moss Adams recommended the City invest in an up-to-date, comprehensive permitting system that guides customers through the permit application process and creates efficiencies for City staff with automatic workflows.
As a result of this recommendation, the City conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) process in May 2023 to identify and procure a modern, flexible, configurable, and customer-friendly system to support the City’s diverse and specialized permitting and land management services. An evaluation panel comprised of subject matter experts from the Public Works Department, CDD, SMDoT, and the Information Services Department, each of whom have extensive knowledge and experience with the City’s permitting system and department workflows, evaluated the proposals. The evaluation panel carefully reviewed all proposed solutions and selected Speridian as the best qualified firm to address the City’s needs based on the quality of the services offered and the capabilities of the proposed Clariti cloud-based solution.
5.G
Packet Pg. 390
3 of 8
Speridian, together with its strategic partner, Clariti, has proposed a proven comprehensive cloud-based modern solution that will enable efficiencies, enhance the City’s applicant experience, and provide a “one-stop shop” for Land Management, along with the corresponding planning, licensing, permitting and enforcement functions for the City to address the areas for improvement highlighted by the Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study. Speridian and Clariti have implemented similar Land Management/Permitting/Planning operations for other government entities, including the City of Bakersfield, the City of Covina, and Orange County Public Works.
The proposed new system has the ability to cover permitting processes end-to-end:
from application to review to issuance to fee assessment to inspections. The initial implementation will cover permitting record types for the following departments: CDD, Public Works, SMDoT, Finance, Fire, City Clerk, Recreation and Arts (RAD), and Rent Control. Speridian will migrate all of the processes that currently run on the Accela system into the Clariti system, including, but not limited to, building permits, construction permits, sewer and water meter permits, sprinkler permits, roadway closure permits, rent-controlled property records, and financial transactions on Accela. Speridian will also migrate RAD’s Community Events permitting process currently managed in an OpenCounter system into the Clariti system.
The new permitting system and successful implementation will:
• Position the City to meet its current and future strategic objectives to improve permitting processes and the customer experience.
• Make permitting metrics, such as number and type of permits, easily and broadly available to City staff.
• Provide dashboards for City staff to keep track of the permits and statuses. • Streamline the application and permit approval processes and eliminate bottlenecks.
• Minimize manual processes, reduce paper, and increase usage of automation wherever possible.
5.G
Packet Pg. 391
4 of 8
• Automate manual tasks and improve permit efficiency.
• Provide intuitive systems that are easy to navigate.
• Ensure integration with other City systems.
The services proposed by Speridian will implement a cloud-based solution for the City that is customizable, customer-focused, and capable of integrating with existing systems to enhance efficiency and user satisfaction. Speridian will handle the migration of data from Accela and OpenCounter to the new system, using pre-built modules in Clariti and configuring them to City processes. Once in place, the new system will have the flexibility to configure new record types and support other permitting types as needed for any City department. There may be additional implementation costs in the future to configure new permitting processes or permitting processes not currently in Accela or OpenCounter, as some departments use multiple systems to manage different workflows.
Speridian’s proposal includes support after the new system goes live, ensuring it meets the City’s needs through periodic checkpoints to assess performance and make necessary adjustments. The proposed Speridian solution will also provide useful reporting tools and dashboards for the City.
Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Qualified Firm Speridian Technologies, LLC
Evaluation Criteria References, cost, experience, presentation/demonstration, work plans/timelines, value add/breadth of service,
technology alignment, and functional capabilities.
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
RFPs Received
Avocette
Technologies Inc. CivicPlus, LLC Civos, Inc. ClearGov, Inc.
Cloud SynApps Inc. Gray Quarter, Inc. LittleMouse
Productions Maintstar
MK Partners, Inc. Online Solutions, LLC
(DBA Citizenserve) OpenGov, Inc Speridian Technologies, LLC StackNexus, Inc. TruePoint Solutions Tyler Unisys.com
5.G
Packet Pg. 392
5 of 8
Technologies,
Inc.
RFP Data
Posted On Posted On
Advertised In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
05/30/2023
City's
Online
Bidding
Site
Santa Monica Daily Press 71 07/27/2023
Justification to Award
Based on the evaluation criteria and criteria in SMMC 2.24.190, staff recommends Speridian Technologies, LLC as the best qualified firm to provide implementation, licensing, maintenance, and support services for a new Clariti permitting and land use management system for the City of Santa Monica based on the quality of the services offered and the capabilities of their cloud-based solution to address the City’s needs.
The Clariti system had superior functional capabilities and technology alignment to the City’s needs for a comprehensive permitting and land management system, including but not limited to, the ability to accommodate all permit record types needed by the City, including future new permit record types as needed. Clariti does more than issue permits but also met the City’s record keeping and reporting needs without having to keep data on multiple manual systems. Furthermore, the Clariti system provides workflow capabilities that allow for flexibility in use (and design) by the various City departments that will be utilizing the system. The user interface is also modern and intuitive for ease of use. Clariti demonstrated the best capabilities in terms of user interface, for both the public and City staff, and had dashboard capability which is useful from management perspective.
When evaluated for added value, Clariti stood out with a desirable module that addressed project management and processing of planning entitlements that allows following projects from initial submittal to inspection, ensuring efficient process and application status tracking. Clariti also includes time saving tools such as integrated mapping and the ability to grab data from one input to populate templates, reports, and determinations for consistency across documents.
The Clariti system requires minimal support and abundant out-of-the-box features that reduce the need for custom workarounds, indicators of a stable system that would align with the city’s long-term strategy. The Clariti system seamlessly integrates with other enterprise City systems including payment processors, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and accounting systems without depending on backend coding. The highly configurable Clariti system will assist in reducing technology barriers to meet the communities' evolving needs.
Speridian was evaluated to have the highest aggregate evaluation score, ranking high in all categories of evaluation criteria. They were notably superior in the categories of
5.G
Packet Pg. 393
6 of 8
experience and implementation plan. With offices in California, Speridian has been serving citizens and other municipalities in the State of California for over a decade.
Speridian’s proposal also included a thorough, experience-informed implementation plan that indicated their ability to meet project timelines, their ability to perform the work within the desired time frame, and their ability and experience in assembling a highly qualified implementation team. The Speridian proposal demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of the Clariti system and its functionality and demonstrated a strong understanding of the process and workflow needs of the City. For these reasons, Speridian is the best-qualified firm to provide implementation and ongoing support for a new permitting and land use management system.
Environmental Review
The proposed agreement with Speridian to provide software implementation, licensing, maintenance, and support services 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 software services are programmatic in nature and would not have a physical effect on the environment, so therefore, are exempt from CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
This project is partially funded with FY 2024-25 operating budget funds and FY 2025-26 capital improvement program funds. In addition to those funds, award of the agreement would require additional appropriations from the General Fund, utilizing prior year funds earmarked for this project along with use of restricted SB1186 funds collected to date and set-aside for this project. The SB1186 funds consist of permit fees revenue for increasing certified access specialist services and compliance with construction-related accessibility requirements.
Approval of the recommended action requires the following budget amendments:
FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment – to Appropriate Restricted Funds Release Funds Appropriate Funds
Account Number(s) Amount Account Number(s) Amount
01.360547
SB1186 restricted funds ($550,000) C0108950.689000 $550,000
5.G
Packet Pg. 394
7 of 8
FY 2024-25 Budget Amendment – To Transfer Funds between CIP Accounts Transfer Funds Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Number(s) Amount
C0105810.689000 ($62,707) C0108950.689000 $62,707
C0108950.689000 $637,760
Total ($62,707) $700,467
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund (including SB1186 restricted funds), the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax – Measure V Fund, the Water Fund, the Wastewater Fund, and the Resource Recovery & Recycling Fund to award an agreement with Speridian Technologies, LLC to provide implementation, licensing, maintenance, and support services for a new permitting and land use management system.
Agreement Request
FY 2024-25 Request
Amount
Future Years
Amount
Account Number(s) Total Contract
Amount
$1,250,467 $200,000 C0108950.689000 $1,450,467
$50,000 C1608950.689000 $50,000
$50,000 C5008950.689000 $50,000
$50,000 C5108950.689000 $50,000
$50,000 C5408950.689000 $50,000
$100,000 C0108890.689000 $100,000
$113,142 01430002.529230 $113,142
$380,000 $1,593,744 01700001.552010.98922 $1,973,744
$1,630,467 $2,206,886 Total $3,837,353
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Alice Pang, Business Process Technology Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
5.G
Packet Pg. 395
8 of 8
Attachments:
A. Levine Act Disclosure Form 2.6.24 - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 B. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 C. Staff Report - Web-Based Land Management System 11.22.11 Item 3F D. Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021
5.G
Packet Pg. 396
City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
In 2022, California’s SB1439 extended requirements under Government Code Section 84308, also known as the "Levine Act", to prohibit City “Officers” from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.
Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal. Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:
An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or
(4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.
A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form.
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/boards
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $250 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2.6.24 - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.
By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:
Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2.6.24 - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
DATE: January 25, 2024
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $250 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.
State law requires a party to a proceeding to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $250 that the party and their agents have made to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months. The Disclosure Form is intended to assist City officials with recognizing when they have an obligation to disclose and recuse themselves, and to aid parties with their disclosure obligations.
1. To what sort of proceedings is the disclosure form applicable? The Levine Act applies to all discretionary entitlements and contracts, with the exception of labor contracts, personal employment contracts, and contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. It does not apply to ministerial approvals.
For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:
• Building and development permits
• Conditional use permits
• Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Small contracts, including purchase orders, and zero dollar contracts (no de minimis exception)
• Public street abandonments
• Private development plans
• Professional license revocations
• Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
• Event permits
• Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2.6.24 - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for
• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps
• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Contracts awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder (not applicable in Santa Monica)
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget
2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.
Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.
3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $250 made in the prior twelve months.
A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2.6.24 - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for
other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.
4. Who is considered an officer of the City?
An “officer” is anyone who may make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a decision in the proceeding or who exercises authority over officers who may do so. This includes elected officials, members of appointed boards and commissions, the City Manager, and any individual who is a candidate for elected office or who has been a candidate in the twelve months prior to the decision. This definition is included on the Disclosure Form.
5. When should the disclosure occur?
The Disclosure Form must be completed (1) by a party to a contract with the City (or that party’s agent) at the time the party submits a response to a Request for Proposal or other competitive solicitation, enters into contract negotiations with the City, or executes a contract with the City, whichever is earliest; or (2) by a party to a license, permit, or other entitlement proceeding before the City at the time the party (or their agent) submits the license, permit, or entitlement application to the City. The party (or their agent) must submit a supplemental form if they make any new reportable contributions while the same contract, license, permit, or other entitlement is being considered. The party (or their agent) must also use the form if they need to correct any previously submitted form.
Parties are solely responsible for completing the form accurately, and could face penalties for failure to do so. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the body who enforces violations of the Levine Act. If a party is uncertain about whether they are required to report or combine a contribution, they should consult with their attorney.
Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
5.G.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2.6.24 - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS
AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,
OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.
This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.
It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.
All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.
Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, theCity compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any personorpersons whois seekinga“publicbenefit.” Ifthe“public benefit” is sought by an entity, ratherthan an individual person, the information includes the nameof everyperson who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.
5.G.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.
Public benefits include:
1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-monthperiod;
2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;
5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;
6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or
7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.
Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:
Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:
Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:
Prepared by: Title:
Signature: Date:
Email: Phone:
Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract #
5.G.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Speridian Technologies - 06242024 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for City of City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: November 22, 2011
Agenda Item: 3F
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jory Wolf, Chief Information Officer
Subject: Web -Based Land Management System
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Accela, Inc., a California -based company, to implement the Accela Automation land based management system for an amount not to exceed 390, 000, including„ data migration, training and the first year of maintenance; and
2. Authorize four additional one -year maintenance options at an estimated annual expenditure of $ 39, 168 for a total amount not to exceed $ 156, 672 for the four yearterm.
Executive Summary
Permit tracking and land management processes at the City have changed over time and a new automated system is needed as a replacement to the City's outdated legacy permitting system, Permits Plus. The current system is at end -of -life and is being phased out by Accela, the product manufacturer. The system is currently used by several departments to issue permits, track inspections and enforce building codes.
Implementation of a new system from Accela will provide the City with the current functionality provided by Permits Plus while adding additional features such as mobile inspections, enhanced workflow, mobile applets, and a seamless integration with the City' s Geographic Information System ( GIS). The implementation of the system, including training, maintenance and data migration services will not exceed $ 546, 672 for a five year period.
Background
On December 12, 1989, Council authorized the purchase the City' s first land based management system, Permits Plus. It is used by several departments to issue permits, track inspections and enforce building codes. The product has been a reliable and flexible system that has met the City's ever changing requirements with respect to 1 5.G.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Staff Report - Web-Based Land Management System 11.22.11 Item 3F (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for tracking and reporting permitting processes. The vendor is phasing out support for the product, however, so the City must implement a new system.
Over the past 10 years, Accela has emerged as a leader in the permitting software industry. In 2000, Accela, Inc. released its first web -based product, Accela Automation.
This product is used by government agencies across the United States, including Napa County, Monterey County, City of Alameda and the City of Sacramento within California.
Implementation of a new system from Accela would ensure the City' s ability to maintain its current functionality while adding new features, such as mobile inspections, enhanced workflow, mobile applets and a seamless integration with the City's GIS System.
Discussion
On August 11, 2011, the City issued a Request for Proposals ( RFP) for the implementation of a web -based land management system. The RFP was posted on Planet Bids, the City' s online bidding system, for three weeks. Five responses were received. A selection committee comprised of staff from Building and Safety, the Fire Department and Information Systems evaluated proposals. After careful review, the selection committee determined that Accela was the best bidder. The committee based its decision on the relative cost of the system, Accela' s ability to provide seamless integration with existing systems such as the City's electronic plan check system ProjectDox), the City' s document management system ( Laserfiche), the City' s interactive voice and web response systems ( Selectron) as well as the company' s stability, technical expertise and ability to meet all the requirements of the web - based land management RFP.
To replace the City' s legacy permitting system, staff recommends that the City enter into a professional services agreement with Accela for the implementation of the Accela Automation land based management system.
K
5.G.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Staff Report - Web-Based Land Management System 11.22.11 Item 3F (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The contract amount to be awarded to Accela will not exceed $ 546, 672 over the next five years. Funds in the amount of $390, 000 for implementation, data migration, training and the first year of maintenance are available in the account at C018012. 589000.
Budget authority for subsequent years of maintenance will be requested in each budget cycle for Council approval. Future funding is contingent upon Council approval. If the necessary funds for subsequent fiscal years are not approved by City Council, the agreement will allow for termination of .further services without penalty at the sole discretion of the City.
Prepared by: Cheng -Wei Pong, Systems Analyst — Permitting Systems.
Approved:
ation Systems
Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould
r, City Manager
k?
5.G.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Staff Report - Web-Based Land Management System 11.22.11 Item 3F (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Reference Contract No.
9509 ( CCS)
5.G.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Staff Report - Web-Based Land Management System 11.22.11 Item 3F (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for This report is intended for the internal use of the City of Santa Monica, and may not be provided to, used, or relied upon by any third parties.
FINAL REPORT
City of Santa Monica
PERMITTING EFFICIENCY STUDY
May 11, 2021
Moss Adams LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 302-6500
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
A. Background, Scope, and Methodology 3
B. Summary of Observations and Recommendations 3
Background, Scope, and Methodology 7
A. Background 7
B. Scope and Methodology 7
Commendations 9
Observations and Recommendations 10
A. Regulatory Environment 10
B. Processes and Systems 13
C. Customer Service 30
Appendix A: Employee Survey Results 35
Appendix B: Customer Survey Results 46
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 3
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The newly formed Community Development Department (the Department) works with the community to enhance the character, safety, and neighborhoods within the City of Santa Monica (the City). One of the core functions of the Department includes leading the City’s building permitting services, including permit application intake and routing, building code plan check, planning plan check, and inspections. Depending on the type of permit, other divisions from across the City may also be involved in the permit process.
The City is experiencing unprecedented challenges, including a remote work environment and staffing cuts, due to the impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the City’s local economy, including retailers, restaurants, and hospitality providers, has suffered as a result of shelter-in-place orders and occupancy restrictions, with an estimated 300 small businesses closing their doors. The City’s permitting process has long been a concern for the small business community, due to its complexity and length. The City has an opportunity to modify and streamline the permitting process to be more accessible to and efficient for small businesses, with the ultimate goal of supporting local economic recovery.
This study was designed to assess the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the City’s permitting process, led primarily by the Planning and Building and Safety divisions within the Community Development Department. Its goal is to enhance the ability to meet the needs of the community in a reduced resource environment.
Given the challenges currently facing the City, this study focused primarily on the permitting experience for property owners and small business customers. Analysis was informed by employee interviews, document review, an internal staff survey, an external customer survey, small business focus groups, and research into best practices for similar cities across the country. The study was conducted between December 2020 and May 2021.
The City’s permitting process has been developed piecemeal over the course of several decades to reflect shifting community values, and thus has become increasingly onerous for small businesses and residential property owners. Historically, business development has not been a top priority when considering community values; however, the pandemic has resulted in hardships for many small businesses in the community. In order to support local economic recovery and retain the City’s previous vibrant small business community, the permitting process should be redesigned, clarified, and automated to the extent possible. This work requires a cross-functional approach to assessing permit requirements, revising the municipal code as necessary, and collaborating closely to support an improved customer experience. Significant initiatives to complete this work include:
Conducting a comprehensive review of permitting requirements in the municipal code to streamline definitions, thresholds, and roles and responsibilities (Recommendation #1). In alignment with the revised municipal code, streamlining plan check and inspection processes through implementation of a user-friendly system, guidance and checklists for employees
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 4
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
performing plan check, and prioritizing plan checks among other employee duties. (Recommendations #4, #5A, #5C, #6).
Improving the customer experience by designating a point-person for customer inquiries, adopting a service philosophy, redesigning the permitting website, and creating user-friendly permitting educational materials related to requirements and processes (Recommendations #3, #9, #10).
The recommendations included in this report represent a change in philosophy and will require additional resources in the form of external consultants and temporary staffing to complete, as noted in the implementation plan. Finally, to successfully create a streamlined, user-friendly permitting process, there must be alignment and buy-in among the community, City Council, and city employees.
Our complete set of observations and recommendations are presented below in three categories:
Regulatory Environment, Processes and Systems, and Customer Service.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regulatory Environment
1. Observation
The City has established regulations in alignment with community values; however, these regulations create complexity in the process for both customers and City staff.
Recommendation
Establish a cross-functional committee to conduct a comprehensive permitting requirements inventory and mapping, to identify opportunities to simplify and streamline the municipal code.
2. Observation
Due to physical space limitations on parcels, there are sometimes conflicts between existing City codes that require staff and customer involvement to resolve on a case-by-case basis.
Recommendation
Document and institutionalize an approach to managing code conflicts by establishing guidance related to what codes generally supersede other requirements (e.g., safety over aesthetics) and a process for resolving conflicts given certain conditions, to reduce staff time involved in mediations.
Revise the code development and revision process to incorporate review and discussion with other workgroups involved in the permitting process, to promote consistency and understand potential impacts to other departments.
Processes and Systems
3. Observation
The City’s current permitting processes are largely decentralized and operate in distinct siloes that can create confusion, processing delays, and an inconsistent customer experience.
Recommendation
Align leadership in support of prioritizing permitting processes and create dedicated ongoing staff time to conduct plan checks in order to foster timely reviews and interdepartmental communication.
Implement routine cross-functional meetings for key internal stakeholders in the permitting process to ensure alignment, review performance measures to improve timeliness and customer satisfaction, and proactively resolve comments or concerns in the plan check process.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 5
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish and monitor performance measures for the permit process overall and for individual workgroups, to help hold City divisions accountable for timeliness and customer service.
Assign a project manager to each permit application in order to facilitate the application through the process, smooth interdepartmental communications, and serve as a point person for customer inquiries.
4. Observation
The City uses multiple systems in the permitting process that require duplicative, manual entry of data by both customers and City staff. Staff are unable to provide fee estimates for customers, and there is a risk that plans are not routed to the appropriate divisions for review.
Recommendation
Invest in a comprehensive permitting system that guides customers through the permit application process, eliminates the need for manual entry, and allows for customization of workflows in accordance with City requirements.
5. Observation
Staffing cuts have resulted in reliance on a limited number of key employees and ultimately, negatively impacted the ability of City employees to process permits in a timely manner.
Recommendation
Ensure every workgroup involved in plan check has at least two employees trained to complete the review required for their function.
Augment existing staffing levels through temporary employees or contracting out portions of the plan check process to enable City employees sufficient time to dedicate to process and system redesign.
Following the process and system redesign efforts, reassess employee workloads across workgroups involved in the permitting process and adjust accordingly for revised roles and responsibilities across and within divisions.
Establish a prioritized list of positions across the City to support and expedite the permitting process for customers.
6. Observation
No comprehensive guidance or checklists for the permitting process currently exist to guide staff in their roles, and customers report inconsistencies related to customer service and code interpretations in plan check and inspection processes.
Recommendation Develop written guidance, checklists, and training to support City employees in providing a consistent experience and direction to customers.
7. Observation
Streamlining the permitting process will require significant change across a broad group of stakeholders, including City Council, leadership, and employees, as well as the community, in order to be successful.
Recommendation
Leverage a change management framework to effectively engage key stakeholders, communicate the need for and impact of change, and support accountability for adopting changes.
Customer Service
8. Observation
The City’s unique regulations require extended permitting timelines, elevated fees, and expensive capital outlays for customers to comply, which has a disproportionately negative impact on small businesses in the community.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 6
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
Update the definition of small businesses in the municipal code to reflect current socioeconomic expectations and support localized economic recovery efforts.
Consider providing additional exemptions or granting funds to assist small businesses in complying with unique code requirements.
Consider expediting the permitting process and reducing associated fees for qualifying small businesses in order to support local economic recovery.
9. Observation Customers report a perception that the City operates as a gatekeeper, rather than a facilitator, of the permitting process.
Recommendation
Develop a service philosophy for the permitting process and reframe the City’s role as a partner to the community.
Support City staff in adopting the service philosophy and cultural shift to proactively support small businesses and residential customers through the complete permitting process, by providing training and reinforcing accountability.
10. Observation
The City’s primary permitting website is not customer-centric and provides inconsistent levels of information on regulatory requirements that are challenging to find and understand.
Recommendation
Redesign the Community Development permitting website to be customer-focused and provide the appropriate resources for customers.
To improve customer service, create simplified permit guides for each type of permit using layman’s terms and include applicable requirements, anticipated response time, and estimated fees.
Consider developing video tutorials that explain City-specific requirements for frequent permit types.
11. Observation The City currently lacks a formal customer feedback mechanism to understand how well it serves different types of customers.
Recommendation
Develop and implement a simple yet meaningful process to solicit, collect, and analyze customer feedback on the permitting process to facilitate ongoing continuous improvement.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 7
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
BACKGROUND, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The City of Santa Monica is experiencing unprecedented challenges due to the impacts of COVID-19.
Not only has the City been required to adapt to a remote work environment, but it has also experienced significant budget reductions as a result of the economic impacts of COVID-19 on the community. At the same time, the City’s local economy, including retailers, restaurants, and hospitality providers, has suffered as a result of shelter-in-place orders and occupancy restrictions.
According to Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, the destination marketing organization for the City, approximately 300 small businesses have closed as a result of the pandemic. The high volume of vacant storefronts within the City will continue to have an impact on ongoing local economic recovery efforts.
The newly formed Community Development Department works with the community to enhance the character of Santa Monica, conserve neighborhoods, provide economic opportunity for residents and businesses, and ensure the safety of the built environment. The Department performs core permitting services, including permit application intake and routing, building code plan check, planning plan check, and inspections. Depending on the type of permit, other divisions from across the City may also be involved in the permit process. These other groups include the Fire Department; Water; the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE); Mobility; Public Landscape; Civil Engineering; Rent Control; and Resource, Recovery, and Recycling (RRR).
The City’s permitting process has long been a concern of the small business community, due to its complexity and length. The City has an opportunity to revise and streamline the permitting process to be more accessible to and efficient for small businesses, with the ultimate goal of supporting local economic recovery.
This study was designed to assess the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the City’s permitting process, led primarily by the Planning and Building and Safety divisions within the Community Development Department. Its goal is to enhance the ability to meet the needs of the community in a reduced resource environment, with a focus on:
Interdepartmental communication, coordination, collaboration, and process efficiency Virtual and in-person customer service efficiency and effectiveness Given the challenges currently facing the City, this study focused primarily on the permitting experience for residential property owners and small business owners in the community. Analysis was informed by employee interviews, document review, an internal staff survey, an external customer survey, small business focus groups, and research into best practices for similarly situated cities across the country. The study was conducted between December 2020 and May 2021, and consisted of four major phases:
1. Project Initiation and Management: This phase concentrated on comprehensive planning and project management, including selecting employees to interview, identifying documents to review, communicating results, and establishing regular reports on project status.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 8
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
2. Fact Finding: This phase included interviews, focus groups, document review, surveys, and best practice research. We worked with department staff to obtain the most currently available information and insights.
○ Interviews: We conducted interviews with a wide range of employees from the Community Development Department (including the Building and Safety, Planning, and Economic Development divisions), Public Works (including RRR, Water, and OSE divisions), Fire, Department of Transportation (Mobility), Information Services, and the City Manager’s Office. ○ Focus Groups: We held a series of focus groups with small business owners and others in the real estate and development communities to gather feedback on permitting processes. ○ Document Review: We reviewed documents including historical permit data, municipal code, policies, procedures, organization charts, budgets, and planning documents. ○ Surveys: We conducted two surveys (internal and external) for this study. The internal survey asked City employees involved in the permitting process to provide feedback on the process as a whole and on interdepartmental collaboration and communication. This survey was conducted over the course of several weeks and received 35 responses—a 54.7% response rate. The external survey asked individuals who applied for a permit in the last three years to provide feedback on their experience with the City’s permitting process. This survey was conducted between March 2, 2021 and March 11, 2021 and received 204 responses—a 4.3% response rate.
○ Best Practice Research: Based on the opportunities for improvement identified, we conducted research to ascertain best practices found in other municipal permitting processes.
3. Analysis: This phase served as the assessment portion of the project where, based on information gathered, we evaluated the importance, impact, and scope of our observations in order to develop recommended efficiency and effectiveness changes, with the ultimate goal of supporting customer service.
4. Reporting: This phase concluded the project by reviewing draft observations and recommendations with the Department’s leadership team and City Manager’s Office to validate facts and confirm the practicality of recommendations.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 9
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
COMMENDATIONS
Based on conversations with City staff and document review, it is clear that there are several commendable aspects of the current permitting processes:
Electronic Plan Review: The City implemented electronic plan submittal and review over a decade ago, which proved beneficial to the continuity of service for many types of permits during the COVID-19 pandemic. This process allows plans to be reviewed concurrently by multiple departments and divisions, and consolidates comments for the applicant. Virtual Permit Counter: In late 2020, the Department developed and implemented a virtual permit counter for permits that were traditionally issued same day when the Permit Center was operational. This enables expedited permit approvals for simple permits and requires coordination across multiple divisions, which is ultimately led by the Community Development Department. Virtual and Digital Inspections: The Department, as well as other departments involved in the permitting process, have explored options to conduct virtual inspections for simple items via video conferencing. This has also spurred the transition to digital inspections rather than paper-based inspections.
Expedited Permitting Processes: As a result of recent events, including civil unrest in May 2020 and business restrictions during to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department expedited several permit processes to support the local community. Examples of permits that have been expedited include repair work in downtown corridors, alcohol permits, and temporary use of public property for outdoor dining.
Staff Resilience: As a result of the City’s budget crisis, a number of positions that support the permitting process were eliminated, both within the Community Development Department and in other departments that perform plan check. Despite these personnel reductions, staff remain dedicated to City service and have often taken on higher workloads to reduce the impact to the community. Many employees expressed gratitude and excitement around implementing lasting changes to permit processes to better support customers.
We would like to thank City staff and leadership for their participation in this study.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 10
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the input gathered from interviews, document review, focus groups, and surveys as well as comparisons to best practices, we prepared a comprehensive set of observations and recommendations, which are presented in three categories: Regulatory Environment, Processes and Systems, and Customer Service. The findings and recommendations for each category are detailed below.
1. Observation The City has established regulations in alignment with community values; however, these regulations create complexity in the process for both customers and City staff.
Recommendation Establish a cross-functional committee to conduct a comprehensive permitting requirements inventory and mapping, to identify opportunities to simplify and streamline the municipal code.
The City has a reputation for being an innovative, leading local government regarding sustainability initiatives. Community values, including those related to sustainability, are reflected in the municipal code, which outlines permitting requirements for businesses of all sizes and residential dwellings such as multi-family complexes and single-family residences. Some examples of unique requirements or programs include:
Seismic Retrofit Program
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan:
○ Zero Net Carbon Buildings, including Energy Code
○ Zero Waste
○ Electric Vehicle Action Plan
○ Water Self-Sufficiency, including Water Neutrality Ordinance and Sustainable Water Master Plan
Bike Action Plan
Historic Preservation and Urban Design Requirements
Tenant Protection Program
This list provides merely a sampling of unique codes or requirements. In addition to the City’s municipal code, residential and small business customers are also subject to other regulatory organizations such as Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, the Los Angeles County Health Department, and the Coastal Commission. Each of these agencies also has requirements, approvals, and inspections that have the potential to impact permitting processes for projects located within the City.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 11
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
As a result of the multiple, unique codes within the City, plan check and inspection processes have become concurrently complex and diluted. Further complicating the requirements are differing definitions and threshold requirements set by City departments or divisions that trigger their involvement in plan check. For example, in 2017 the City Council passed the Water Neutrality Ordinance which is designed to neutralize the impact of building development on the City’s overall water demand. This Ordinance requires property owners to calculate historical water usage and offset any potential increases made through their proposed project for new construction, remodels/tenant improvements, pools/spas/water features, and landscaping. Unique requirements such as this, that detail who to involve in the plan check process and what additional permits or plans are triggered by a project, result in increased complexity, risk of involving incorrect departments, lack of transparency related to fee charges, and ultimately potential delays in permit review and issuance.
Additionally, customers and City staff noted that some existing codes do not align with City values or create undue burdens. For example, the requirement for parking does not align with the City’s values related to alternative modes of transportation that are more sustainable. Additionally, parking requirements vary based on the construction location (i.e., Downtown, Pico, Montana) and parcel use (i.e., residential, restaurant, bar, gym, medical office) which makes project planning complex. Another example commonly cited by both City employees and customers relates to RRR trash enclosure requirements. Because the City services waste management in house, it requires trash enclosures to be a certain size and maintained on-site (i.e., not in alleyways). This can require a significant amount of space, reduce the size of a business or home, and create conflicts with other code requirements (see Recommendation #2). However, City values support zero or reduced waste and therefore the traditional sizes for general refuse may not align with actual waste requirements.
Due to the high level of complexity embedded within the City’s permitting process, a cottage industry of permit expediters has grown within the region to facilitate the process on behalf of residents or business owners for a fee. This demonstrates the need to rethink the system and more equitably and effectively serve the Santa Monica community.
In order to simplify the current complexity of permitting requirements for both City staff and customers, the City should establish a cross-functional committee that includes representation from each area involved in the permitting process to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all permitting requirements and triggers. This effort should achieve the following:
Identify what elements each department currently reviews, to identify potential redundancies Assess elements that are included in plan check or inspections, but not included in municipal code and could be eliminated from existing processes
Evaluate what level of subject matter expertise is required for the review of each element, to determine whether plan review functions could be collapsed into fewer divisions through cross-training, to potentially expedite the process and increase capacity among existing staff Identify conflicting codes or unreasonable code requirements Clarify triggers for different plan review requirements and other permits, including whether these triggers could be collapsed into fewer requirements to clarify the process for customers and staff Detect differing interpretations of existing requirements that should be clarified and communicated, to create consistency
There are several inputs into the City’s permitting regulations, including State of California Building Code, community input, and City Council direction. In order to make actionable changes, City staff
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 12
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
require support from both the community and City Council for making changes that simplify the permitting process in alignment with local economic recovery efforts. In order to facilitate building and construction that supports small businesses and residential property owners, this work should be prioritized at a City-wide level.
Following completion of this inventory, the cross-functional team should bring potential code revisions to City Council for consideration and approval. The focus of this effort should be to reduce the complexity of the code and permitting processes through standardized definitions and triggers, while still preserving community values related to sustainability and well-being. To be effective, codes should be designed to be fair, predictable, and neutral. The codes should not be so complex and technical that a subject matter expert within the City is the only individual who can review and approve a plan for any given program or area; this not only creates bottlenecks within the permitting process but also sets applicants up to fail in the initial plan check process. Ultimately, the purpose of the code should be to provide the baseline standards for the protection of life, health, property, and public welfare.
2. Observation Due to physical space limitations on parcels, there are sometimes conflicts between existing City codes that require staff and customer involvement to resolve on a case-by-case basis.
Recommendation A. Document and institutionalize an approach to managing code conflicts by establishing guidance related to what codes generally supersede other requirements (e.g., safety over aesthetics) and a process for resolving conflicts given certain conditions, to reduce staff time involved in mediations.
B. Revise the code development and revision process to incorporate review and discussion with other workgroups involved in the permitting process, to promote consistency and understand potential impacts to other departments.
The City is characterized by dense urban development in both commercial and residential areas.
Often, parcels are relatively small, especially for the number of regulations that they are each subject to. As a result of high levels of regulation and space constraints, staff noted that there are sometimes situations where all codes cannot be upheld. For example, RRR requires trash enclosures of a specified size depending on the building use, square footage, and/or occupancy; however, the Planning division also requires a certain number of parking spots for the building depending on similar requirements. While these requirements can be architecturally adjusted for on a new build, they can pose challenges on existing buildings where both codes cannot be upheld due to size constraints.
Similarly, the Planning Division does not allow cross-connection water devices in front of a building, but due to state health requirements the devices must be connected to the main water source, which is sometimes in front of the building. Staff noted similar conflicts between loading zones, visual obstruction zones, parking spots, alleyways, RRR, and sewer requirements.
Currently, code conflicts are handled on a case-by-case basis. The Planning Division often mediates conflicts with the applicant and applicable City workgroups. This requires additional time on the part
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 13
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
of staff and can create greater confusion and delays on the part of customers, resulting in overall inefficiencies. City staff report that they have initiated work to institutionalize an approach to managing code conflicts by providing guidance to employees, and promotes more consistent treatment of similar issues encountered when not all codes can be adhered to. While cases are often unique and may continue to require collaboration with other City workgroups and the customer to find suitable solutions, having guidance available for staff that details how the City has historically managed conflicts should promote a more efficient resolution process. These guidelines may also include priorities of codes; for example, safety measures listed in code may supersede other potential requirements.
Each department or division has authority and responsibility over specific codes. However, staff report a lack of interdepartmental collaboration and discussion when codes are revised, which can result in unintended impacts on other existing requirements and operations outside of one work group. Code revisions typically involve community input, which can result in different community groups shaping different parts of the code, contributing to an increasingly conflicting, complex regulatory environment. Codes related to one aspect of permitting, such as Building and Safety, then have the opportunity to impact other areas such as Mobility, RRR, and OSE. Despite complex interdependencies, there is not currently a process in place for work groups involved in the permitting process to review or provide input on the proposed code.
In order to identify and prevent conflicting codes and inconsistent thresholds or definitions, the City should adopt a stakeholder review process for permitting-related code revisions and development.
This would provide the opportunity to identify potential issues with and impacts to operations of the proposed code across all permitting functions. The results of stakeholder review of the proposed code should be included in staff reports that are available to the community and City Council, to promote a complete understanding of the implications of code adoption. Ideally, this will help transition the City from adopting code revisions as an isolated process to a holistic process that considers the community, city values, and impacted City processes.
3. Observation The City’s current permitting processes are largely decentralized and operate in distinct siloes that can create confusion, processing delays, and an inconsistent customer experience.
Recommendation A. Align leadership in support of prioritizing permitting processes and create dedicated ongoing staff time to conduct plan checks in order to foster timely reviews and interdepartmental communication.
B. Implement routine cross-functional meetings for key internal stakeholders in the permitting process to ensure alignment, review performance measures to improve timeliness and customer
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 14
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
satisfaction, and proactively resolve comments or concerns in the plan check process.
C. Establish and monitor performance measures for the permit process overall and for individual workgroups, to help hold City divisions accountable for timeliness and customer service.
D. Assign a project manager to each permit application in order to facilitate the application through the process, smooth
interdepartmental communications, and serve as a point person for customer inquiries.
As noted previously, several divisions across the City are involved in the plan check process for a variety of permit types. However, most employees outside of Building and Safety have a number of other duties and obligations, which can make it challenging to prioritize plan check activities. This can contribute to delays in the permitting process; additionally, customers may reach out to the City to request an update on their plan check or try to expedite the review, which creates additional work for Permit Specialists who receive and respond to these inquiries.
Permit Specialists are responsible for responding to general customer inquiries, completing a quality check to ensure applications are complete, identifying different thresholds to guide the plan check process, assessing fees, and entering customer data into Accela and Project Dox. However, once the permit application leaves their queue and is assigned to the applicable workgroups for review, there is no longer a Department or employee responsible for shepherding the permit through the process or identifying delays. Staff report that when a customer is experiencing delays, they often try to contact someone at the City to nudge whatever Department/Division(s) have stalled the process. While the Community Development Department is often seen as “owning” the permit process, in reality the Department is dependent on the cooperation and timeliness of other City workgroups.
The input of other workgroups is critical to the plan check process due to the expertise offered in different areas across the organization; however, there should be alignment and accountability across departments to facilitate a streamlined customer experience. In the internal staff survey, less than half (41%) of respondents reported excellent or good interdepartmental coordination and fewer still (35%) reported excellent or good interdepartmental communication. This represents an opportunity for improvement—not only for customers but also for City employees involved in permitting.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
3% 38% 29% 21% 9%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 15
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
In accordance with the City’s “A Plan for the Future,” economic recovery is a key focus for the newly formed Community Development Department. However, the Department cannot embark on this goal alone; this requires cooperation and collaboration from other stakeholder departments across the City to improve the permitting process, thereby supporting the establishment of new small businesses.
Ultimately, City leadership as a whole must decide that efficient permitting and customer service is a high priority in order to influence the priorities of other divisions and improve the permitting process.
In order to achieve this, the City should consider the following:
Leadership alignment and support of revising permitting processes, including prioritization and dedication of staff time to plan check. For example, the Fire Department has three employees who are able to conduct plan check processes and do so during assigned dates and times during the week, which carves out time for these activities and provides consistency in turnaround times. Other departments or divisions that do not currently have this in place should consider dedicating specific time to plan check activities to proactively address customer needs. Overall, this message should come from department leadership and reinforce the importance of the City’s permitting process to the broader Santa Monica community.
Additionally, if employees are able to align around a certain time or date for plan review processes, there can be a short debrief meeting on a weekly basis to resolve potential conflicts and foster interdepartmental communication about a plan. Implement routine cross-functional meetings for key stakeholders in the permitting process to ensure alignment, review performance measures to improve timeliness and customer satisfaction, and proactively resolve comments or concerns in the plan check process. Customers often noted that some plan check comments were contradictory, which may be the result of conflicting codes noted in Recommendation #2 or confusion related to who is responsible for reviewing which components of code (see Recommendation #6). These meetings should work to proactively resolve these conflicts, review established performance measures for the permit process as a whole, and review individual workgroup data to reinforce accountability and dedication to revising the permit process.
Establish and monitor performance measures for the permit process overall and for individual workgroups, to help hold City divisions accountable for timeliness and customer service. Within the existing system, the Department is able to track which division(s) complete plan checks on time based on the permit type; this information was provided as part of this study and is included in Observation #5. However, the City does not currently use this information to hold divisions accountable for meeting plan check deadlines. In addition to monitoring timeliness, the City should also consider establishing customer service performance measures (see Recommendation #11) for divisions involved in the permitting process, from plan check to inspection. This should reinforce a service philosophy (see Recommendation #9) and promote service enhancements at the core of the recommendations included in this study. Assign a project manager to each permit to monitor the permit application’s status in plan check and inspection processes and serve as a point-person for customer inquiries. 6% 29% 29% 21% 15%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 16
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Customers noted challenges in reaching an employee at the City who has accountability and authority over their permit application, resulting in significant frustration. Therefore, the City should assign a project manager to each permit application. In the absence of a comprehensive permitting system, this employee should set up automatic reminders when an application is approaching its due date and be responsible for nudging other divisions that have not yet conducted their review. The assigned project manager should be consistent for all plan check revisions and serve as a key contact for the customer, supporting timely inspections and scheduling. This is often a function housed in planning, but could also be assigned to a Building and Safety employee, Permit Specialist, or newly formed project manager positions. Regardless of where the project manager resides, it is imperative that other division staff acknowledge the employee’s role and responsibility and are responsive accordingly. Additionally, these positions must be adequately staffed in order to fulfill their intended role as customer liaison.
Overall, the ability to streamline the permitting process and serve the community requires cross-departmental collaboration and dedication.
4. Observation The City uses multiple systems in the permitting process that require duplicative, manual entry of data by both customers and City staff. Staff are unable to provide fee estimates for customers, and there is a risk that plans are not routed to the appropriate divisions for review.
Recommendation Invest in a comprehensive permitting system that guides customers through the permit application process, eliminates the need for manual entry, and allows for customization of workflows in accordance with City requirements.
The City leverages five different systems, in addition to email, for permit-related purposes. These systems, including the types of permits each system is used for, are summarized in the following table.
INVENTORY OF SYSTEMS USED IN RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL BUSINESS
PERMITTING PROCESSES
System Name Permit Types Notes
Accela Fire sprinklers (deferred submittals), excavation permit, offsites, temporary no parking, all
building and safety permits
Requires manual entry into Accela
system from .pdf forms
Project Dox All building and safety permits Requires manual entry and plan upload from Accela; routes plans
for plan check
Citygrows Temporary use of public property, oversize load Part of initiative to support local restaurants during COVID-19
pandemic
HdL Prime Business licensing and other business-related permits
No integration with Accela or
Project Dox
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 17
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
INVENTORY OF SYSTEMS USED IN RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL BUSINESS
PERMITTING PROCESSES
Open Counter Permits moving to this system include
excavation permits, offsites, and temporary no
parking
The two primary systems used in building and construction permitting processes are Accela and Project Dox. Accela is used as the official permit record, while Project Dox routes plans to the various applicable workgroups for plan check. However, these two systems are not integrated, which requires duplicative manual entry into both systems.
Permit Specialists manually input redundant customer information submitted on the .pdf application into both Project Dox and Accela, review the plans for completeness, and assign a workflow based on the permit type and thresholds in Project Dox. Through Project Dox, plans are routed to the applicable workgroups for review. Due to code complexity, staff involved in the permitting process report that they are sometimes routed plans that do not require their review or are not routed plans that do require their review. This indicates that the workflows established in Project Dox may require revision, and Permit Specialists would benefit from clearer guidance and/or simplification of plan check requirements. In addition, permit fees are not currently assessed or accurately estimated until the end of the permit process due to the uncertainty caused by complex requirements and additional plans, permits, or fees that may be required for a project.
The use of two disparate permitting systems can impact communication among City divisions involved in the permitting process. For example, final inspections and certifications of occupancy are issued in Accela, but access to information and reporting in this system has not been optimized by user departments. This can cause challenges in providing a seamless customer experience. If a project triggers a Waste Management Plan (i.e., has a value of at least $50,000 or impacts 1,000+ square feet), customers are required to provide a Performance Security deposit to RRR that can be refunded within 30 days of project conclusion. However, RRR reports that is does not have access to reports stating that a certificate of occupancy has been issued for a project, therefore customers must be aware of the opportunity to pursue their refund. As a result, staff report that many customers forget about their Performance Security deposit, which increases the overall cost of permitting for customers and creates challenges in effectively managing these funds.
During restructuring, the Community Development Department’s dedicated Information Systems Department support position was eliminated. This position was largely responsible for facilitating changes and upgrades to Accela, the City’s primary permit system. In the absence of this support, staff report challenges in using the system to its full potential. Despite these challenges, City staff appear to be moderately pleased with the existing permitting systems, as noted in the following survey response.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 18
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
How would you rate the following aspects of the City’s building permitting process, based on your experience?
PERMIT SYSTEMS EFFICACY (ACCELA, PROJECT DOX)
Staff and customers report that the user experience of the current electronic plan review application process is confusing and redundant. Customers are required to register in Citizen Access, which requires details related to the customer and permit in order to create a permit number. Then, the customer downloads a .pdf application from the City’s website, completes the application, and uploads it into Project Dox, which requires several more clicks than many customers anticipate to complete. Permit Specialists often receive phone calls asking questions about this process or the status of their application, which may not have been completed due to user interface shortcomings.
This can result in significant frustration on the part of customers, in particular given the inability to provide in-person support during the COVID-19 pandemic. In both focus groups and the customer survey, customers reported significant challenges in navigating the online application process. As noted in the survey response below, over half of respondents reported that submitting plans was somewhat or very difficult. Not only does an inefficient system with a poor user interface impact customer satisfaction, it also creates additional work for customers and for City staff who respond to customer inquiries and enter information into the systems.
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE EASE OF SUBMITTING PLANS FOR REVIEW? The City should invest in a e-permitting system solution that incorporates permitting simplification and the process revisions noted within this report. Several comprehensive permitting system solutions now exist in the marketplace as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and shifts to remote work for municipalities. In order to be successful, the system solution should address the following:
Integration with existing City systems
User-friendly interface with the ability to complete applications online and guide applicants through the process for their plan type
Ability to provide real-time updates to customers on their plan check status Centralization of permitting applications and processes Customization to meet unique City requirements, both initially and over the course of subsequent years
9% 31% 37% 14% 9%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
7% 16% 14% 27% 36%
Very easy Somewhat easy Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat difficult Very difficult
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 19
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Ability to review plans concurrently and add reviewers in the plan check process Plan check comment resolution tracking
Because there are a number of City workgroups involved in the permitting process from a variety of perspectives, the cross-functional team developed as a component of Recommendation #1 should remain involved for the system selection and process work. To realize the intended benefits of a comprehensive permit system solution, is it imperative that system implementation aligns closely with process revision work and involves the appropriate stakeholders across the City. Timely engagement of stakeholders is critical for system and process design, as well as buy-in and change management.
Finally, the relationship between the City’s Information Systems Department and Community Development Department must be strengthened and exhibit proactive, two-way communication for system implementation and process redesign to be successful.
System implementation and process redesign requires significant staff time and effort, especially given the cross-functional nature of permitting. Therefore, the City will need to augment existing resources temporarily in order to enable sufficient resource dedication to this process. For additional information, please see Observation #5: Staffing Levels.
5. Observation Staffing cuts have resulted in reliance on a limited number of key employees and ultimately, negatively impacted the ability of City employees to process permits in a timely manner.
Recommendations A. Ensure every workgroup involved in plan check has at least two employees trained to complete the review required for their function.
B. Augment existing staffing levels through temporary employees or contracting out portions of the plan check process to enable City employees sufficient time to dedicate to process and system redesign.
C. Following the process and system redesign efforts, reassess employee workloads across workgroups involved in the permitting process and adjust accordingly for revised roles and
responsibilities across and within divisions.
D. Establish a prioritized list of positions across the City to support and expedite the permitting process for customers.
As a result of restructuring in spring 2020, staffing levels City-wide were reduced by approximately 20%, including roles in each division involved in the permitting process and at least 16 planning-related positions in Community Development. The impact of staffing cuts has been felt across the City; as positions in other work groups were eliminated, workloads for existing staff increased and responsibilities shifted among remaining personnel. Additionally, City operations (with the exception of essential services such as Police, Fire, and Public Works) were required to transition to a remote operating model as of March 13, 2020 in response to Shelter-in-Place orders. As a result of these COVID-19 impacts, staff report extended delays in the permitting process and high
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 20
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
workloads. In order to evaluate these claims, we assessed the customer volume, number and type of permit applications, and the average turnaround time for the last three fiscal years (FYs 2018–2020), as shown in the following table.
Although customers were no longer able to be served in person starting March 13, 2020, only the Permit Specialists experienced an increase in call volume based on available data. This is consistent with staff reports of elevated workloads for Permit Specialists, who are responsible for responding to general inquiries and the intake of permits. Two Permit Specialist positions were eliminated during restructuring, which has likely had a detrimental impact on customer service since Summer 2020.
VOLUME OF CUSTOMERS SERVED FY2018–20
Division
FY2018–19 FY2019–20
Call Volume
In-Person
Customers
Served
Call Volume In-Person
Customers Served*
Permit Specialist 8,221 6,791 8,882 5,000
Building and
Safety 59,300 5,597 56,273 4,387
Planning 8,817 5,476 6,086 3,872
*The City’s Permitting Center was no longer operating in person as of March 13, 2020 in accordance with Shelter-In-Place restrictions.
We also evaluated the total number of new permit applications excluding applications resubmitted with plan check corrections over the last three fiscal years. Overall, the City experienced a 9% decrease in the number of new permit applications received between calendar years 2018–2020.
However, major plan review for residential, commercial, and mixed-use purposes increased in all three categories; these plan reviews are larger, more complex, and typically require additional time and work groups to complete. Therefore, despite an overall decrease in the total number of new permit applications, that figure alone does not necessarily represent a reduction in workload for employees involved in the permitting process. The results of this analysis are included in the table below.
NUMBER OF NEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY PLAN TYPE FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2018–2020 Plan Type 2018 2019 2020 Difference (#) Difference
(%)
Residential
No Plans 2,282 2121 1169 -1,113 -49
OTC 343 396 795 +452 132
Minor 40 413 410 +370 925
Medium 550 707 624 +74 13
Major 22 26 60 +38 173
SFR 104 99 90 -14 -13
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 21
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
NUMBER OF NEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY PLAN TYPE FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2018–2020 Total 3,341 3,762 3,148 -193 -6
Commercial
No Plans 438 220 178 -260 -59
OTC 242 272 253 +11 5
Minor 21 159 143 +122 581
Medium 533 445 318 -215 -40
Major 21 54 60 +39 186
Total 1,255 1,152 952 -303 -24
Mixed Use
No Plans 3 3 14 +11 367
OTC 2 1 9 +7 350
Minor 2 11 6 +4 200
Medium 25 24 31 +6 24
Major 9 18 33 +24 267
Total 41 57 93 +52 127
Web
Plumbing 99 40 136 +37 37
Total 4,736 5,009 4,329 -407 -9
The City’s permitting website includes estimated plan review timelines based on permit types. These timelines were used in our timeliness assessment to determine whether or not the City was meeting the expected turnaround times for initial and subsequent review for different plan types. However, this analysis does not take total time from permit application to issuance into consideration; customers report that there are often multiple rounds of review that can delay permit timelines. Staff report that applicants have a 100% failure rate on the first round of plan review, which results in multiple rounds of review prior to permit issuance. The posted turnaround times are as follows:
Plan Review Type Turnaround Time
Same-Day 1 day
Minor Plan Review ● Initial review: 5 days
● Subsequent review: 3 days
Single-Family Residential Plan Review ● Initial review: 4 weeks ● Subsequent review: 2 weeks
Medium Plan Review ● Initial review: 3 weeks
● Subsequent review: 2 weeks
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 22
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Plan Review Type Turnaround Time
Major Plan Review ● Initial review: 5 weeks
● Subsequent review: 3 weeks
The table below shows the average number of days the City required to complete plan check for an applicant’s initial submittal of plans. On average, the City meets its published time expectations for initial plan review. One exception to this is the timeline for minor plans, which were nearly double the time expected for residential minor permit applications in FY2020. Additionally, with the exception of Major Residential plan checks, all plan check processes (regardless of purpose or size) tend to take longer to complete. For example, the turnaround for single-family residences (SFR) and medium commercial projects increased by over four days between FY2018 and FY2020.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS FOR COMPLETION OF PLAN CHECK –
FIRST SUBMITTAL OF PLANS
Plan Type
Time
Expectation 2018 2019 2020
Year Over
Year
Difference (#)
Residential
Minor 5 days 9.3 days 6.6 days 9.9 days 0.6
Medium 21 days 17.4 days 19.0 days 20.7 days 3.3
Major 37 days 28.2 days 37.5 days 24.9 days -3.3
SFR 30 days 23.7 days 20.5 days 28 days 4.3
Commercial
Minor 5 days 4.2 days 6.4 days 6.7 days 2.5
Medium 21 days 12.1 days 15.9 days 16.2 days 4.1
Major 37 days 23.7 days 22.4 days 23.9 days 0.2
The table below shows the average number of days the City required to complete subsequent plan check for plans that were resubmitted with corrections. Similar to initial plan review timelines, the City typically meets its established time expectations for subsequent plan reviews, with the exception of minor plans. However, plan checks tend to take longer to complete for about half of plan types, including minor residential plans, which have grown significantly more common in recent years.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 23
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS FOR COMPLETION OF PLAN CHECK –
SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS OF PLANS
Plan Type Time
Expectation 2018 2019 2020 Difference (#)
Residential
Minor 3 days 1.3 days 3.8 days 6.0 days 4.7
Medium 14 days 9.3 days 10.8 days 10.0 days 0.7
Major 21 days 16.9 days 14.2 days 14.3 days -2.6
SFR 14 days 13.2 days 12.6 days 13.1 days -0.1
Commercial
Minor 3 days 5.8 days 2.9 days 4.6 days -1.2
Medium 14 days 7.4 days 8.1 days 9.7 days 2.3
Major 21 days 13.8 days 13 days 14.1 days 0.3
While the data above demonstrates that the City frequently meets posted turnaround times, it is not holistic data from application date to approved permit. The number of subsequent reviews completed to secure an approved plan is not included in the timing analysis above; ultimately the number of reviews can stem from factors such as unclear requirements, conflicting or unclear plan check comments, or customers not correcting issues in resubmittals. Many small businesses reported that permitting requires approximately a year to accomplish, while residential customers expressed dissatisfaction in weeks or months of delay to secure a permit for minor items such as window or roof replacements. In the customer survey, the majority of respondents rated permit turnaround times, response times, and the level of communication with City employees as terrible or poor.
PROCESSING/TURNAROUND TIME
STAFF RESPONSE TIME
5% 7% 15% 18% 55%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
3% 13% 18% 22% 44%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 24
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY
Without a significant change in processes and systems to increase the efficiency of permitting, delays will continue to present timeliness and responsiveness concerns. From a staffing perspective, there are several keys to supporting greater efficiency and effectiveness of the permitting process. These are detailed below.
Cross Training
Typically, departments/divisions assign plans to a team of people that can complete the plan check process. For example, the Fire Department has three FTEs who complete plan checks and inspections, in addition to a myriad of other department-specific duties. In contrast, the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) has three employees that each look at one different aspect of code: Water Neutrality, Green Building and Landscaping, and Net Zero Energy. This separation of duties can result in delays in the permitting process and challenges in responding to customer inquiries.
As a result of City restructuring, there may be workgroups involved in plan check processes where staff have absorbed these responsibilities from employees who are no longer with the City, or where the total number of employees able to complete plan check has been reduced. Each workgroup involved in the plan check process should ensure that at least two employees are able to conduct plan check for the applicable code(s) their unit is responsible for. This provides greater depth within existing staff and coverage for employee absences. Additionally, as noted in Recommendation #3, each workgroup should also consider reserving time for plan check processing, similar to the Fire Department, to ensure employees have sufficient time to regularly dedicate to these duties.
Short-Term Staffing Needs
Given the existing staff shortages, it is unlikely that this critical work can be accomplished using existing resources while also continuing ongoing permitting activities for customers. The work required to implement the recommendations in this report is urgent, aligns with economic recovery, and will require significant staff resources; consequently, the City should temporarily augment its existing staffing through limited-term employees or contracting out a portion of the work, if feasible.
The City should consider adding temporary limited-term staffing to enable the time and space for existing employees to engage in recommendation implementation. These positions may include a Building and Safety Permit Specialist, Assistant Planner, and Senior Plan Check Engineer.
Alternatively, the City’s “A Plan for the Future” includes a provision that allows using supplemental contract services to ensure response times are appropriately aligned with the urgency of the situation, to help with workload increases associated with economic recovery. However, contracting this work out will require a meet and confer with the bargaining group that represents the majority of positions involved in permitting.
3% 8% 22% 24% 43%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 25
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Long-Term Staffing Needs
Throughout the municipal code, process, and system revisions noted in this report, roles and responsibilities across City departments and divisions are likely to shift. Therefore, the City should conduct a staffing level analysis based on the revised workflows to determine the appropriate level of resources given these shifts. Given the City’s limited resources, the analysis should consider how existing roles may be repurposed to meet new requirements where feasible, and a prioritized list of positions should be prepared to help fill adjusted or new roles. To guide this analysis, the City (including Community Development and other City workgroups) should consider the respective roles and responsibilities of each department and division in the permitting process, For example:
During the municipal code and process review, the City may opt to consolidate plan review functions where appropriate. These areas should be noted and staffing levels adjusted accordingly.
The employee classification responsible for adopting the project manager role for each permit application, to serve as a point person for customers with questions and usher the permit through the process, as noted in Recommendation #3. This represents new work that currently does not exist within the City’s permitting process and therefore will require additional staff capacity to perform this function.
6. Observation No comprehensive guidance or checklists for the permitting process currently exist to guide staff in their roles, and customers report inconsistencies related to customer service and code interpretations in plan check and inspection processes.
Recommendation Develop written guidance, checklists, and training to support City employees in providing a consistent experience and direction to customers.
Workgroups involved in permitting have a wide variety of employee and customer guidance available to facilitate the plan check process. Each workgroup’s level of documentation and written guidance varies in both content and format, which may suit their unique needs. For example, some departments have requirements embedded in plan check applications, while others have additional policy and procedure guidelines for employees. Only the Mobility Division had a comprehensive checklist to support the plan check function.
Inconsistent staff guidance can create complications for the permit intake process and variations in how plan checks are performed by different employees within departments. Ultimately, inconsistency in the permitting processes increases the time to complete a project, increases costs, negatively impacts customer service, and has the potential to create gaps that could pose hazards to the community. In the employee survey, 26% of respondents reported that clarity of expectations in the permitting process was poor or terrible, with no respondents indicating this as “excellent.” Additionally, two-thirds (67%) of respondents to the customer survey reported roles and responsibilities in the permitting process as poor or terrible.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 26
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
EMPLOYEE SURVEY: CLARITY OF EXPECTATIONS
CUSTOMER SURVEY: CLARITY OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE PROCESS Customers report significant inconsistencies in terms of code interpretations and inspection directions. This has a detrimental impact on the clarity and transparency of requirements, contributing to multiple plan resubmittals, which further delays the process. For small businesses, all delays negatively impact their financial position since typically businesses make monthly lease payments, regardless of their stage in the permitting process. Furthermore, multiple customers in focus groups expressed frustration with the City’s inspection process, citing inconsistent directions depending on the inspector assigned and incomplete information given at the time of an inspection. This causes rework and additional delays in the process to complete a project and secure a permit, whether residential or commercial. In the customer survey, approximately half of respondents reported poor or terrible consistency in plan check comments (56%) or inspection feedback (42%).
CONSISTENCY IN PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
CONSISTENCY IN INSPECTION FEEDBACK
34% 40% 20% 6%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
4% 13% 16% 28% 39%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
6% 12% 26% 26% 30%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
8% 21% 29% 14% 28%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 27
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
To ameliorate these frustrations, the City should clarify the code requirements as a component of Recommendation #1. Following this, management for each area should work with staff to provide guidance on the interpretation of code and reinforce the City’s role as a facilitator of the permitting process rather than a gatekeeper.
In addition to updating policy and procedure documentation, each workgroup should develop new or update existing checklists and criteria detailing what needs to be reviewed during pre-submittal, plan check, and inspection. These checklists will help guide staff, can be used as a comprehensive training tool, and support a reliable experience for permit applicants. Use of a checklist also removes elements of subjectivity during each portion of the permitting process, holding applicants to the same consistent standards.
7. Observation Streamlining the permitting process will require significant change across a broad group of stakeholders, including City Council, leadership, and employees, as well as the community, in order to be successful.
Recommendation Leverage a change management framework to effectively engage key stakeholders, communicate the need for and impact of change, and support accountability for adopting changes.
The City as a whole has undergone significant change over the last year, including budget and staffing cuts and transitioning to a remote operating environment. The recommendations included within this report represent another significant change to the permitting process, which has been challenging for customers for many years. In order to achieve successful implementation of these recommendations, several key stakeholders must be engaged throughout the change process, including:
City Council and the community
City leadership
City employees involved in the permitting process
According to a survey conducted by Management Concepts, one of the primary keys to success in any change initiative in the public sector is aligning the change effort to mission-critical goals1.
Therefore, the link between the permitting process and the local economic recovery efforts the City is currently focusing on should be clearly articulated to provide broad support for the change effort, in particular with City Council and the community. To support success, City leadership should define the priorities of the change initiative and intended outcomes, including performance measures to monitor progress as implementation occurs. The reason for and desired outcomes of the change should be 1 Successful Change Management Practices in the Public Sector: How governmental agencies implement organization change management https://www.govexec.com/assets/sponsored-change-management-practices.pdf
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 28
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
clear and agreed upon to support the City in gaining buy-in and support from the many stakeholders involved in the process.
In order to appropriately engage each stakeholder group, City leadership should create a cross-functional Steering Committee, led by a project sponsor from within the Community Development Department or the City Manager’s Office. The Steering Committee should involve stakeholders from each impacted workgroup, the City Attorney’s Office, and Information Systems Department to support a collaborative, unified effort. Employees selected for inclusion in the committee should be engaged and demonstrate a willingness to collaborate and break down existing siloes between functions. The Steering Committee should be responsible for enacting changes, monitoring progress of the change plan, and developing communication materials that provide regular progress updates to City leadership and interested employees.
The table below shows the respective roles and responsibilities of each party in the change management process required for permit process streamlining to be effective.
Stakeholder Group Roles and Responsibilities
City Council and
Community
● Define permitting process streamlining as critical to local economic recovery efforts ● Provide resources as necessary to support streamlining efforts ● Provide input on proposed municipal code revisions with particular attention on the impacts of permit applicants
● Accept code revisions
City Leadership ● Establish a Steering Committee comprised of engaged representatives across involved City departments and divisions
● Define the vision and goals for permitting process streamlining, including Key Performance Indicators to monitor and communicate progress toward goals ● Demonstrate commitment and dedicate resources as required to support permitting streamlining and ongoing processes
● Communicate the need and goals for change to department staff ● Recognize staff for enacting changes consistent with recommendations Steering
Committee
● Develop an implementation plan to guide change, including timelines, roles, and report-outs
● Engage meaningfully with other Committee members to rethink historical practices ● Maintain a customer-centric focus
● Execute the implementation plan in collaboration with other City employees and third-party vendors as applicable
● Monitor and communicate progress on the implementation plan ● Develop regular communication materials for City leadership and employees City Employees ● Demonstrate a willingness to adjust processes ● Engage in the process as requested
● Enact changes consistent with streamlining recommendations and updated processes
There are a number of frameworks the City can use to guide them throughout the change management process. Some well-known frameworks that may be effective for the City in this
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 29
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
particular engagement include Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model2, which involves the following components:
1. Create a sense of urgency: This step includes defining the need for change across all stakeholder groups and unifying around the intended outcomes of supporting local economic recovery, as noted above.
2. Build a guiding coalition: The Steering Committee appointed by City leadership represents the guiding coalition for this process and serves to guide, coordinate, and communicate change-related activities.
3. Form a strategic vision and initiatives: This step of change management breaks down the ultimate goal of the change into easily understood and distinct, though connected, initiatives or “steps” in the process. This may be a component of the implementation plan.
4. Enlist a volunteer army: As appropriate, Steering Committee members should engage employees within their work groups as they relate to elements of proposed change that impact them and their work, with the goal of moving everything in the same direction as established by City leadership and the Steering Committee.
5. Enable action by removing barriers: This step of the change process includes approaching the permit process with an open mind by letting go of historical practices, hierarchies, and siloed approaches to code development and plan check. This process provides an opportunity to rethink how the City serves the community with respect to permitting, while still acknowledging the subject matter expertise housed within each department and division currently involved in the process.
6. Generate short-term wins: As changes are agreed upon and improvements become apparent, the Steering Committee should communicate these results to spur additional employee engagement and motivation to change.
7. Sustain acceleration: As it becomes apparent that changes will be implemented, the Steering Committee should continue to build on its successes by demonstrating improvements and institutionalizing new processes through the system implementation, roll-out, policies, procedures, and other forms of employee and customer guidance. This may also include the development and implementation of a service philosophy (Recommendation #9).
8. Institute change: Reinforce the new expectations, such as role changes and process adoption, for City employees through performance metrics, performance evaluations, and ongoing opportunities to solicit customer feedback. At the City leadership and City Council level, report back on the Key Performance Indicators used to monitor progress toward agreed-upon goals.
The City may implement a different change management model that better suits its culture or unique needs in regard to this initiative; at the heart of any success change management initiative is the ability to engage and secure buy-in from the people involved in the process. 2 https://www.kotterinc.com/8-steps-process-for-leading-change/
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 30
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
8. Observation The City’s unique regulations require extended permitting timelines, elevated fees, and expensive capital outlays for customers to comply, which has a disproportionately negative impact on small businesses in the community.
Recommendation A. Update the definition of small businesses in the municipal code to reflect current socioeconomic expectations and support localized economic recovery efforts.
B. Consider providing additional exemptions or granting funds to assist small businesses in complying with unique code requirements.
C. Consider expediting the permitting process and reducing associated fees for qualifying small businesses in order to support local economic recovery.
As noted throughout this report, the complexity and requirements established within the Municipal Code have the potential to negatively impact existing and incoming small businesses. Staff report that permitting requirements are often particularly challenging to navigate when there is a change in proposed use for an existing space, which triggers additional requirements, layers of review, time to complete the permitting process, and cost. This can be detrimental to small businesses that lack the resources to facilitate their plans through the permitting process and may have already secured a space that must be paid for while the permitting process is underway. While local regulations reflect Santa Monica community values, they can be challenging for small businesses to comply with due to elevated costs through both unanticipated fees, time to approve plans, and operational requirements established in municipal code. For example, if restaurants are required to transition to operate allelectric kitchens, there is a significant up-front expense associated with making that change to existing restaurants.
As the City focuses on local economic recovery, cost and complexity barriers have the potential to negatively impact the small business community in the City through multiple plan revisions, complexities in operating requirements, and elevated fees. Therefore, the City should consider how to create priorities and better support small businesses throughout the permitting process and the subsequent impacts of regulatory changes. For example, the City could consider granting expedited permits for qualifying small businesses and/or reducing associated fees in order to assist the establishment of new small businesses. Additionally, the City could provide short or long-term exemptions from the high-cost code requirements for small businesses, or, alternatively, provide grant funding to help locally owned small businesses comply with these unique code requirements.
Additionally, the City’s current definition of what qualifies as a small business (and what is therefore exempt from certain requirements and fees) is outdated. According to MC 6.04.025b, a small business is defined as a business operating within the City that has total taxable and nontaxable annual gross receipts of less than $40,000. In the nearby City of Los Angeles, this figure is $100,000.
Given the high cost of operations within the City, most small businesses are unlikely to qualify for exemptions since they would likely not be able to maintain sufficient cash flow to be operational. To
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 31
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
support small businesses in the City, the municipal code should be updated to reflect the current economic environment and operating costs required to maintain a business within City limits. This should increase the number of small businesses that are eligible for tax exemptions and other forms of local financial assistance, ultimately supporting local economic recovery.
9. Observation Customers report a perception that the City operates as a gatekeeper, rather than a facilitator, of the permitting process.
Recommendation A. Develop a service philosophy for the permitting process and reframe the City’s role as a partner to the community.
B. Support City staff in adopting the service philosophy and cultural shift to proactively support small businesses and residential customers through the complete permitting process, by providing training and reinforcing accountability.
In both focus groups and survey results, customers reported a perception that the City operates primarily as a gatekeeper rather than facilitator of the permitting process. The survey response below shows a large variation in the perceived level of professionalism and courtesy of administrative and counter staff; nearly every possible category shares approximately 20% of responses, with a higher concentration of respondents reporting this as “good” or “average.” Responses to the customer perception of staff knowledge and helpfulness are similarly distributed, with a larger concentration of respondents reporting their experience as “terrible” or “average.”
PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND COUNTER STAFF
STAFF KNOWLEDGE AND HELPFULNESS IN HANDLING YOUR PERMIT APPLICATION
AND QUESTIONS
Given the City’s history of strong economic success, customers reported feeling that they were at the whim of the City with little recourse apart from escalating concerns up the chain of command. Now 18% 26% 24% 17% 15%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
12% 22% 23% 18% 25%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 32
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
that the City has experienced financial hardships both internally and across the community, the relationship between the City’s financial success and the local business community’s success has been made clearer. Staff report significant turnover of small businesses as a result of COVID-19 restrictions; if the City wishes to replace these businesses with other independently owned small businesses, it will need to adopt a service philosophy that centers around the customer and guides them through the process.
Several other cities have created service philosophies specific to the permitting process; some examples are provided below:
City of Lacey, Washington: “Our philosophy is to provide assistance as early as possible in the design process to facilitate the application review process, to make your project viable, efficient, and cost-effective, while meeting all of the mandated code requirements.” Garden City, Georgia: “…Our philosophy is to continuously provide open communication and responsiveness during the review process of all permit applications. Although the mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable codes, permits, and regulations can be cumbersome and complicated, they do not have to be open-ended and unclear for developers, consultants, contractors, and property owners.”
City of Santa Clarita, California: “Fairness, equality, and the highest standard of professional ethics are our goal in providing our services to the community. The successful completion of your project is important to the City of Santa Clarita, and we will work closely with you toward that end.”
The Steering Committee, with support from City leadership, should develop a permit service philosophy that defines how the City intends to serve its customers. This philosophy should represent a shift required to support local economic recovery efforts, with particular focus on small businesses to consequently reinvigorate economic activity. Additionally, City leadership should integrate the service philosophy into the processes and interactions staff have with customers. This can be done through trainings and would ideally be incorporated into employee performance appraisals for accountability purposes.
10. Finding The City’s primary permitting website is not customer-centric and provides inconsistent levels of information on regulatory requirements that are challenging to find and understand.
Recommendation A. Redesign the Community Development permitting website to be customer focused and provide the appropriate resources for customers.
B. To improve customer service, create simplified permit guides for each type of permit using layman’s terms and include applicable requirements, anticipated response time, and estimated fees.
C. Consider developing video tutorials that explain City-specific requirements for frequent permit types.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 33
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Given the level of complexity involved in the City’s permitting process, customers require clear guidance on requirements. Several years ago, the Building and Safety Division developed cover sheets for each unique permit type that provide links to the Municipal Code or department webpages.
There are often eight to ten different City departments and divisions involved in the permitting process, but the City currently lacks a standardized mechanism to communicate City-specific requirements to customers. For example, some links are to the Municipal Code chapter that details many specific requirements for different building types, while others are links to other City webpages that may have a subsequent link to customer guidance. This presents significant challenges for both small business and residential customers who are not as familiar with permitting or construction/architectural jargon. Rather than providing all relevant requirements for a specific type of customer or permit, the customer must seek the information from a variety of sources that present information differently. As noted previously, staff report that the City has a 100% failure rate on the first round of plan review, which indicates the need for customer education in order to support their success.
The Community Development Department website contains a significant amount of information, but is organized by division rather than from the customer lens. There are currently over 40 project types listed on the website and matrices that link information related to what plan elements are required, the timelines for review, and the requirements each project type is subject to. Notably missing from each plan type is a fee estimate for the permit, which can also cause alarm for customers when they submit plans and again at the end of the process when the permit is issued. In the customer survey, 57% of respondents reported the availability of relevant information on the website as poor or terrible, indicating a need for an enhanced user experience.
AVAILABILITY OF RELEVANT INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE
As part of the permit streamlining process, the Steering Committee should develop a standardized template for customer handouts and guides for each permit type. Departments and divisions responsible for checking each area of code should draft guidance to customers and include references to applicable codes, fees, and regulations. To support understandability and transparency, technical employees should work with an editor to relay requirements in a way that is customer friendly. Ultimately, these guides should provide consistent and complete information for customers.
In addition to posting these guides on the City’s permitting website, the Community Development Department should work with the Information Systems Department to redesign the website to be customer centric. This includes creating a webpage that is easy to navigate, understand, and retrieve information from. There can be webpages for different permit types that include customer guides, FAQs, fees, and potentially a video tutorial to relay any unique City requirements for that permit type.
This all promotes accessibility to information for customers and will hopefully reduce the number of 3% 11% 28% 26% 32%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 34
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
questions routed to Permit Specialists about the process, thereby increasing efficiencies for both customers and City staff.
11. Observation The City currently lacks a formal customer feedback mechanism to understand how well it serves different types of customers.
Recommendation Develop and implement a simple yet meaningful process to solicit, collect, and analyze customer feedback on the permitting process to facilitate ongoing continuous improvement.
Currently, the City lacks a formal customer feedback mechanism to understand customer pain points and evaluate overall satisfaction. In lieu of this data, staff interviewed for this study reported anecdotal information about the shortcomings of the permitting process and customer hardships. However, this information was not collected or shared in a way that spurred significant changes in the process, and often resulted in managerial intervention to push a permit application through the process. Anecdotal information shared with Moss Adams was echoed in the small business owner focus groups and the customer survey (included in Appendix B).
Community Development staff should work with permitting staff involved in daily operations to identify a realistic and meaningful way to request, collect, and analyze feedback from customers on their experience in the permitting process. This could be a short survey sent at the end of certain types of permit activities to understand what worked well and what, if anything, the customer would like to improve. Alternatively, the Department could conduct a survey of all permit applicants on a regular (annual or biannual) process to solicit feedback and track progress on customer satisfaction.
A mechanism for feedback should focus on specific, actionable items that are within the City’s power to change. Community Development should conduct an interdepartmental work session to identify what elements of the permitting process could benefit from feedback and customer experience evaluations, structure the feedback to be collected in a way that allows staff to easily collect the data, and transform the data into useful information that can clearly identify both positive feedback and potential opportunities for improvement.
The feedback process should be easy and relatively short, and provide data that gives clear and meaningful guidance. Creating a feedback loop with permit applicants will enable the City to more precisely identify potential opportunities for improvement, proactively address emerging pain points, monitor progress on customer satisfaction (potentially using the customer survey included in this report as a baseline), and empower City staff to make meaningful, data-driven decisions.
All workgroups involved in the permitting process should convene on a quarterly basis to review survey results and identify potential improvements to the process. This will support customer and City success and promote a culture of continuous improvement.
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 35
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
APPENDIX A: EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS
An employee survey was sent out to City employees involved in the permitting process and was open for submission from February 8, 2021 through March 8, 2021. Out of the 64 employees invited to take the survey, 35 individuals submitted either full or partial responses (a participation rate of 54.7%).
Survey respondents included representatives from the following City departments/divisions:
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF THE CITY’S CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS? 29%
26%
13%
8%
6%
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
87%
92%
94%
94%
97%
97%
97%
97%
Community Development - City Planning
Community Development - Building and Safety
Public Works - Office of Sustainability and the Environment Public Works - Resource, Recovery, and Recycling
Big Blue Bus - Mobility
Public Works - Water
Fire
Public Works - Civil Engineering
Rent Control Agency
Other
No
14% 57% 20% 9%
Extremely efficient Very efficient Moderately efficient Slightly efficient Not efficient at all
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 36
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
How would you rate the following aspects of the City’s building permitting process, based on your experience?
PERMIT SYSTEMS EFFICACY (ACCELA, PROJECT DOX)
CLARITY OF EXPECTATIONS
REASONABLENESS OF TURNAROUND TIMES
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
9% 31% 37% 14% 9%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
34% 40% 20% 6%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
6% 40% 25% 23% 6%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
3% 38% 29% 21% 9%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 37
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
In the survey, employees were asked to rate their experience with other City departments/divisions as it relates to the permitting processes. The department/division that each employee reports to was excluded from their survey questions (i.e., an employee from Building and Safety was not able to provide a response about their experience working with the Building and Safety division).
Community Development - Building and Safety
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
6% 29% 29% 21% 15%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
17% 54% 25% 4%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
12% 44% 36% 8%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
13% 41% 42% 4%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 38
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
RESPONSIVENESS
Community Development – City Planning
N=20
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
13% 42% 38% 8%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
26% 26% 32% 5% 11%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
15% 35% 30% 10% 10%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
1% 45% 37% 7% 10%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
15% 40% 25% 10% 10%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 39
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Fire
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
Public Works – Resource, Recovery, and Recycling
CUSTOMER SERVICE
19% 50% 25% 6%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
25% 44% 25% 6%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
25% 44% 31%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
24% 38% 38%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
6% 18% 35% 35% 6%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 40
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
Public Works – Office of Sustainability and the Environment
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
17% 17% 22% 44%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
11% 39% 39% 11%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
11% 39% 33% 17%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
14% 43% 21% 7% 15%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
13% 53% 14% 7% 13%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 41
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
Public Works – Water
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
13% 33% 41% 13%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
13% 47% 26% 7% 7%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
18% 64% 9% 9%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
18% 55% 9% 18%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
18% 55% 9% 18%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 42
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
RESPONSIVENESS
Public Works – Civil Engineering
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
18% 55% 9% 18%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
16% 53% 21% 5% 5%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
24% 51% 10% 5% 10%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
20% 45% 25% 5% 5%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
33% 43% 14% 5% 5%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 43
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Public Works – Public Landscape
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
Big Blue Bus-Mobility
CUSTOMER SERVICE
18% 64% 18%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
25% 58% 17%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
25% 58% 17%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
25% 58% 17%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
50% 34% 8% 8%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 44
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
COMMUNICATION
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
Rent Control Agency (External)
CUSTOMER SERVICE
COMMUNICATION
38% 46% 8% 8%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
46% 39% 15%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
46% 38% 8% 8%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
30% 40% 20% 10%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
20% 50% 30%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 45
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
TIMELINESS
RESPONSIVENESS
10% 60% 20% 10%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
40% 30% 30%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 46
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
APPENDIX B: CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS
A customer survey was sent out to individuals and businesses that applied for a permit in the last three years. The survey was open for submission from March 2 through March 11. Out of the 4,784 applicants invited to take the survey, 234 applicants submitted either full or partial responses (a participation rate of 4.3%).
Which of the following best represents your role?
In your most recent permitting experience with the City of Santa Monica, did you request a permit for a residential or commercial project? 31%
35%
34%
69%
65%
66%
Property Owner
Contractor
Agent
No
Residential
81%
Commercial
19%
PROJECT TYPE
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 47
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
Which of the following best describes the residential project? Which of the following best describes the commercial project? Examples of “other” include:
Tenant improvement
EV charger
Solar PV system
In your most recent experience with the City of Santa Monica, what kind of permit did you apply for?
30%
2%
48%
14%
6%
70%
98%
52%
86%
94%
Multifamily
New multifamily
Existing single family
New single family
Other
No
16%
47%
3%
34%
84%
53%
97%
66%
Open a new business
Permit related to an
existing business
New building
Other
No
33%
49%
5%
1%
12%
67%
51%
95%
9%
88%
Single trade construction permit
Combo trade construction permit
Solar photovoltaic permit
Electric vehicle service equipment permit
Other
No
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 48
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
How did you apply for the permit?
On average, how often have you interacted with the City of Santa Monica related to permitting (applying for permits, plan reviews, inspections, etc.) in the past year?
Electronic Plan
Review
77%
Over the
counter permit
23%
APPLICATION PROCESS
26%
26%
19%
29%
74%
74%
81%
71%
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Once or twice a year
No
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 49
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
How would you rate the following, based on your overall experience with these services?
PROCESSING/TURNAROUND TIME
CLARITY OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE PROCESS
FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY
AVAILABILITY OF RELEVANT INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE
5% 7% 15% 18% 55%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
4% 13% 16% 28% 39%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
3% 8% 22% 24% 43%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
3% 11% 28% 26% 32%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 50
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
STAFF RESPONSE TIME
CONSISTENCY IN PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
CONSISTENCY IN INSPECTION FEEDBACK
PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND COUNTER STAFF
STAFF KNOWLEDGE AND HELPFULNESS IN HANDLING YOUR PERMIT APPLICATION AND QUESTIONS 3% 13% 18% 22% 44%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
6% 12% 26% 26% 30%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
8% 21% 29% 14% 28%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
18% 26% 24% 17% 15%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
12% 22% 23% 18% 25%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 51
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
During the permitting process many City Departments are often involved in plan review and inspections. How would you rate your experience with each review group?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – BUILDING AND SAFETY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS – RESOURCE, RECOVERY, AND RECYCLING
7% 21% 23% 19% 30%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
7% 20% 23% 31% 19%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
17% 33% 23% 13% 14%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
9% 20% 31% 15% 25%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 52
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
PUBLIC WORKS – OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC WORKS – CIVIL ENGINEERING
PUBLIC WORKS – PUBLIC LANDSCAPE
BIG BLUE BUS – MOBILITY
7% 21% 31% 24% 17%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
8% 20% 31% 17% 24%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
7% 32% 17% 21% 23%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
7% 27% 32% 16% 18%
Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 53
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE EASE OF SUBMITTING PLANS FOR REVIEW? How would you rate the following statements?
TURNAROUND TIME FOR INITIAL PLAN REVIEW
TURNAROUND TIME FOR SUBSEQUENT PLAN CORRECTION SUBMISSIONS
RESPONSIVENESS OF PLAN REVIEWERS
7% 16% 14% 27% 36%
Very easy Somewhat easy Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat difficult Very difficult 6% 11% 11% 16% 56%
Timely As expected Neither expeditious nor delayed Somewhat delayed Very delayed 6% 11% 12% 19% 51%
Timely As expected Neither expeditious nor delayed Somewhat delayed Very delayed 6% 17% 24% 27% 26%
Very responsive Usually responsive Sometimes responsive Hardly responsive Never responsive
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 54
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
IF A CORRECTION NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR YOUR PLAN REVIEW, WERE THE CORRECTION COMMENTS CLEAR AND CONCISE?
ARE INSPECTIONS PERFORMED PROMPTLY AS SCHEDULED?
How would you rate the following statements?
EASE OF SCHEDULING AN INSPECTION
AVAILABILITY OF BUILDING INSPECTORS WHEN YOU NEED INFORMATION 59% 41%
Yes No
51% 42% 7%
Always Sometimes Never
29% 22% 29% 11% 9%
Very easy Somewhat easy Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat difficult Very difficult 18% 19% 30% 25% 8%
Very available Usually available Sometimes available Hardly available Never available
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting Permitting Efficiency Study Report | 55
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF SANTA MONICA ONLY
IF A CORRECTION NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR YOUR INSPECTION, WERE THE CORRECTION COMMENTS CLEAR AND CONCISE?
67% 33%
Yes No
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting
5.G.d
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Moss Adams Permitting Efficiency Study 05.11.2021 (6525 : Award Contract to Speridian Technologies, LLC for Permitting City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2024
Agenda Item:
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Written Comments for Item 6 Agenda Items
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Packet Pg. 464
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2024
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending Interim Zoning Regulations Adopted by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2781 (CCS) to Remove the Minor Use Permit, Location, and Facility Requirements for Massage Establishments from the City’s Personal Service Use Standards for Specific Uses and Activities
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. Introduce and adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance extending interim zoning regulations adopted by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2781 (CC) amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to remove the Minor Use Permit, location, and facility requirements for massage establishments from the Personal Service use standards for specific uses and activities contained in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.230.
Summary
On June 11, 2024, Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance Number 2781 (CCS) (IZO 2781) which adopted interim zoning regulations to remove the Minor Use Permit, location, and facility requirements for massage establishments from the Personal Service use standards for specific uses and activities contained in Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.31.230. In accordance with SMMC Section
9.46.090(C), IZO 2781 is set to expire on August 10, 2024. Staff proposes an extension to the interim zoning regulations that would continue until December 31, 2025. Over this timeframe, staff will monitor the efficacy of the interim regulations and make recommendations for permanent changes to remove the Minor Use Permit, location,
10.A
Packet Pg. 465
2 of 6
and facility requirements for massage establishments from the Personal Service use standards. Depending on the circumstances, Council could make amendments to the IZO or repeal it.
Discussion
Massage regulations are currently contained within Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Article 6, Business, Professions and Trades, and Article 9, Planning and Zoning. SMMC Section 6.104.010 defines a massage establishment as follows:
Massage Establishment. Any business where any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or combination of individuals, engages in, conducts, carries on, or permits to be engaged in or conducted, for money or any other consideration, massage or health treatments involving massages including, but not limited to, those businesses that provide massage accessory to their principal permitted use, such as aromatherapy, beauty salon, health club, beach club, skin care salon, acupuncture, chiropractic office or day spa. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, any reference to massage establishment shall include certified massage establishment.
By definition, any different primary use such as a fitness center or a day spa that offers ancillary massage services is still considered a massage establishment. SMMC Section
6.104.020 requires that all massage establishment operators obtain a Massage Operator’s Permit which is reviewed by the Police Department and issued by the Finance Department. SMMC Section 6.104.090 details a variety of physical and operating requirements for all massage establishment and massage technicians to ensure reasonable health and safety standards.
A massage use is considered a Personal Services land use in the Zoning Ordinance and is subject to the specific use standards contained in SMMC Section 9.31.230.
These standards include limiting hours of operation between 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM, prohibiting massage establishments from being established or located within 500 feet of another massage establishment, and requiring both a Massage Operator’s Permit and a
10.A
Packet Pg. 466
3 of 6
Minor Use Permit (MUP). Approval of a Minor Use Permit requires discretionary review by the City’s Zoning Administrator at a public hearing involving an overall process that can take an average of 3-4 months with an application fee of approximately $7,400. The specific use standards also include certain physical facility requirements such as lighting, ventilation, and water requirements.
Recent massage establishment applicants have had their business licenses denied due to their proximity within 500 feet of other massage establishments including those that only offer minor accessory massage services as part of a different primary use such as a fitness center. A recent applicant proposing to establish ancillary massage services within a hotel was also informed that due to the proximity of another massage establishment within 500 feet, massage services would not be permitted within the hotel even though such a use is a common hotel amenity.
The City of Santa Monica has long served as a local, regional, national, and international destination, attractive for its blend of retail, dining, services, and entertainment. The City’s economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for many segments of the economy, and Santa Monica’s commercial districts are experiencing the same uncertainty with vacancy rates that remain higher than prior to the pandemic, especially in the Downtown area.
Massage establishments are represented by a variety of different types of uses with massage services usually offered as an accessory use to a different primary use such as a hotel, fitness center, day spa, or medical office. A massage use is classified in the Zoning Ordinance as a General Personal Service use which, along with Physical Training and Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor uses, are sub-classifications of a Personal Services use. Similar to Council’s approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in 2021 to remove the MUP requirement for Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor uses, the proposed removal of the MUP requirement for massage establishments would increase flexibility of these uses and opportunities for economic recovery by removing a public hearing requirement. Removal of the location requirement of a minimum 500 feet between massage establishments would enable additional personal
10.A
Packet Pg. 467
4 of 6
service uses in Santa Monica and would not likely result in an over concentration of such uses. Further, facility requirements are already contained in SMMC Section
6.104.090 and are not necessary in SMMC Section 9.31.230. The various physical and operational regulations in Chapter 6.104 ensure that massage establishments are well regulated to prevent any illicit activities and to ensure compliance with applicable health and safety measures.
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.31.230(A), the hours of operation for a Personal Service use, including massage uses, are limited to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. No changes to this limitation are currently proposed.
The proposed modifications to the Personal Service use standards would support the City’s role as a visitor destination by encouraging uses that appeal to both locals and tourists and would maintain and increase locally based, independent, small personal service uses in the City’s commercial districts. The proposed modifications would create the opportunity for additional personal service uses while maintaining appropriate health and safety measures.
On June 11, 2024, Council adopted IZO 2781 which adopted these interim zoning regulations to remove the Minor Use Permit, location, and facility requirements for massage establishments from the Personal Service use standards for specific uses and activities contained in Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.31.230.
This Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (EIZO) became effective immediately and is set to expire on August 10, 2024. Council may extend the EIZO until June 11, 2029, allowing the IZO to be in effect for up to 60 months in accordance with SMMC Section
9.46.090(C).
Staff recommends extension of the EIZO until December 31, 2025. The proposed extension would allow staff to monitor the efficacy of the interim regulations and make recommendations for permanent changes to remove the Minor Use Permit, location, and facility requirements for massage establishments from the Personal Service use
10.A
Packet Pg. 468
5 of 6
standards. The proposed extension would not preclude Council from revisiting the EIZO prior to its expiration to potentially amend the provisions or duration of the EIZO.
Depending on the circumstances, Council could make amendments to the EIZO or repeal it.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/11/24
(attachment A)
Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Remove the Minor Use Permit, Location, and Facility Requirements for Massage Establishments from the City’s Personal Service Use Standards for Specific Uses and Activities Environmental Analysis
The proposed interim ordinance is exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption), which states that CEQA does not apply where “there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment”. The proposed interim zoning regulations represent a change to the application processing requirements for a specific use that is currently permitted through the approval of a Minor Use Permit. The potential for an increase in the number of such uses that can be established will not create a significant impact on the environment, and the facilities requirements for such uses will remain elsewhere in the Municipal Code.
Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
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.
10.A
Packet Pg. 469
6 of 6
Prepared By: Tony Kim, Principal Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension
B. City Council Meeting - June 11, 2024 (Web Link)
C. PowerPoint Presentation
10.A
Packet Pg. 470
1 City Council Meeting: July 23, 2024 Santa Monica, California EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS) (City Council Series)
INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION OF AN EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2781 (CCS) AND AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.31.230 TO
REMOVE THE MINOR USE PERMIT, LOCATION, AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS FROM THE PERSONAL SERVICE USE
STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 6.104.010 defines a massage establishment as a business where any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or combination of individuals, engages in, conducts, carries on, or permits to be engaged in or conducted, for money or other consideration, massage or health treatments involving massages; and
WHEREAS, SMMC 6.104.010’s broad definition of massage establishment includes those businesses that provide massage accessory to their principal use, such as aromatherapists, beauty salons, health clubs, beach clubs, skin care salons, acupuncturists, chiropractic offices, and day spas; and WHEREAS, Section 6.104.020 requires that all massage establishments obtain a Massage Operator Permit, which is reviewed by the Police Department and issued by the City’s Finance Department; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.104.090 also details a variety of physical and operating requirements for all massage establishments and massage technicians to ensure reasonable health and safety standards; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 2 WHEREAS, a massage use is considered a “Personal Services” land use and is subject to specific use standards contained in SMMC Section 9.31.230; and WHEREAS, these standards include limiting hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, prohibiting massage establishments from being established or located within 500 feet of another massage establishment, and requiring both a Massage Operator’s Permit and a Minor Use Permit (MUP); and
WHEREAS, approval of a MUP requires discretionary review by the City’s Zoning Administrator at a public hearing involving an overall process that can take an average of 3 to 4 months with an application fee of approximately $7,400; and WHEREAS, recent massage establishment applicants have had their business licenses denied due to their proximity within 500 feet of other massage establishments, including those that only offer minor accessory massage services as a part of a different primary use, such as a fitness center; and
WHEREAS, recent applicants proposing to establish ancillary massage services within hotels have also been informed that due to the proximity of another massage establishment with 500 feet, massage services would not be permitted within the hotel even though such use is a common hotel amenity; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has long served as a local, regional, national, and international destination, attractive for its blend of retail, dining, services, and entertainment; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services (“Director of Emergency Services”), proclaimed the existence of a local
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 3 emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and effectuate the City’s response to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”), and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (the “Executive Order”)’ and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Third Supplement to the Executive Order, requiring the closure of a wide range of businesses including bars, nightclubs, on-premises restaurant service, movie theatres, live performance venues, gyms, fitness centers, spas, hair salons, nail salons, and massage parlors; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20 directing all residents of the State of California to heed directives issued by the State Health Officer on the same date instructing all Californians to stay home except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued an enhanced Health Officer Order, the Safer at Home Order for Control of COVID-19, amending and superseding its earlier March 16, 2020, Order, closing all nonessential businesses, and limiting gatherings to 9 people or less; and WHERAS, after March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, on multiple occasions, amended and modified its Health Officer Order, recognizing the issues posed by community transmission of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County, and, in response, maintaining public health measures that have, at differing times, included strict
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 4 limitations on public gatherings, required closures of certain businesses, and strict limitations and protocols for the operations of businesses permitted to remain open; and WHEREAS, as of March 31, 2023, the local, state, and federal COVID-19 emergency declarations have concluded; and
WHEREAS, although the emergency orders have been lifted, the economic impacts of the COVID-19 closures of, and limitations on, businesses have been and continue to be devastating to the local Santa Monica economy; and various locations are continuing to experience economic uncertainty; and
WHEREAS, as the commercial and economic landscape evolves, the City’s economic recovery and competitive advantage will depend on its ability to deliver on a diverse range of unique dining, retail, entertainment, and business uses; and WHEREAS, the City has an important governmental interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for many segments of the economy, and Santa Monica’s commercial districts are experiencing vacancy rates that remain higher than prior to the pandemic, especially in the Downtown area; and
WHEREAS, allowing eligible businesses the flexibility to engage in a variety of uses will facilitate business recovery and generate increased sales tax revenue for the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council, staff, and community stakeholders continue to be concerned about the health and vitality of Santa Monica’s commercial districts; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 5 WHEREAS, massage establishments are represented by a variety of different types of uses with massage services usually offered as an accessory use to a different primary use such as a hotel, fitness center, day spa, or medical office; and WHEREAS, a massage use is classified in the Zoning Ordinance as a General Personal Service use which, along with Physical Training and Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor uses, are sub-classifications of a Personal Services use; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, City Council considered and ultimately adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (EIZO) No. 2781, which temporarily removed the MUP, location, and facility requirements from SMMC Section 9.31.230, Personal Service; and
WHEREAS, similar to Council’s approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in 2021 to remove the MUP requirement for Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor uses, the removal of the MUP requirement for massage establishments will increase flexibility of these uses and opportunities for economic recovery by removing a public hearing requirement; and
WHEREAS, removal of the location requirement of a minimum 500 feet between massage establishments will enable additional personal service uses in Santa Monica and would not likely result in an over concentration of such uses; and WHEREAS, the facility requirements are already contained in SMMC Section
6.104.090 and are not necessary in SMMC Section 9.31.230; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 6 WHEREAS, the various physical and operational regulations in Chapter 6.104 ensure that massage establishments are well regulated to prevent any illicit activities and to ensure compliance with applicable health and safety measures; and WHEREAS, the modifications to the Personal Service use standards support the City’s role as a visitor destination by encouraging uses that appeal to both locals and tourists and maintain and increase locally based, independent, small personal service uses in the City’s commercial districts; and
WHEREAS, the modifications create the opportunity for additional personal service uses while maintaining appropriate health and safety measures; and WHEREAS, the amendments support local business retention and promote new business opportunities in the City, addressing the needs of the business community and residents, and supporting small businesses by clarifying and simplifying land use requirements; and
WHEREAS, EIZO No. 2781 is set to expire within 60 days of its adoption on or about August 10, 2024, and the City Council desires to extend the provisions of the ordinance until December 31, 2025, in accordance with SMMC 9.46.090(C), to allow adequate time for staff to evaluate the vitality of the amendments and make recommendations for permanent changes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed extension would not preclude Council from revisiting the EIZO prior to its expiration for any amendments to the EIZO or to repeal it at any time; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 7 WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that there continues to be a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and general welfare due to the devastating impact the COVID-19-mandated closures and limitations have had on the local economy, such that continuing a failure to approve the extension of this EIZO, continuing to impose the distance and MUP requirements, which are required in order to comply with the current regulations, would result in a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.230 is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 9.31.230 Personal Service
The following Personal Services shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards:
A. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified.
B. Massage Establishments. Massage establishments, including massage establishments conducted as Accessory Uses, are subject to the requirements listed above, Municipal Code Chapter 6.104, Massage Regulations, and the following standards.
1. Permits Required. A Minor Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 9.41, Minor Use Permits & Conditional Use Permits, and a Massage Service Permit pursuant to Chapter 6.104 of the Municipal Code isare required.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 8 2. Location. No such business shall be established or located within 500 feet from any other Massage Establishment.
3. Facility Requirements. Every massage establishment shall maintain facilities meeting the following requirements:
a. Minimum lighting shall be provided in accordance with the National Electrical Code, and, in addition, at least one artificial light of not less than forty watts shall be provided in each room or enclosure where massage services are performed on patrons.
b. Minimum ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.
c. Hot and cold running water shall be provided at all times. d. Closed cabinets shall be provided for storage of clean linens. e. Adequate dressing, locker, and toilet facilities shall be provided for patrons.
f. A minimum of one wash basin for employees shall be provided at all times. The basin shall be located within or as closed as practicable to the area devoted to performing of massage services. Sanitary towels shall also be provided at each basin.
2.4. Accessory Uses. A massage establishment which functions as an accessory use shall also comply with all requirements for the primary use.
C. Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor.
1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this Section to regulate the operation of facilities that perform tattooing and body modification to provide for
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 9 the health, safety and welfare of the public and ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 119300 et seq.
2. Registration Required. Any person who is engaged in the business of tattooing or body modification shall provide evidence of registration with the Los Angeles County Department of Health and City code.
3. No Persons Under 18. A sign shall be posted on the door or in view of the entrance stating that no person under the age of 18 is allowed on site, unless accompanied by their parent or legal guardian.
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 and shall be of no further force and effect as
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for 10 of December 31, 2025, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.090(C).
//
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extension [Revision 1] (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Regulations for City Council
Item 10.A
July 23, 2024
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Background
• Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (EIZO) 2781
• Removed the Minor Use Permit, location, and facility requirements for massage establishments from the Personal Service use standards for specific uses and activities contained in Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.31.230 • Adopted by Council and effective on June 11, 2024
• Set to expire on August 10, 2024
• Proposed Ordinance
• Extends EIZO 2781 until December 31, 2025
• Will allow staff to monitor the efficacy of the interim regulations and make recommendations for permanent changes to the Zoning Ordinance City Council | 07.23.24 | Item 10.A
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Recommended Action
• Introduce and adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Extending Interim Zoning Regulations Adopted by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2781 (CCS) to Remove the Minor Use Permit, Location, and Facility Requirements for Massage Establishments from the City’s Personal Service Use Standards for Specific Uses and Activities
• 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
City Council | 07.23.24 | Item 10.A
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance City Council
Item 10.A
July 23, 2024
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
9.31.230 Personal Service.
The following Personal Services shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards:
A. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified.
B. Massage Establishments. Massage establishments, including massage establishments conducted as Accessory Uses, are subject to the requirements listed above, Municipal Code Chapter 6.104, Massage Regulations, and the following standards.
1. Permits Required. A Minor Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 9.41, Minor Use Permits & Conditional Use Permits, and a Massage Service Permit pursuant to Chapter 6.104 of the Municipal Code areis required.
2. Location. No such business shall be established or located within 500 feet from any other Massage Establishment.
3. Facility Requirements. Every massage establishment shall maintain facilities meeting the following requirements:
a. Minimum lighting shall be provided in accordance with the National Electrical Code, and, in addition, at least one artificial light of not less than forty watts shall be provided in each room or enclosure where massage services are performed on patrons. b. Minimum ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. c. Hot and cold running water shall be provided at all times. d. Closed cabinets shall be provided for storage of clean linens. e. Adequate dressing, locker, and toilet facilities shall be provided for patrons. f. A minimum of one wash basin for employees shall be provided at all times. The basin shall be located within or as closed as practicable to the area devoted to performing of massage services. Sanitary towels shall also be provided at each basin.
42. Accessory Uses. A massage establishment which functions as an accessory use shall also comply with all requirements for the primary use.
City Council | 07.23.24 | Item 10.A
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6430 : Extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2024
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Mobility (DOT) Subject: Introduction for First Reading an Ordinance Repealing Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 3.23 and Amending SMMC Chapter 3.22 to Establish a Permanent Shared Mobility Device Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance to repeal Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 3.23 “Shared Mobility Device Program” and amend SMMC Chapter 3.22 “Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program” to update for an ongoing permit-based program.
Summary
City staff recommend that, contingent on the rejection of all bids in the ongoing competitive selection process for contracted Shared Mobility services being recommended concurrently with this item, the City Council repeal Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 3.23 “Shared Mobility Device Program” and amend SMMC Chapter 3.22 “Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program.” As presented in Staff Report 6395 (“Selection of Contracted Shared Mobility Service”), City staff no longer believe moving forward with the selection process for contracted Shared Mobility service is in the best interests of the City. At the same time, staff believe that Shared Mobility remains a valuable and broadly used mobility option for community members, and that it ought to be maintained and further improved under an iteration of the current permit-based structure. The recommended ordinance modifications provide for this program to continue on more solid footing.
10.B
Packet Pg. 486
2 of 10
SMMC Chapter 3.23 (“Shared Mobility Device Program”) was initially adopted by Council on August 23, 2022, to transition Shared Mobility services in Santa Monica to a contract-based model, specifying that only shared mobility devices in systems “operated by a person or company contracting with the City for shared mobility device services” may be made available for rent in the City. Should Council accept staff’s recommendation to move away from contracted services and maintain a permit-based Shared Mobility program, this ordinance becomes moot, and staff recommend that Council repeal it.
SMMC 3.22 (“Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program”) was initially adopted by Council on February 11, 2020. It has been amended several times, most recently on September 26, 2023, and forms the legal basis for the ongoing second pilot program.
While staff believe that a version of the current permit-based program provides the best path forward for Shared Mobility in the City, the program would benefit from some amendments and revisions. Accordingly, several changes to SMMC 3.22 are being recommended to help facilitate this.
First, staff recommend that the title of the Chapter, along with wording within the Chapter, be changed to reflect that this is no longer a “pilot” program. Staff look to incorporate knowledge gained from six years of active program administration into a stable Shared Mobility program and recommend that the “pilot” language be removed from the ordinance.
Second, staff recommend that Council amend the process for operator selection outlined in SMMC 3.22.060. The current language is specific to the initial selection of operators to launch the second-phase pilot in July 2021. Staff recommend that these terms be modified to allow for the continued operation of the two long-running operators currently providing service in the City, while providing for the flexible inclusion of additional operator(s) in a manner that is streamlined but still imposes robust safeguards against overcrowding and disruptive service.
10.B
Packet Pg. 487
3 of 10
Finally, staff recommend that SMMC 3.22 be modified to remove a permit-program end date that is currently pegged to the execution of one or more contracts under the Contracted Shared Mobility Services selection process. Contingent on Council rejecting all bids under that process, this term becomes moot. In its stead, staff recommend that Council adopt language establishing periodic review of program and operator performance under an ongoing and mature permit-based program.
Background
Shared mobility services have been an important part of Santa Monica’s transportation system since the 2015 launch of the City-owned Breeze Bike Share system and subsequent rollout of electric shared mobility devices in 2017. These devices aligned with City goals to reduce transportation emissions, mitigate congestion, and improve community members’ access to destinations. Shared mobility services are an especially good fit for Santa Monica because they provide flexibility, are usable year-round, provide first-/last-mile connections to the public transit network, and feel safe and reliable for many people to use on the City’s 100+ mile bike network, much of which has been installed in the last decade since City Council adopted the Bike Action Plan.
On June 26, 2018 (Attachment A), Council approved the creation of a Shared Mobility Pilot Program to develop a new area of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for shared mobility devices in Santa Monica. System performance improved during the first pilot program, which officially launched in September 2018. However, challenges remained in managing the public right-of-way (PROW), encouraging public safety, adapting old regulations to new business types, and ensuring companies were accountable for public outcomes.
On March 9, 2021 (Attachment D), staff returned to Council to provide an update on the Shared Mobility Pilot and to recommend shifting from a permitted pilot program to a longer-term contract model that would strengthen the City’s partnership with operators.
Council directed staff to implement a second Shared Mobility Pilot Program to allow
10.B
Packet Pg. 488
4 of 10
time for COVID-19 related uncertainty to settle and shift to a contracted model on March 30, 2023. In August 2022, Council subsequently directed staff to procure contracted service with a pushed-back start date of October 1, 2023 (Attachment E).
The competitive selection process for contracted service launched in January 2023, with the City issuing an RFP that highlighted City goals. A total of six shared mobility operators submitted proposals by the March 2023 deadline, from which a selection committee of cross-departmental City staff and one outside expert identified two highest-scoring bids in the first phase of the selection process. In the second phase, City staff communicated with those two highest-scoring proposers to develop contract term sheets to take back to Council for approval and execution. With this process still underway in September 2023, Council again pushed back the end date for existing shared mobility permits, extending the date to 30 days after one or more contracts for shared mobility service are executed (Attachment F).
Background Timeline
Date Description Attachment
November 2015 City-owned Breeze Bike Share system debuts. N/A September 2017 Bird Rides, Inc. e-scooter sharing launched in Santa Monica.
N/A
June 26, 2018 The City formally approved a Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and associated fees to
develop a new area of policy, regulation,
operation, and enforcement for shared mobility
devices in the City.
A
February 11, 2020 The City extended the term of the first pilot program, and the City subsequently released in
March 2020 a Request for Applications (RFA) for
the second pilot program.
B
May 12, 2020 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second pilot program was postponed, and the first pilot
program was extended until April 30, 2021. The
Shared Mobility PROW fee was revised from $1
per device per day to $0.20 per trip.
C
10.B
Packet Pg. 489
5 of 10
March 9, 2021 Council directed staff to implement a 21-month second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program.
Then, following the second pilot program, shift
from a temporary permit model to a longer-term
contracting model for shared mobility services in
the City.
D
July 1, 2021 The City launched the second pilot program. N/A August 23, 2022 Council adopts SMMC 3.23 to structure a contract-based next phase of shared mobility,
directs staff to procure contracted shared mobility
service.
E
January 2023 Competitive selection process for contracted shared mobility launches.
N/A
September 26,
2023
Council amends SMMC 3.22 to extend existing
shared mobility permits until 30 days after
execution of one or more contracts for shared
mobility service.
F
Discussion
After careful consideration of potential paths forward, staff recommend a pivot away from contracted shared mobility service to a refreshed and mature permit-based program. This recommendation has three main parts. In addition to rejecting all bids under the ongoing contracted shared mobility competitive selection process (outlined in Staff Report 6395 “Selection of Contracted Shared Mobility Service”), staff recommend that Council repeal SMMC Chapter 3.23 (“Shared Mobility Device Program”), which provides a legal framework for contracted shared mobility service in the City, and amend SMMC Chapter 3.22 (“Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program”) to update it to accommodate an ongoing and mature permit-based shared mobility program.
Benefits of Ongoing Permit-Based Service
While the ongoing shared mobility pilot is down to two of its initial four operators, and 1,400 of its initial 2,200 permitted devices, ridership in the system – and the mobility benefits that ridership reflects – continues to outpace available alternatives. In the first quarter of calendar year 2024, the City’s shared mobility program saw a total of 125,736 trips. By comparison, in this same timeframe LA Metro Bikeshare’s docked system saw a total of just 8,030 trips beginning and/or ending within Santa Monica, and 119,859
10.B
Packet Pg. 490
6 of 10
trips across the entirety of its service regionwide. While Metro Bikeshare’s ridership has increased sharply in past years, it still offers a very small percentage of the realized benefit of the City’s dockless shared mobility within Santa Monica. Additionally, as revealed through multiple City-designed user surveys, many of these trips within the City’s dockless program – on the order of 33% to 40% – are taken in lieu of an automobile trip, thereby reducing pollution and congestion. Likewise, many of these trips are serving valuable transportation ends, connecting people to jobs, restaurants, and other local destinations.
Moving Away from Contract-Based Operations
Beyond the importance of current permit-based shared mobility service, there are several motivations for the recommendation to pivot away from contract procurement and back toward a mature permit-based system. The initial rationale for shifting toward a contract-based model for shared mobility was centered on the operational stability and efficiency of longer-term commitments from contracted operators, the ability to impose greater affordability constraints on operator fares, and the ability to revamp device types and service offerings from operators in a new set of operational agreements. In working through the selection process for contracted service, though, City staff found that the anticipated benefits of a contract-based system were unlikely to fully materialize, particularly with respect to fare affordability. The baseline fares targeted in the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP) for contracted service were not fully met, with preliminary terms from the high-scoring bidder representing only marginal improvements on the affordability status quo.
At the same time that the benefits from contracted service have projected to fall short of initial expectations, the risks from entering into exclusive, long-term commitments with a small number of operators have increased. In the period since Council first directed City staff to select contracted shared mobility service in August 2022, numerous operators have prematurely halted operations within the City, diminished service across other operating regions, declared bankruptcy, and/or halted operations altogether. This increased industry-wide instability implies substantial and increased risk to the City in contracting with one or two operators for the planned duration of three to six years. In
10.B
Packet Pg. 491
7 of 10
the event that the City contracted with an operator that then ceased or curtailed operations, the City could be left with a major gap in shared mobility service, with no quick and certain way to address it.
Recommended Improvements to Shared Mobility Program
While the City’s shared mobility program continues to provide value to the community, it can be improved and stabilized in several respects. The recommended ordinance changes aim to do so in several ways:
• Repealing SMMC Chapter 3.23 (“Shared Mobility Device Program”) to formally shift away from a contract-based approach;
• Amending wording in SMMC Chapter 3.22 (“Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program”) to enshrine shared mobility’s evolution beyond its pilot stage; • Amending SMMC Chapter 3.22 to retain current, successful operators and facilitate prudent and beneficial operator additions; and • Amending SMMC Chapter 3.22 to clarify and updated the program’s timeframe.
As listed above, the City’s shared mobility system can be improved via several recommended amendments to SMMC Chapter 3.22. First, City staff recommend that Council adopt changes to the title and wording of the chapter, shifting the framing of the program from a second “pilot” phase to a mature and ongoing permit-based program.
Pilots play a valuable role of learning and refinement in transportation systems, and the City has learned a great deal over the course of two extended shared mobility pilot programs, better understanding the benefits and drawbacks of dockless shared mobility, and policy levers to maximize the former and minimize the latter. The City is now in a place to apply this improved understanding and enshrine mature program of oversight and regulation.
Beyond the shift in tone, City staff also recommend that SMMC 3.22 be amended to update the process to carry over existing operators into a new program phase, while
10.B
Packet Pg. 492
8 of 10
allowing for the flexible but prudent addition of additional operator(s). As outlined above, the landscape of shared mobility operators has been shifting and at times tenuous. By adopting a procedure to add responsible, responsive, and well-established operator(s) to the City’s system, the City can work to ensure the continuation of mobility benefits that the community of users receives. At the same time, the procedure will retain safeguards against overcrowding of operators and devices, as well as against marginal and poorly managed operations.
Finally, City staff recommend that SMMC 3.22 be amended to formally update the timeframe of the program. When the City launched its effort to procure contracted service, SMMC 3.22 was amended to terminate shared mobility permits 30 days after one or more shared mobility service contracts were executed. Given a decision to no longer pursue such contracts, this term becomes outdated; staff recommend that it be amended to reflect an ongoing program with periodic review.
Beyond the recommended changes to SMMC, City staff would also take advantage of a refresh to the permit-based shared mobility system to update and refine the City’s Shared Mobility Administrative Regulations. These regulations present a set of operational requirements for operators, including number and type of permissible devices, fees paid by operators to the City, maintenance and order-keeping requirements, insurance and indemnification requirements, and enforcement structures.
Given a continued and renewed permit-based program, City staff will administratively update these regulations to call for and enable a greater diversity of communitydemanded device types – most notably class 1 e-bikes, which have been absent from the City’s program since Lyft halted service in November 2022. Additionally, staff will enhance terms to incentivize improved order for user-parked devices and will adjust fees as needed to ensure continued cost recovery for the City’s administration and planning around the program.
By adopting these measures, staff believe that the City’s shared mobility system can continue to provide substantial value to those seeking to travel within the City. Through thoughtful adjustments to the SMMC and associated Shared Mobility Administrative
10.B
Packet Pg. 493
9 of 10
Regulations, as well as an evolving partnership with operators, the City can continue to work toward the goals that motivated the previous move toward a contract-based system. Specifically, the City will continue to work with operators to find avenues for system affordability, bolstering existing requirements for affordable fare and frequent user programs, and working to facilitate partnerships between operators and local employers. Likewise, the City will promote and enable a broader range of useful devices through updates to fleet caps and fleet cap adjustment procedures in the Shared Mobility Administrative Regulations, as well by inserting terms for more effective parking incentives and requirements. Finally, the City will continue to ensure that the program achieves full cost recovery through the continuation of targeted fees levied on operators.
Environmental Review
The revisions to the SMMC for shared mobility is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) 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 proposed ordinance to change regulation of shared mobility devices from a permit system to a contracted service model is administrative in nature. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Financial Impact 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.
10.B
Packet Pg. 494
10 of 10
Prepared By: Trevor Thomas, Senior Transportation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 B. Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report
C. Attachment B. February 11, 2020 Staff Report
D. Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance
E. Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report
F. Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report
G. Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report
H. Written Comments
I. PowerPoint Presentation
10.B
Packet Pg. 495
1 City Council Meeting: July 23, 2024 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 3.22 TO
ESTABISH A LONG-TERM SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PERMIT PROGRAM, AND REPEALING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.23
WHEREAS, in September 2017, shared electric scooters were introduced by a private operator in Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, in recognizing that a regulated shared mobility device program could be a valued component of Santa Monica’s local transportation network by promoting alternatives to car trips, in June 2018, the City approved a Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and associated fees to develop a new area of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for shared mobility devices in the City; and WHEREAS, in March 2021, Council adopted a Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program, and also directed staff to, upon the conclusion of the Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program, shift from a temporary permitting model to a longer-term contracting model with fewer operators for shared mobility services in the City; and WHEREAS, after careful consideration of potential paths forward, City staff recommended a pivot away from contracted shared mobility service to a refreshed and mature long-term permit-based program since the request for proposal process determined that the rationale for shifting toward a contract-based model (centered on the operational stability and efficiency of longer-term commitments from contracted operators, the ability to impose greater affordability constraints on operator fares, and the
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 ability to revamp device types and service offerings from operators in a new set of operational agreement) were unlikely to fully materialize, particularly with respect to fare affordability; and
WHEREAS, in the period since Council first directed City staff to select contracted shared mobility service in August 2022, numerous operators have prematurely halted operations within the City, diminished service across other operating regions, declared bankruptcy, and/or halted operations altogether; and
WHEREAS, the City’s shared mobility device program itself continues to offer substantial benefit to the Santa Monica community, including the following: (1) while the ongoing shared mobility pilot is down to two of its initial four operators, and 1,400 of its initial 2,200 permitted devices, ridership in the system – and the mobility benefits that ridership reflects – continues to outpace available alternatives; and (2) in the first quarter of calendar year 2024, the City’s shared mobility program saw a total of 125,736 trips; and
WHEREAS, many of these trips are serving valuable transportation ends, connecting people to jobs, restaurants, and other local destinations; and WHEREAS, the City may continue to benefit from shared mobility services by converting the Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program into a long-term permitting program, adopting the following amendments, and updating the administrative regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3.22 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 as follows:
Chapter 22. SECOND SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM § 3.22.010. Purpose.
Consistent with the City's goals of enhancing mobility and access, easing traffic congestion, and promoting sustainability, this Chapter creates a second limited term pilot program to continue to facilitate the use of shared mobility devices while ensuring the protection of public health and safety, including the safety of the public traveling by foot, bicycle, or vehicle on public sidewalks, streets, and other public rights-of-way. The second pilot program also seeks to continue to recover the costs to the City of overseeing and enforcing the operation and regulation of a shared mobility device pilot program. § 3.22.020. Definitions.
"Abandon" shall mean leaving an item unattended for any length of time. "Director" shall mean the Director of Transit Services Transportation or designee. "Mobility officer" shall mean the City's mobility manager or designee. "Operator" shall mean any person or business entity selected by the City to participate in the second shared mobility device pilot program and in good standing with the City, or any person or business entity selected by the City to participate in the long-term shared mobility device program pursuant to this Chapter.
"Public area" shall mean any outdoor area that is open to the public for public use, whether owned or operated by the City or a private party. "Public right-of-way" shall mean any public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway, sidewalk, or street that is owned, granted by easement, operated, or controlled by the City.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 "Shared mobility device" shall mean any transportation device by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn, that is displayed, offered or placed for rent in any public area or public right-of-way, except that a "shared mobility device" does not include any device being vended or made available for rent exclusively from a vehicle pursuant to a valid City vending permit; a car share vehicle, as defined by Chapter 3.06 of this Code; a moped, as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 406; a device authorized by the City bike share system pursuant to Chapter 3.20 of this Code; a taxicab as regulated in Chapter 6.49 of this Code; a device operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; or any other device excluded pursuant to administrative regulations.
§ 3.22.025. Administrative regulations.
(a) The Director may adopt administrative regulations to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, permit application procedures and permit standards, which may include regulations relating to lawful conduct, public safety, data sharing, data privacy, and/or the timely removal of hazards. (b) No person shall fail to comply with the City's administrative regulations. Any violation of any administrative regulation issued pursuant to this Section shall constitute a violation of this Code and shall subject the violator to the penalties set forth in this Chapter.
§ 3.22.030. Prohibited conduct.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no person shall:
(a) Display, offer or make available for rent any shared mobility device within the City, unless the person has first obtained: (1) a valid shared mobility operator permit
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 issued in accordance with this Chapter: and (2) a business license issued in accordance with Chapter 6.04 of this Code;
(b) Abandon a shared mobility device not authorized by this Chapter in the public rightof-way or a public area in such a way that the device is available for rent; or (c) Abandon a shared mobility device in the public right-of-way or a public area in a manner that: (1) obstructs travel upon or blocks access to a public right-of-way; (2) poses an immediate public safety hazard; or (3) is otherwise prohibited by applicable laws or administrative regulations.
§ 3.22.040. Maximum number of shared mobility operator permits and shared mobility devices permitted.
(a) The Mobility Officer shall issue up to four shared mobility operator permits authorizing the deployment of one or more shared mobility devices within the City.
No shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to any operator that proposes to deploy any shared mobility device that is exclusively powered by the human body or powered by combustion engine.
(b) The Mobility Officer shall establish the number of shared mobility devices whose deployment within the City is authorized under each shared mobility operator permit. No more than on a weekly basis or within fourteen days following any City Council action adjusting the maximum number of permitted operators or devices pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, the Mobility Officer may adjust the maximum number of devices authorized by each shared mobility operator permit.
In making determinations regarding the maximum number of authorized devices, the Mobility Officer shall take into consideration market needs, the total number of
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 devices and the total number of devices of any particular type deployed in the City, device utilization, and any other criteria set forth in administrative regulations. The Mobility Officer shall first publish his or her tentative adjustment decision under this Section, along with reasons supporting the decision, and solicit comments prior to making a final determination. The Mobility Officer's final determinations under this Section shall constitute the final decision of the City and are not subject to further administrative review. No person shall fail to comply with the Mobility Officer's established device limitations.
(c) No operator shall be granted authorization for less than fifty shared mobility devices of one type.
(d) At any time, in the City Council's discretion, the City Council may reassess the number of shared mobility operator permits authorized for issuance. The City Council, in its discretion, may determine by resolution that the number of shared mobility operator permits or the number of total authorized devices should be reduced or increased.
§ 3.22.050. Shared mobility operator permit application procedure, fees and requirements.
(a) Any person seeking to obtain a shared mobility operator permit shall submit a written application, signed under penalty of perjury, using the form designated by the Mobility Officer for that purpose.
(b) The City Council may establish permit fees and charges by resolution, which shall:
(1) Defray the City's costs in administering and enforcing the provisions of this Chapter; and
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 7 (2) Reflect charges associated with use of public property pursuant to this Chapter.
(c) The Mobility Officer shall specify the information that must be provided in connection with an application and the form in which the information is to be provided. The application shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) The name and business address of each person or entity that: (i) has more than a ten percent equity, participation, or revenue interest in the applicant; or (ii) is a trustee, director, partner, or officer of that entity or of another entity that owns or controls the applicant, except persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c) (3), (4), or (6) of the Internal Revenue Code;
(2) The name and business address of any parent or subsidiary of the applicant, namely, any other business entity owning or controlling the applicant in whole or in part, or owned or controlled in whole or in part by the applicant, and a statement describing the nature of any such parent or subsidiary business entity;
(3) Information sufficient to show that the applicant is financially, technically, and legally qualified to operate and maintain a shared mobility device system;
(4) A description of the proposed plan of operation, including, at a minimum, a detailed description of:
(A) The applicant's current operations as a shared mobility device
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 8 provider in the City and other jurisdictions;
(B) The applicant's proposed operations in the City including the maximum numbers and types of shared mobility devices anticipated to be deployed during the duration of the pilot under the permit program, the plan for balancing deployment of shared mobility devices for Citywide coverage, the plan for shared mobility device maintenance, levels of staff for operations and administration, and the plan for customer service;
(C) The applicant's regulatory compliance program;
(D) The applicant's history of, intent to, and ability to comply with state and local law;
(E) The applicant's plans to implement safety programs, including, for example, programs by which the applicant will receive information about and notify users of inappropriate use, encourage users to use appropriate safety devices such as helmets, and discourage users from leaving devices in locations that create hazards in the public right-of-way for persons with disabilities and others;
(F) The applicant's plans to educate users of shared mobility devices about applicable California Vehicle Code provisions and other applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines;
(G) The applicant's plans to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local data privacy laws and otherwise to protect the privacy of personal information provided by users and to provide the City with
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 9 data necessary for the City to ensure accessibility and availability of the public right-of-way and other public space for shared use by all, and protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public; (H) The applicant's plans for encouraging use of shared mobility devices as a substitute for trips by car and as a linkage to existing public mass transit systems; and
(I) The applicant's plans for complying with any other requirements set forth by the administrative regulations.
(5) Expect to the extent specifically requested by an applicant, all applications shall be treated as public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act and shall be distributed to all applicants in the event of any appeal by any applicant. If an applicant believes that any portions of an application should be exempt from treatment as a public record and distribution to other applicants, the applicant shall specifically designate those portions and, with respect to each such portion, provide a written explanation of the reasons for the designation. § 3.22.060. Shared mobility operator selection.
(a) The shared mobility operator selection committee shall be established by the Mobility Officer. The committee shall consist of City staff with appropriate knowledge and experience and at least one expert in shared mobility who is not a member of City staff, as further set forth in the administrative regulations. (b) The committee shall review all applications and make written recommendations to the Mobility Officer based on a ranking of each qualified applicant in accordance with objective criteria set forth by this Chapter and the administrative regulations.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 10 (c) Each qualified applicant shall be evaluated based upon objective criteria including:
experience; proposed operations plan; financial wherewithal and stability; adequacy of insurance; ability to begin operations in a timely manner; public education strategies; willingness to permit application materials to be treated as public record and made available to the public and other applicants; relevant record of the applicant's or officers', owners' or principals' violations of Federal, State or local law, or rules and regulations; quality, durability and safety record of proposed devices; proposed public right-of-way management and safety plan; and any other objective criteria established by the administrative regulations. (d) Each applicant shall be provided an opportunity to submit written comments or objections to the committee's recommendations.
(e) The Mobility Officer shall set forth, in writing, the reasons supporting his or her determinations. The Mobility Officer may request additional information from City staff, any applicant, or any other source that would assist in determining the final qualifications and rankings.
(f) The Mobility Officer shall grant a shared mobility device operator permit to the highest ranking applicants, depending on the number of available openings for operators up to the highest three ranked applicants. Should applicants among the three highest ranksed receive the same score, a lottery shall be used to establish the final rankings for any applicants that achieved the same score. (g) The Mobility Officer shall, on a date determined by the Mobility Officer, post on the City's website, and send to all applicants by email notice of the posting with a link to the City's website, all of the following: the ranking determinations as to all
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 11 applicants, the determination of the highest ranked applicants to whom shared mobility device operator permits will be issued, the written reasons supporting the Mobility Officer's determinations, and all portions of all applications other than those portions that applicants have specifically designated with written reasons as exempt from treatment as public records and distribution to the other applicants. (h) No later than fourteen calendar days after the date on which the Mobility Officer posts and distributes notice of the Mobility Officer's determinations, an applicant may file an appeal of the Mobility Officer's determinations, with respect to that applicant only, to the Director. The administrative regulations shall contain the process for appeal. In connection with any appeal, no applicant shall be entitled to receive the application materials submitted by any other applicant that the other applicant has designated with written reasons as exempt from treatment as a public record and distribution to the other applicants. The issuance of any shared mobility device operator permits shall be stayed until the Director has issued his or her final determinations.
(i) In the event of an appeal by any applicant, the Director shall review the Mobility Officer's determinations in their totality de novo and, no later than twenty-eight calendar days after the date on which the Mobility Officer posts and distributes notice of the Mobility Officers determinations, the Director shall either confirm the Mobility Officer's determinations or render his or her own determinations of applicant ranking and of the applicants to whom mobility device operator permits will be issued. The Director shall set forth, in writing, the reasons supporting his or her final determinations.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 12 (j) The Director's determinations under this Section shall constitute the final decision of the City and shall not be subject to further administrative review. (k) The Mobility Officer may impose, as part of any shared mobility operator permit issued, any and all conditions that are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter, mitigate traffic impacts, ensure accessibility of the public right-of-way and availability of public space for shared use by all, or protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. No person shall fail to comply with such permit conditions. (Added by Ord. No. 2630CCS § 2, adopted 2/11/20)
§ 3.22.070. Limitations on City liability.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City shall not assume any liability whatsoever with respect to having issued a shared mobility operator permit or otherwise approving the operation of any shared mobility device. As a condition to the issuance of any shared mobility operator permit, the applicant shall be required to meet all of the following conditions:
(a) The applicant must execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, defend (at applicant's sole cost and expense), and hold harmless the City, and its council, council members, boards, board members, commissions, commission members, task forces, task force members, officers, officials, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents from any and all claims, losses, damages, injuries, or liabilities which arise out of, or which are in any way related to, the City's issuance of or decision to approve a shared mobility operator permit; the process used by the City in making its decision to approve a shared mobility operator permit; the operation and use of any shared mobility
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 13 device deployed by any operator who has received a shared mobility operator permit; the classification by the operator of any individuals or entities performing services for the operator as employees or contractors; or the alleged violation of any Federal, State or local laws by the applicant or any of its officers, managers, employees, contractors, or agents.
(b) Maintain insurance at coverage limits, and with conditions thereon determined necessary and appropriate from time to time, as determined by the City's Risk Manager and name the City of Santa Monica as additional insured. The applicant's insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail has been given to the City. If any insurance policy issued to a permittee is cancelled for any reason, the permit issued under this Chapter is automatically suspended. In order to reinstate the permit, the permittee shall provide a new certificate and policy of insurance to the City.
(c) Reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorney fees and costs, which it may be required to pay as a result of any legal challenge arising out of or in any way related to any claim, loss, damage, injury, or liability as to which the applicant has an obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City pursuant to subsection (a) above. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such legal challenge, but such participation shall not relieve any of the obligations imposed hereunder.
§ 3.22.080. Grounds for revocation, suspension or denial.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 14 A shared mobility operator permit may be revoked, suspended, or denied by the Director based upon any of the following grounds:
(a) An applicant or operator, including its employees, managers, officers, principals, directors, owners, contractors, representatives, or agents:
(1) Making one or more false or misleading statements, or material omissions on the permit application, during the application process, or during the pilot permit program;
(2) Failing to provide information requested or required by the City; (3) Operating or proposing to operate in a manner that endangers public health or safety; or
(4) Failing to comply with any requirement imposed by the provisions of this Code (or successor provision or provisions) including any rule, regulation, condition or standard promulgated pursuant to this Chapter (or successor provision or provisions), or any term or condition imposed on the shared mobility operator permit, or any provision of State or Federal law. (b) Conviction of the operator, to include any of its officers, principals, directors, or owners, of a criminal offense that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the shared mobility business or profession, including, but not limited to, any criminal conviction involving a violent or serious felony, fraud, deceit, or embezzlement.
§ 3.22.090. Pilot pProgram term.
Permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall take effect immediately on July 1, 2021, and shall remain valid unless revoked or suspended pursuant to Section 3.22.080 of this
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 15 Chapter. , unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City, be of no further force or effect beyond thirty calendar days after execution of the contract(s) under Chapter 3.23 for shared mobility services.
§ 3.22.100. Impoundment of devices.
(a) A shared mobility device that is displayed, offered, or made available for rent, or abandoned, in the public right-of-way or a public area in violation of Section 3.22.030 shall be subject to immediate impoundment by the City. (b) The City Council may adopt impound fees by Resolution, which shall reflect the City's enforcement, investigation, storage, and impound costs. (c) No person shall retrieve any impounded shared mobility device except upon demonstrating proper proof of ownership of the device and payment of applicable impound fees.
§ 3.22.110. Enforcement.
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, including any permit condition, shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars, or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars per violation or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, including any permit condition, shall be subject to administrative fines and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.09 and Chapter 1.10 of this Code. (c) Any person convicted of violating this Chapter in a criminal case, or found to be in
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 16 violation of this Chapter in a civil or administrative case brought by a law enforcement agency, shall be ordered to reimburse the City and other participating law enforcement agencies their full investigative costs.
SECTION 2. Chapter 3.23 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DOUGLAS SLOAN, City Attorney
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Shared Mobility Services Ordinance Amendment 7-23-2024 (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 12, 2018
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 23
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Transportation Planning
Subject: Establish a Pilot Program for Shared Mobility Devices, by 1) introducing for First Reading an Ordinance setting forth the Pilot Program, defining the terms and conditions of the Pilot and repealing previously adopted emergency regulations, 2) adopting a Resolution setting fees and charges for the Pilot Program, and 3) adopting an Emergency Ordinance limiting the renewal period for Vendor Permits for Shared Mobility Devices for FY18-19.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Introduce for First Reading the attached proposed Ordinance establishing the Shared Mobility Pilot Program, defining the terms and conditions of the Pilot, and repealing previously adopted emergency regulations;
2) Adopt a Resolution establishing fees and charges in support of the Pilot program; and,
3) Adopt an emergency ordinance limiting the renewal period for Vendor Permits for Shared Mobility Devices for FY18-19.
Executive Summary
Shared mobility devices are proliferating in cities across the country, including the inaugural launch of Bird Ride, Inc. (Bird) scooters in Santa Monica in late 2017 and the introduction of Lime e-bikes in 2018. These small electric or human-powered devices are new and highly visible, drawing considerable attention and controversy when they arrive in any area. They have raised significant community concerns about safety and enforcement, including concerns about users riding on the sidewalk, doubling up on scooters, and riding without a helmet, all of which are prohibited under state and/or local laws; users failing to observe traffic controls in violation of the California Vehicle Code; and other unsafe or uncivil rider behaviors. The devices have also posed new challenges in managing the safe public use of the street, sidewalk, and beach.
Rules and procedures to manage this disruption effectively are nascent at best. The
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 of 23
City of Seattle has one of the “oldest” permitting systems, a pilot program less than one year old. Santa Monica focused first on implementing education strategies and on enforcing the laws concerning electric scooters. In response to actions by the City, Bird began helmet giveaways, applied safety information stickers to each device, and implemented driver’s license verification and photo-based parking confirmation. On March 6, 2018, Council adopted an emergency ordinance that established an impound fee for shared mobility devices that pose a hazard in the public right of way (PROW) and also directed staff to develop a pilot regulatory framework to work through the rules and procedures for effective management. Meanwhile, the Police Department has been actively enforcing laws, including conducting 623 stops and issuing 302 citations in the first three months of 2018, and over 809 stops and issuing 366 citations in the month of May.
Like the earlier arrival of ride-hailing (or transportation networking companies) like Uber and Lyft, these new mobility options are causing significant upheaval as well as shifts in travel behavior nationwide. Public agencies have struggled to get out ahead of venturecapital-funded disruptive technologies for which existing regulations are either inapplicable, inadequate or inappropriate. To respond effectively to new approaches to mobility we need new approaches to how companies and technologies are regulated to protect public safety and promote wellbeing, sustainability and equity.
Santa Monica is a desirable market for new shared mobility options because of the diversity of people and activities citywide, the high-quality street network, and the culture of active and outdoor living. Shared mobility devices provide an option to move without a car, reduce pressure on vehicle lanes and parking spaces, and increase overall access and mobility. Low emissions options also facilitate Sustainable City goals and improved local air quality. In addition to hearing from hundreds of community members raising support for and concern about the devices, staff interviewed twelve dockless scooter and bike sharing companies in May 2018 to assess capacity and willingness to work in partnership with City staff, and operational characteristics of their systems. All of the companies expressed interest in launching operations in Santa Monica.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 of 23
The City has issued Bird Rides and Lime conditional vending permits to operate from private property. Vending permits are annual, with renewals based on the fiscal year calendar, so that the existing permits would expire or be renewed after June 30, 2018.
Currently, Santa Monica has no regulatory or administrative system to manage dockless scooters and commercial bike shares operating in the PROW. Pursuant to Council direction, this report recommends that Santa Monica initiate a 16-month pilot program to forge a model way for regulating these new companies and technologies to protect public safety and promote community wellbeing, sustainability and equity.
A pilot would facilitate the development of tools in a quickly changing environment and provide flexibility to solve new challenges. It is anticipated that administrative rules of the program will remain fluid during the pilot program as the City works with operators to define effective solutions and where necessary, impose appropriate rules and restrictions. Participation in the pilot program would be through a request for application and selection process.
The proposed pilot program would:
allow a limited number of devices run by up to three service providers, with staff recommending an initial cap of 1,500 devices with the potential to increase to a maximum of 2,250 devices during the program duration through the end of 2019. establish minimum operating requirements in the categories of maintenance, education, safety, customer service, data sharing and insurance/indemnification. identify a broader list of recommended program components through which partners could be evaluated during the pilot term.
A key to the program’s success would be an open and productive partnership between the City and operators that facilitates the operator being highly responsive to real community concerns about safety and adverse impacts on members of the public who walk, bike or drive in Santa Monica. The pilot program would be established by
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 of 23
Ordinance, which would authorize staff to make adjustments to the program through Administrative Rules, and to evaluate performance of operators against the recommended program components.
Cities large and small are responding to the rapid appearance of shared mobility devices. Responses have varied significantly based on local context, policy and regulatory structures. San Francisco, Austin and Chicago have been developing management systems and extensive rules. In contrast, Dallas invited unlimited providers without a regulatory framework, and received a flood of bicycles. Santa Monica’s approach seeks to balance the desire to welcome new technology and innovation with protecting public health, safety, wellbeing, and the value of the City’s PROW.
The approach recommended by staff is to respond to disruption with neither heavyhanded efforts to stifle these new alternatives, nor a hands-off approach that ignores the very real problems their introduction has spawned. Rather, the pilot is designed to collaboratively and flexibly develop an effective model to adequately regulate these new transportations options to ensure effective compliance with applicable State and local laws and especially to promote the health, safety and wellbeing of everyone in the community, This does not deter the City from issuing citations to individual violators of the California Vehicle Code, nor preclude ongoing educational efforts to promote responsible behavior from all who share our city streets. Instead, the pilot proposal is designed to directly address the new and very real challenges posed by the introduction of large numbers of new mobility devices. Staff believes this approach is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Goal of promoting a new model of mobility for Santa Monica and the Council’s adoption of Vision Zero to eliminate deaths and serious injuries from roadway collisions.
While staff establishes the new pilot program, solicits applications, and selects the pilot program operators, staff proposes an emergency ordinance that would limit the term of any Fiscal Year 2018/19 Vendor Permits issued to companies to rent Shared Mobility
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 of 23
Devices on private property to September 16, 2018, with a possible extension of up to 90 days. This limited term renewal is necessary to facilitate the orderly and timely transition into the pilot.
Background
On February 27, 2018, Council received an update on the Mobility Strategic Goal and discussed efforts toward achieving the three targets of:
1) Increasing trips by walking, biking and transit;
2) Eliminating severe injuries and fatalities from traffic collisions; and 3) Creating a complete and connected network of transportation.
Facilitating ways to get around that are convenient, comfortable, and affordable is a component of the broad third target. This target incorporates shared mobility and customer-focused solutions that meet diverse users and use cases, among other topics.
Technology-driven shared mobility solutions are posing new challenges and opportunities, and increasing the speed of transportation change substantially. The Council report presented areas of potential opportunity, and shorter-term actions that could optimize community benefit during changing conditions. The staff report included principles to guide decision-making in this time of rapid change, grounded in the values from adopted policy documents:
Put people and safety first.
Give all people access to mobility choices.
Pioneer a clean mobility future.
Design great streets for health and wellbeing.
Leverage private sector innovation in new mobility that serves community needs. Strengthen government services with data-driven decision-making.
Council supported information from the report, and directed staff to proceed with identified short term physical projects, programs, and innovation exploration.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 of 23
On July 6, 2010, Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the heart of the State-mandated General Plan that sets the City's broad transportation policy foundation. It identified policies to create a safe street network that encourages all modes of transportation that are accessible to users regardless of their age or ability, and encouraged diverse modes of transportation and programs which get people to use them. Since the adoption of the LUCE, staff has pursued many elements that help people be more equipped, aware, and using transportation options:
Installation of a 100+ mile bike facility network that connects to neighborhood destinations, schools, and commercial areas as outlined in the Bike Action Plan; Construction of improvements to make streets more “complete” (serving more types of users with greater levels of safety) like Ocean Park Boulevard, Samohi Safe Routes to School, Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway, Berkeley Street traffic calming, and the Colorado Esplanade;
Launching Breeze Bike Share in November 2015 with 500 GPS-enabled “smart bikes” and 86 stations. To date Breeze has enabled over 650,000 rides in a way that has produced approximately $350,000 net revenue that has benefited the mobility goals of the City;
Welcoming the Expo Light Rail in May 2016 with three Santa Monica stations, and first/last mile connections through Evolution of Blue rerouting, Blue at Night and many crossing and access improvements;
Implementing the new Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) in January 2016 that required employers over 30 and development over 7,500 square feet or 16 residential units to do trip reduction strategies; Adopting the Downtown Community Plan in July 2017 that prioritized pedestrian safety, expanding transportation options, creating complete streets, and incorporating new technologies into our transportation system.
Breeze Bike Share riders recently pedaled past the 1.5 million mile mark, with over 40% of rides by Santa Monica residents. The Breeze system consists of clusters of bike
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 7 of 23
racks that are identified as “stations” in system software. Bikes are equipped with locks that can attach to any bike rack; bikes can be located using the mobile app. Breeze bikes were purchased with grant funds, are owned by the City, and operate under contract by CycleHop LLC. The Santa Monica Municipal Code was amended in August 2015 to enable Breeze Bike Share operations in the public right-of-way in SMMC Chapter 3.20. This code section prohibits the operation of non-public bike share in the PROW.
Around September 2017, Bird began offering shared electric scooters in Santa Monica, without a City business license. The Bird system places scooters out each morning, and collects them at night for charging. The scooters are seen regularly on City streets and sidewalks, including being parking in locations that often obstruct pedestrians and sidewalk access. Currently, Bird has a City-issued Business License and Vending Permit to offer its scooters on private property with conditions on its operations, particularly as they relate to scooters being placed in the PROW. Since Bird began operating, many companies have inquired about the potential to operate in Santa Monica, and some have begun operating including Lime.
On March 6, 2018, Council adopted an emergency ordinance that established an impound fee for shared mobility devices that pose a hazard in the public right of way, among other enforcement-related provisions. Council also directed staff to develop a pilot regulatory framework to facilitate the development of effective management tools for shared mobility devices to operate lawfully and safely in Santa Monica.
Discussion
The world has experienced an explosion of transportation change driven by global investment in new mobility approaches fueled by billions of dollars of venture capital financing. In addition to smaller app-based start-ups, large companies like Google/Alphabet are investing in transportation systems and software, and traditional equipment manufacturers like Ford are developing new vehicles and partnerships with other device operators. The worldwide introduction of rideshare/transportation network companies has decimated the taxi industry and launched tectonic shifts in consumer
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 8 of 23
travel behavior. Change in the marketplace is easily outpacing the development of regulatory structures at all levels of government.
Santa Monica is at the epicenter of these trends. With worsening traffic, the extension of the Expo Line to Santa Monica (in the context of an historic expansion of rail transit in Los Angeles County), the evolution of the Big Blue Bus system and the introduction of the first “bike sharing” system in the region, Santa Monica is at the cutting edge of creating a new model of mobility. In terms of private investment, Santa Monica is experiencing the sea change in travel modes most immediately in shared mobility such as “dockless” or “free-floating” bike share and scooter share. While many residents have eagerly embraced the new options, many others have expressed outrage and frustration about safety and enforcement following the arrival of Bird scooters, including reckless rider behavior and careless device parking. The systems have posed new challenges in managing the safe public use of the limited space on our streets, sidewalks, and beach paths. Additionally, the systems raised new issues regarding commercial use of the public right-of-way, responsibilities for complaint resolution, data sharing, liability, and the resources needed for program oversight.
Rules and procedures to effectively manage this disruption are nascent at best. This challenge is not unique to mobility options. In recent years, for example, Santa Monica has faced a number of such issues, including how to respond to the rise of home sharing companies as well as whether to allow uses of the public right of way for outdoor dining or public “parklets.” Experience has shown that pilot programs offer a framework to experiment to find the best ways to shape and fine tune a regulatory approach that addresses the dynamic impact of market forces and changing public attitudes and consumer choices.
Santa Monica staff are actively working on the issues, with a first focus on both education and enforcement. Following concerns raised by the City, Bird initiated helmet giveaways, posted safe operating rules on each device, and implemented driver’s license verification. Meanwhile, the Police Department has been actively enforcing laws, including conducting over 1,400 stops and issuing over 600 citations so far in 2018.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 9 of 23
Pursuant to Council direction, staff is now bringing forward a proposal for a pilot program that would enable the development of long-term regulations to effectively manage these systems in the PROW. The proposal is informed by hundreds of community conversations, as well as review of best practices, and interviews with a dozen operators.
Creating a more diverse, convenient, comfortable, and affordable transportation system is a core component of the Mobility Strategic Goal, and creating a “new model of mobility.” New options can help to meet a wide range of user needs and situations, making it easier to get around with or without a car. Electric bikes and electric scooters are among these new options, and can reduce pressure on vehicle lanes and parking spaces, while increasing overall access and mobility. These low emissions options also facilitate Sustainable City goals and improved local air quality. The emergence of shared electric devices is more recent, enabled by GPS communications and lower-cost device manufacturing, and is creating a new mobility service model.
Santa Monica is a desirable market for new shared mobility options because of the diversity of people and activities citywide, the high-quality street network, and the culture of active and outdoor living. This creates the conditions for high device utilization on the City’s built network of streets and bike lanes by residents, employees and visitors. This high demand necessitates development of management tools that address community concerns and the need to reinforce orderly use of the PROW and safe, civil travel behavior.
Minimum system requirements would be established in the pilot, with recommended system elements used to evaluate operator performance and partnership. A set of supporting Administrative Regulations would remain fluid during the pilot program as the City works with operators on methods to reduce PROW blockage and sidewalk clutter, to educate users, to evaluate utilization data, and to reduce public enforcement burden.
Participation in the pilot program would be through a request for application and selection process. Details of the pilot program are described in more detail below.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 10 of 23
Engaging with Shared Mobility
The introduction and quick adoption of Bird scooters demonstrated that users are willing to try new mobility options. Enabling different services to be responsibly tested and operated in Santa Monica would create a diversity of options that would meet a wider range of user needs, and help the City meet goals of reducing congestion and emissions by limiting the number of short trips taken in cars and improving the first/last mile connections to transit. Further, the wave of private investment into the shared mobility industry would enable Santa Monica to expand mobility options without incurring the expense of operating its own service.
In recent months, Santa Monica has experienced many of the common issues associated with shared mobility devices. The City has received hundreds of community complaints regarding Bird, focused on both their parking/PROW issues (discarded Bird Scooters blocking sidewalks, curb ramps, ADA access, doorways, and the congested beach bike path) and user operation/safety issues (riding on the sidewalks, speed, lack of helmet use, near misses and collisions). Although Bird Scooters fit the definition of a “motorized scooter” as defined in Section 407.5 of the California Vehicle Code (which requires riders of motorized scooters to wear a helmet and be a licensed driver, and prohibits riding on the sidewalk), the rules and etiquette for how to operate and park some new devices are not clear to users.
To date over 30 cities across the country have launched dockless bike share or scooter pilots to engage with this rapidly changing environment. Although these pilot programs range greatly in scope, term, requirements, and resources, there are similarities such as:
Safety requirements: front and rear lights, brakes, maximum operating speed, regular device maintenance, and clearly marked device identification number. System size: total device minimum and maximum, with variations in the ability to scale up or down.
Community outreach: minimum safety education through events or digital resources, working with local groups.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 11 of 23
Operations: remove inoperable devices or safety hazards promptly, rebalance to provide equitable coverage and avoid over-concentration, and provide adequate staffing.
Parking: defined local parking requirements, sometimes with “lock-to” requirement.
Customer service: clearly posted customer support contact, available on-demand services, and prompt response to complaints.
Data sharing: weekly or monthly data sharing, some require API access. Insurance/Liability: maintain insurance coverage to specified limits, and indemnify local agencies.
Attachment A provides more information about the emergence of shared mobility and select city approaches. Overall, cities are working to reorganize for new work demands, and develop the new tools need to deal with the myriad data, communications, regulation, operation and maintenance associated with citywide programs.
Why create a pilot program?
In light of the rapid changes going on in mobility right now, approaching shared mobility regulation as a pilot program would enable the City to:
Develop a new area of policy, regulation, and enforcement through firsthand experience
Move quickly to adapt to a rapidly changing industry, but leave room to learn and adjust as appropriate
Test new device and service providers in a growing industry Explore partnership models with private companies
Explore possibilities for data capture, structures, and utilization for the purpose of advancing the new model of mobility.
Allow the City time to experiment with different management tools (e.g. “Geo10.B.b Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 12 of 23
fencing” and creation of shared mobility device drop zones) After the launch of Bird, staff convened a working group of staff members from the departments of Planning and Community Development, Public Works, Police, Community and Cultural Services, Office of Sustainability and the Environment, City Manager, and City Attorney to understand how the introduction of shared mobility devices are impacting all aspects of the City operations and PROW. The group reviewed and discussed several of the current shared mobility pilot permit programs in other cities. Simultaneously, staff held meetings with twelve shared mobility operators to understand their capabilities, plans, and willingness to engage with the City. The shared mobility pilot program in Santa Monica would be based on feedback and information received through these processes and community input.
Desired Pilot Program Outcomes
In approaching this effort, the City would seek to:
Diversify mobility options for residents, employees and visitors to Santa Monica. Protect public health and safety and reduce sidewalk, pathway and ADA blockages.
Reduce emissions from short trips and connections to transit. Maximize user awareness of safe and legal behaviors for operating shared mobility devices.
Create a legal and enforceable framework for managing shared mobility services. Ensure use of PROW benefits public mobility.
Ensure private operators response to pervasive issues and service complaints.
Pilot Program Approach
Staff recommends the implementation of a pilot program with a structured review process in mid-2019, which would enable any subsequent shared mobility regulations to be considered and to take effect by the end of 2019. Staff recommends the following pilot program structure:
Pilot Term: The pilot is proposed to last approximately 16 months, with amendments possible during the term of the pilot. Formal evaluation of the pilot
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 13 of 23
would begin at 9 months, ending with a report and recommendation to Council for a permit system or other next steps within the 16 months. The pilot phase could be extended or terminated during its duration.
New Device Options: The pilot is for devices that are not currently available to the public through existing city programs or partnerships, as to widen the range of types of devices rather than creating duplicative services. To include E-bikes, Scooters, etc. Not regular human powered bikes, or combustion engine devices. Operating Requirements and Recommendations: The pilot defines Minimum System Requirements in seven performance areas that would be required for all operators. A more robust list of Recommended System Elements is included that would be used to evaluate operators and inform future regulations. Scale of Program: Staff recommends issuing permits for an initial launch of up to 1,500 devices total, operated by up to 3 companies. The program would cap the total number of devices citywide at 2,250, with expansion up to the cap allowed only after demonstrated sustained fleet utilization. Operators may be required to reduce fleet if minimum utilization criteria is not met to avoid unnecessary clutter in the PROW.
Partnership: Operators in the program would be expected to actively engage with City staff to resolve issues and to develop solutions including, but not limited to, system, device and regulatory changes that facilitate safe use and public right-of-way management. Operators would be held responsible for community complaints and operational issues.
Phased Implementation and Adjustments: The Director of Planning and Community Development or designee would have the authority to phase in or adjust elements of the program over time - such as adjustments to the number of devices within the total cap, or operational requirements for operators, through the Administrative Regulations.
Cost Recovery: The full costs of the program should be recovered through permit fees.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 14 of 23
The pilot program would be established by the proposed Pilot Program Ordinance (Attachment B) which would define basic program procedures including application and selection, and authorize staff to develop Administrative Regulations guiding the pilot program. The Ordinance would authorize staff to make adjustments to the program during its duration through the Administrative Regulations. The Administrative Regulations include, but are not limited to, criteria relating to lawful conduct, public safety, data sharing, data privacy, and/or the timely removal of hazards.
Operator Requirements:
Operators would need to meet Minimum System Requirements in seven performance areas designed to facilitate basic system operations, without precluding technology advancements or operational upgrades. Additionally, operators would be evaluated in the selection process and through the course of the pilot program on their ability to incorporate the Recommended System Elements into their operations.
Guiding Principles Minimum System
Requirements
Recommended System
Elements
1. Operators would be
required to ensure devices
are well maintained and
safe to be ridden.
a. Devices have durable
brakes, head and tail
lights, and security
hardware.
b. No combustion engines,
electric equipment has
maximum speed of
15mph.
a. Devices equipped with
GPS.
2. Operators would be
required to educate their
users about riding safety
and roadway regulations.
a. Safety information is
clearly posted on each
device and in the system
software.
b. Education about riding
rules and legally parking is
provided at sign-up.
a. Software regularly
educates users about
riding etiquette and
parking rules.
b. Operator hosts monthly
education and awareness
events.
c. Operator offers multilingual communications,
and low-income options.
3. The operation’s systems
would be required to
a. Financial transactions are
secure (PCI compliant).
a. Customer information is
protected using industry
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 15 of 23
protect user’s personal
information
standard encryption, and
customer permission is
sought before sharing
data with a third party.
b. Membership auto-renewal
meets state and federal
standards.
c. Customer information is
protected using industry
standard encryption, and
customer permission is
sought before sharing
data with a third party.
4. Operators would be
required to ensure that
devices do not pose a
hazard to others or
obstruct others’ use of the
public right of way
a. Devices do not block ADA
paths of travel, entrances,
driveways, bus stops,
traffic or bike lanes, etc.
b. The operator does not
distribute devices to
prohibited areas (i.e.
Ocean Front Walk, Beach
Parking lots, Third Street
Promenade, Pier or Pier
Bridge, and Palisades
Park).
a. Devices are parked
appropriately in the public
right-of-way (such as
upright in the parkway,
furniture zones, etc.).
b. Devices do not end up on
unauthorized private
property.
c. The system informs and
incentivizes people to use
correct parking locations.
d. Device distribution is
even across the city, and
balanced regularly.
e. If the City creates onstreet device parking
areas, the operator
institutes designated
parking hubs into the
system.
5. Operators would be
required to ensure
operational issues
are attended to promptly.
a. Devices are safe, clean
and working; broken
devices are removed
promptly.
b. Device clearly shows
customer service number
answered during
operating hours, and a
unique device
identification number.
c. Operator maintains direct
24-hour contact
for emergency removals.
a. Customer-service is
immediately available 7a10p or more, and
maximum response time
is 24 hours.
b. Remedy devices parked
incorrectly within 2 hours
from 7a-10p.
c. Provide regular
maintenance and
cleaning.
d. Provide adequate staff for
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 16 of 23
customer service,
balancing and
maintenance.
e. Device alarms do not
sound for longer than 5
minutes.
6. Operators would be
required to share trip and
device location data with
the City.
a. Provide monthly data
export on fleet utilization.
b. Provide weekly summary
report of ridership.
a. Provide real-time
information on the entire
fleet through an API.
b. Customer service surveys
each 6 months, with data
provided to the City.
c. Operators have the ability
to implement geo-fenced
parking zones.
7. General Operator
Requirements
a. Operator maintains valid
insurance and provides
City indemnification.
b. Comply with City Minimum
Wage Requirements.
c. Apply for a business
license under the
“Services” classification as
defined in SMMC
6.08.150, pay all
applicable taxes, fees and
assessments and provide
any additional documents
required per the
Administrative
Regulations.
a. Provide affordable user
fees, and submit a user
fee plan to the City.
Selection Criteria
Partners in the pilot program would be selected through an open application process.
The City is looking for operators with experience, a high-quality device and system, and a willingness to work collaboratively with the City during the pilot program. It is anticipated that an operator pre-application meeting would be held to answer questions and facilitate the process. A request for applications would be posted and submissions reviewed by an inter-departmental committee, with recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Development. The Director would make a final selection
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 17 of 23
decision.
All applicants would be notified after the selection, and partners would be invited to begin operations on or after September 17, 2018. Unselected applicants, and operators with expired Vendor Permits, would be required to cease operations or be subject to enforcement actions consistent with local rules and regulations.
Anticipated Outcomes of the Pilot Program on Breeze Bike Share At the same time as Bird’s launch in September 2017, Breeze Bikes on average had been ridden 2,500 - 3,000 miles each and began to show considerable wear and tear, which meant that more bikes were out for repair often, and more parts like bike controllers (GPS computers) needed repair or replacements. With the launch of Bird Scooters, users had more and newer options. Because of both of these factors Breeze Bike Share has seen an average 10 percent decline in monthly ridership since September over the previous year, and staff anticipates that trend to continue in the near term with the introduction of more and different options. In spite of the decline, several agencies including LA Metro, are reinvesting in their publicly owned bike share systems because of the dynamic and unpredictable nature of commercial systems.
Public agencies cannot guarantee any services when provided by permit and value the ability to provide consistent services to the public. Because Breeze has operated without public subsidy for over 2 years, funds exist for reinvestment in the program.
Council may consider expanding and/or improving the Breeze fleet to ensure this stable and high-quality option continues to exist for users.
Possible Pilot Program Modifications
Use of Public Property Charge: The pilot currently anticipates a cost recovery fee for staff time to administer the pilot program. To the extent these vehicles operate in the PROW, the public right of way land is a valuable asset, designed primarily for the movement of people, goods and related activities. The City implements charges for commercial use of the PROW such as outdoor dining, which is subject to a regulatory fee that recoups processing fees, and a Use of
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 18 of 23
Public Property charge. Since these companies generate considerable private income, a similar approach could be used for shared mobility devices, as they are made available for commercial transactions on the PROW. Bird has publicly floated support for a charge per vehicle per day that could support improvement of bike lanes, education and other beneficial public investments. Council could direct staff to return with the supporting legal research and documentation for a use of public property charge prior to the implementation of the pilot program in September.
Device Type and Quantity Limits: Staff anticipates that the initial introduction of 1,500 devices, with the possibility to expand the program to 2,250 devices, will sufficiently serve mobility needs of the community for the term of the pilot while limiting the disruption of devices on the PROW. Council may consider broadening the scope of the pilot program to allow for more (or fewer) devices and to include regular human powered bikes as well. However, based on conversation with other cities, staff anticipates that a broadened scope would result in more community complaints and concerns. Additionally, the allowance of more devices would require more resources for program oversight, enforcement, and response to comments.
Operators Cap: Council may consider opening the pilot program to more than three operators. Other cities have experienced the challenge of playing the role of “referee” between competing operators. This challenge has required more staff resources to appropriately administer their programs. Additionally, more options may not equate to more and better options, and having multiple companies operating on different platforms can lead to user confusion. For instance, after the introduction LimeBike, the Breeze Bike Share customer service team has begun to receive multiple calls from customers who mistook LimeBikes for Breeze Bikes. For these reasons, Staff recommends capping the number of operators permitted under the pilot program to three.
“Lock-to” Minimum Requirement: Some shared mobility devices (like Jump ebikes and Zagster Bikes) enable the user to lock the device to a stationary object
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 19 of 23
like a bike rack. Staff anticipates that this form of locking mechanism could help reduce the number of devices left precariously in the PROW, and help guide users to lock the devices in appropriate locations like the “furniture zone” on sidewalks. Council may consider requiring shared mobility operators to provide “lock-to” devices as part of the pilot program.
Education Minimum Requirements: Staff recommends that shared mobility operators provide riding rules and etiquette information to users upon sign-up and on the individual devices. Council may consider requiring the operators to take a more active role in educating users about the rules and etiquette by providing regular education awareness events and campaigns, holding helmet giveaways, or establishing good/bad behavior incentives or penalties. Such programs could help in more quickly educating the public about the new options as well as reducing bad user behavior.
Staffing Requirements for Pilot Program
In order to allow shared mobility devices to operate in the PROW while ensuring public safety and access for all users, adequate staffing is needed. This is a brand new program similar to home-sharing that does not fit into existing city functions or resources. Staff anticipates that the introduction of three companies and up to 2,250 shared mobility devices will require significant oversight, education, data collection/analysis, and enforcement. Meeting Council direction to engage with operators through a partnership approach will require additional program coordination.
Staff recommends a full time program coordinator and an enforcement officer liaison for the duration of the pilot program. For this limited term, resources were identified from an existing vacant position, and through contracting out a portion of development plan check functions of the Mobility Division.
Program coordinator would be responsible for:
Oversight and coordination with selected operators identify and make necessary program adjustments
Responding to community complaints and liaising with community members
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 20 of 23
Coordinating with City communications team, enforcement, and the Police Department.
Data collection, analysis and reporting
Program review and reporting
Coordinating with selected operators to initiate specific educational efforts to educate the broader public about shared mobility.
Enforcement Liaison would be responsible for:
Coordinating with the shared mobility coordinator and the Police Department to respond to community complaints with detailed field information. Coordinating with Public Works and the Police Department to retrieve and impound devices that pose hazards in the PROW.
Leading field tracking and documentation of operator and user behavior; identifying issues as they arise, and working with the program coordinator to issue warnings and citations to operators as needed.
Attending citation appeal hearings, writing case reports for criminal prosecution referral, and testifying in court.
Fees for Pilot Program
As noted above, the pilot program approach includes cost recovery for program operations. Fees would pay for the additional administrative costs (ongoing oversight, engagement, data management, and communications) and enforcement costs. Each operator would be assessed an annual base operator fee and an annual per device fee in order for the program to be cost-neutral to the public. See Attachment C for the proposed Fee Resolution.
Permit Fee
Annual Operator Fee $20,000 per operator
Annual Per Device Charge $130 per device
The Council may consider an additional Use of Public Property charge as outlined in the
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 21 of 23
program options above. Selected operators will be required to comply with all State Service and Use tax law. If the program becomes permanent, any fee changes would be included in the next master fee resolution with the FY 19-21 budget.
Emergency Ordinance to Limit Duration of FY18-19 Vendor Permits On April 9, 2018 and April 23, 2018 the City respectively issued Bird Inc. and LimeBike Conditional Use Vendor Permits to operate Bird Scooter and Lime E-bikes under the following conditions:
1. Operator agreed to offer its shared mobility device from pre-approved private property locations.
2. Private property owners must authorize the operator’s use of the proposed locations for this purpose.
3. Operators must not abandon their devices in the PROW and must take reasonable efforts to ensure that their devices are not parked or stored in the PROW.
4. Operator shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that users operate its Shared Mobility Devices in a safe and legal manner.
5. Operator must maintain the insurance requirements.
Staff recommends a proposed emergency ordinance to limit the duration of any Fiscal Year 2018/19 Vendor Permits authorizing the rental of Shared Mobility Device on private property to September 16, 2018, with a possible extension of up to 90 days should staff need more time to implement the launch of the pilot (Attachment D). These Vendor Permits are subject to renewal on July 1, 2018. Without this Ordinance, such Permits would be renewed for an entire 12 months. However, these Permits were designed as a transition measure and their continuation would conflict with the proposed Pilot Program. Accordingly, it is important to terminate these transition Permits and transition to the Pilot program in a timely and orderly manner. Because July 1, 2018 is less than 30 days away from this Council meeting, it is necessary to adopt this Ordinance by Emergency to ensure that it is effective before July 1st.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 22 of 23
Environmental Analysis
The proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This section provides that CEQA only applies to those projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ordinance does not have that possibility. The provision of shared mobility devices through private operators is anticipated to increase travel options with the result of reducing the use of automobiles for some shorter trips. Shared mobility devices available in the PROW may pose some nuisances, but this is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The proposed pilot program is temporary in nature, and provides additional guidance and enforcement tools to mitigate their presence in the City.
Next Steps
Draft Administrative Regulations.
Staff program coordination and enforcement roles.
Advertise the Request for Applications, select and notify the Pilot Program operators.
Establish enforcement and field protocols.
Issue Vendor Permits for FY18-19 to applicable operators. Establish regular communications with partner operators, and systems for information sharing among Code Enforcement, Public Works and Mobility staff. Establish data evaluation system and timing.
Evaluate the program and return to Council with recommendations for a program, or pilot program adjustments during 2019.
Alternatives
Staff has provided a number of possible modifications to the pilot program in the section above. Instead of a pilot program, Council could direct staff to draft an ordinance that
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 23 of 23
would establish a permanent regulatory structure permitting shared mobility devices, providing clarity on the scale, purpose, data-sharing and enforcement criteria for the program. Council could also direct staff to prohibit the operation of all shared device operations until a pilot or permanent regulatory structure is in effect, with the goal of removing all conflicting devices from the PROW.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The Shared Mobility Pilot Program will require an appropriation of $286,570 for nine months of staffing and program costs in FY 2018-19. The program will generate estimated annual revenues of $350,000 in operator and per device fees to fund staff and program expenses. Additional revenue may also come from enforcement fines, however, fines are not easily predictable. Revenues, salary and position changes, as well as appropriations for program expenses related to the Shared Mobility Pilot Program are included in Item 9.B on the June 12, 2018 agenda, and are designed to be cost-neutral.
Prepared By: Francie Stefan, Mobility Division Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Brief History and Comparison
B. Pilot Ordinance
C. Fee Resolution
D. Emergency Ordinance FY 18-19 Vendor
E. Written Comments
F. Powerpoint Presentation
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment A. June 12, 2018 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 11, 2020
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lane Dilg, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.21.090 to Extend the Term of the First Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program to June 30, 2020, and Creating Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 3.22 to Establish a Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and Related Permitting and Operator Selection Process Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Executive Summary
At its meeting on January 28, 2020, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.21.090 to extend the term of the first shared mobility device pilot program to June 30, 2020, and creating Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 3.22 to establish a second shared mobility device pilot program and related permitting and operator selection process.
The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.
Prepared By: Elsa Kapsinow, Executive Assistant to the City Attorney Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. PCD - Ord- Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program 2.0 - 02.11.2020 2nd Rdg
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment B. February 11, 2020 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 of
2 B. Written Comments
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment B. February 11, 2020 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 1 City Council Meeting: May 12, 2020 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.21.090
TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE FIRST SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2020, AND AMEND SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.22.090 TO CHANGE THE START DATE OF THE SECOND SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica consists of just over eight square miles of land, which is home to 90,000 residents, the job site of 300,000 workers, and a destination for as many as 500,000 visitors on weekends and holidays; and WHEREAS, the City's public rights-of-way are designed to accommodate a multimodal transportation system and are heavily utilized by residents, workers and visitors; and
WHEREAS, in late 2017 and early 2018, in part due to rapid technological advancements, the City's public rights-of-way were flooded with new, unpermitted commercial shared mobility systems and devices, including in particular electronic scooters; and
WHEREAS, the rapid, unpermitted proliferation of such systems and devices created serious safety hazards for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers; impeded pedestrian
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 circulation and paths of travel; and created hazards in the public rights- of-way for persons with disabilities and others, especially when left unattended; and WHEREAS, in response to the rapid, unpermitted proliferation of such systems and devices, and the serious safety hazards created by their use, on March 6, 2018, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2570, which enacted Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Chapter 3.21 to establish interim operating regulations for shared mobility systems and devices and require operators to first obtain a vending permit prior to displaying a shared mobility device for rent in public; and WHEREAS, to create a longer-term shared mobility device pilot program that would improve access to mobility options for residents, employees, visitors to Santa Monica, create new and diverse mobility options, ensure safety by reducing sidewalk and pathway impediments, facilitate access for disabled individuals, educate users about the proper rules and etiquette, create a legal and enforceable framework for managing shared mobility in the public right of way, and build good working partnerships with shared mobility service providers, on June 26, 2018, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2578, which repealed and replaced SMMC Chapter 3.21 to establish a 16-month shared mobility device pilot program (the “first pilot program”) to manage dockless electronic scooter and bicycle systems operating in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, in September 2018 the City launched the first pilot program with four shared mobility operators; and
WHEREAS, following the launch of the first pilot program, people quickly took to riding shared mobility devices, generating a total of 2,673,819 trips from October 2018 to
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 October 2019, with forty-nine percent of all shared mobility device riders reporting that they would have otherwise traveled in a car; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019, City staff presented to the City Council a summary of the findings, considerations, and lessons learned from the first pilot program and sought direction from the City Council on, and alternatives for, long-term regulatory and permitting structures for shared mobility services in Santa Monica; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019, Council directed staff to develop a second pilot program that reduces the number of operators, maintains flexibility to adapt the evolving industry, and focuses efforts towards ensuring customer reliability, affordability, and access, while improving safety, rider behavior, sustainability, and financial outcomes; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019, Council also directed staff to extend the term of the first pilot program to May 17, 2020 to allow staff time to develop the second pilot program, solicit and select operators, and coordinate a transition period between the two pilot programs; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, the City adopted Ordinance 2627, which amended SMMC Section 3.21.090 to extend the term of the first pilot program to May 17, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2020, Council further extended the term of the first pilot program to June 30, 2020, and created a second pilot program that continues to improve access to mobility options for residents, employees, visitors to Santa Monica, create new and diverse mobility options, ensure safety by reducing sidewalk and pathway impediments, facilitate access for disabled individuals, educate users about the proper
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 rules and etiquette, create a legal and enforceable framework for managing shared mobility in the public right of way, and build good working partnerships with shared mobility service providers; and
WHEREAS, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, federal, state and local authorities have issued emergency declarations that order the closure of non-essential business and require residents to stay at home; as a result, due to the uncertainty related to the rapidly evolving situation, on March 24, 2020, staff issued an addendum to the Request for Application soliciting operators for the second pilot program to extend the submission deadline to May 28, 2020 and postpone the selection process until June 2020; and WHEREAS, Council action is now needed to extend the term of the first pilot program to September 13, 2020 and change the start date of the second pilot program to September 14, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.21.090 is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.21.090 Pilot Program Term
Permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall terminate and be of no further force or effect beyond September 13June 30, 2020, unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City.
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.22.090 is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.22.090 Pilot Program Term
Permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall take effect on September 14July 1, 2020, and be of no further force or effect beyond January 1, 2022, unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. In particular, but without limitation, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 3.21 shall be repealed effective as of September 13, 2020. This repeal of Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 3.21 as of September 13, 2020, shall have no effect on the terms of agreements entered into between operators and the City in conjunction with shared mobility operator permits issued pursuant to Chapter 3.21, including without limitation any indemnification agreements, to the extent those terms, by their nature, are intended to have effect beyond the term of such shared mobility operator permits.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
GEORGE CARDONA
Interim City Attorney
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment C. May 12, 2020 Draft Ordinance (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 9, 2021
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward F King, Director, Mobility (BBB)
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinances Extending the First Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program, Repealing the Second Pilot Program, and Amending SMMC to Remove Prohibition of Class I and Class II E-bikes on the Beach Bike Path
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance that: (a) amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.21.090 to extend the maximum term of the first Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program from April 30, 2021 to March 31, 2022; (b) repeals Section 3.22 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to a second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program; and (c) amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.600 to remove the prohibition of Class I and Class II electric bicycles on the Beach Bike Path.
2) Direct staff to solicit and negotiate a contracted model for shared mobility services in Santa Monica and direct staff on outcome priorities to guide the contract negotiation process.
Executive Summary
Santa Monica launched its first shared mobility pilot program for private companies in September 2018, which was designed to test entirely new areas of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for privately-operated shared mobility businesses.
Following the pilot evaluation report in January 2020, Council directed staff to create a second pilot program that was set to launch on July 1, 2020. Due to COVID-19, Council extended the first pilot to April 30, 2021 and postponed the second pilot program. Like all aspects of life, shared mobility has been impacted by COVID-19 in a number of ways:
• Jump and Lime left the Santa Monica market, reflecting the trend of some companies downsizing and withdrawing from certain markets.
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 of 15
• COVID-19 has slowed movement across all transportation modes. Between 2019 and 2020, shared mobility ridership is down 77%, parking transactions are down 52%, BBB ridership is down 59%.
• Companies are reducing staff, devices, and operations to cope with financial stress.
• Pay-as-you-go user prices have increased to $1 to unlock and $0.39/minute. • Other cities are extending programs or shifting from permitting to contracting models to mitigate affordability concerns and volatility of service for customers. • Cities are rethinking fee structures to drive user rates lower and help shared mobility businesses though this difficult time.
Bird and Lyft have continued to operate in Santa Monica with reduced device numbers and increased cleaning and safety protocols. These services have served as critical transportation that helps support the more local/ outdoor lifestyle caused by the pandemic, by giving people another option for short trips around town while adhering to pandemic safety guidelines. Occurrences of haphazard parking and bad rider behavior have dropped, and complaints related to shared mobility fell by 85 % in 2020 compared to 2019.
The pandemic will continue to disrupt daily life and business for the next several months, including causing uncertainty within the shared mobility industry. Staff recommends that the program shift to a contracting model with shared mobility companies in order to mitigate some of this volatility. In comparison to the current permit model, contracting provides a stronger foundation for cities and companies to work together toward improved outcomes achieved through defined service level standards, incentives, penalties, and fees. Staff recommends prioritizing outcomes related to the stability of local access, equitable distribution of devices, affordability, and diverse outreach. Council input is requested on these priorities to guide next steps and help to resolve tradeoffs when they arise.
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 of 15
In support of this recommendation, staff proposes amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 3.21.090 to extend the term of the first Shared Mobility Pilot Program to March 31, 2022 and repealing Section 3.22 that enables the second permitbased Shared Mobility Pilot Program. The extension will allow staff to complete a procurement process to select shared mobility partners and to negotiate the terms of a shared mobility contract agreement while also maintaining continuity of current services with Bird and Lyft.
Staff also recommends amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.600 to remove the prohibition of Class I and II electric bicycles on the Beach Bike Path. In 2018, the prohibition of these e-bikes on the Beach Bike Path was brought to Council to be clarified because of congestion caused by new e-scooter and e-bike sharing and safety concerns. Since then, the City has doubled the beach path capacity north of the pier and implemented geo-fencing technology that keeps shared e-scooters and e-bikes off the path. Many people still use their privately-owned e-bikes and other devices on the path. This amendment will reopen the beach path to the growing number of people riding Class I and II e-bikes for commuting and recreation.
Background Timeline
Meeting Date Description
September 2017 Bird, Inc. e-scooter sharing launched in Santa Monica.
June 26, 2018
(Attachment A)
Shared Mobility Pilot Program and fees to develop a new area of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for shared mobility devices in the City were approved.
August 28, 2018
(Attachment B)
Shared Mobility use of public right-of-way (PROW) fee to create infrastructure to improve the safety for riders and citywide streets was approved.
September 17, 2018 The Shared Mobility Pilot Program launched with Bird, Jump, Lime and Lyft who were selected through a competitive
process.
November 12, 2019
(Attachment C)
Staff returned to Council to present pilot program
outcomes. The program showed high ridership and utilization,
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 of 15
but challenges remained in rider behavior, PROW
management, and regulating the emerging industry.
January 28, 2020
(Attachment D)
Staff was directed to create a second shared mobility pilot program to build on the successes of the program and better address the persistent challenges.
February 11, 2020
(Attachment E)
The term of the first pilot program was extended and a
Request for Applications (RFA) to select shared mobility operators for the second pilot program was released in March 2020.
May 12, 2020
(Attachment F)
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second pilot program
was postponed and the first pilot program was extended until April 30, 2021. The Share Mobility PROW fee was revised.
March and May of 2020 Lime and Jump, respectively, terminated service in Santa Monica The remaining operators (Bird and Lyft) reduced their fleet size, increased cleaning, and safety protocols for their devices, and continued to operate as essential transportation during response and recovery efforts.
November 2020 Lyft launched e-bikes that were originally permitted but not initially launched.
Discussion
Since the 2015 launch of the City-owned Breeze Bike Share, shared mobility services have been a valued component of Santa Monica’s local transportation options. Shared mobility services can be ideal for Santa Monica because they provide flexibility, are usable year-round, and feel safe for many people on the 100-mile bike network that was built in the last 10 years.
New need for shared mobility partnership was created in November 2020. The City sunset Breeze Bike Share due to considerable new financial constraints caused by COVID-19, and the need to replace bikes due to wear and technology changes.
This ended the operating contract and generous title sponsorship from Hulu.
Shared bikes served millions of necessary trips and paved the way for how shared
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 of 15
mobility could operate and give users a convenient, reliable, and affordable shared mobility option.
The Shared Mobility Pilot Program was developed to test shared electric scooters and bikes operated by private companies, using a flexible approach that could be responsive to community needs, technological advancements, and an evolving industry.
Ridership of shared mobility devices was strong from the first month of the pilot program, starting at 200,700 trips in November 2018, and reaching 344,700 trips in August 2019. Riders generated a total of 3,050,000 trips in 2019. In rider surveys conducted in January and June 2019 and December 2020, 49% and 42% of respondents respectively reported that for their most recent scooter trip, they would have otherwise traveled in a car (either drive alone or another car like Uber/Lyft). Santa Monica residents accounted for 35% and LA County residents accounted for approximately 40% of survey respondents in all three surveys.
Impacts of COVID-19 on Shared Mobility
Due to COVID-19, movement across all transportation modes has temporarily dropped.
Between April and November in 2020 compared to 2019, the City has seen a drop in parking transactions of 52%, BBB ridership of 59%, and of shared mobility ridership of 77%. Yet, Santa Monica remains a strong shared mobility market. E-scooters and bikes complement the growth in solo outdoor activities of COVID-19, and emphasis on local
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 of 15
essential business activity and support for business recovery. The devices give residents another option to access local businesses for quick trips.
The core of regular users that has come to rely on these services are continuing to ride, even with the pandemic’s overall drop in shared mobility ridership. 42% of the respondents from the most recent rider survey reported that they ride about the same amount as they did before the pandemic started. 33% of respondents reported riding more than once per week and 48% reported riding occasionally but less than once per week.
The total number of devices permitted to operate in the City decreased from 3,250 to 2,000 during the pandemic due to Jump and Lime terminating service. This has ushered in a period of improved conditions in the field, better alignment with administrative capacity, and enforcement efficiency. During this time of slowdown, the City has experienced a decrease in bad rider behavior and haphazard parking, which is largely driven by the reduction in overall ridership, particularly among the tourist population and first-time riders. Between April and December 2020, there was an 85% decrease in the number of Santa Monica Works complaints about shared mobility services from the same time period in 2019.
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 7 of 15
Looking Forward on Shared Mobility
Looking forward, Santa Monica will continue to be impacted by private sector company volatility as the industry adapts to financial challenges in the next year. Companies are still largely dependent on private investment to sustain operations and are having to adjust to reduced capital and investor demand. As ridership and rider revenue slowed, many shared mobility operators have had to downsize and/or change operations. This includes decreasing staffing and service levels and withdrawing from some markets.
These trends are causing cities to consider adjustments to regulatory and partnership structures in order to ensure long-term reliable, consistent, available, and affordable service.
Many cities are extending pilot programs or postponing the launch of new programs due to current events. For example, San Francisco, San Diego, and Washington D.C. recently approved extensions of their current programs. Other cities are shifting their programs from permitting to contracted models to address operations cost and affordability concerns and improve safety and reliability outcomes. For example, following a second pilot program, Portland, Oregon has recommended moving to 2-3- year contracts with one to three companies, and Denver is in contract negotiation with two companies to operate both e-scooters and e-bikes.
Some cities that are continuing shared mobility permitting are exploring adjustments to fee structures like shifting from per-device to per-trip fees or requiring performance bonds in lieu of large annual fees. Cities that are considering contracted models for shared mobility are exploring options to negotiate revenue generation and costs with selected partner operators. For example, the Portland bike share system is largely funded by a $2 million/year title sponsorship, of which 77% is paid to the operator to cover operating costs, and 23% is used by the city to promote the program and subsidize low-income rate programs.
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 8 of 15
Shifting to a Contracted Shared Mobility Services Model Contracting provides a stronger foundation for cities and companies to work together toward outcomes defined in the contracts in comparison to the current permit model.
Council received an extensive review of the pilot permit program on November 12, 2019 (Attachment C) and, while shared mobility demonstrated popularity and transportation value, challenges remained in reliability, affordability, and access for customers among other issues. Contracts can ameliorate some of these issues through service level standards, incentives, penalties, and fee adjustments.
Staff recommends pursuing the contract model option through a solicitation and negotiation process. Doing so would shift the current shared mobility pilot program permit structure to a contracted structure akin to the Breeze Bike Share operations model, which would procure one or more vendors to provide shared mobility services under contract with the City.
The contracted model would be sought in order to:
• Stabilize local access by deepening the City’s partnership with companies For shared mobility to be a viable transportation option that supports local living, it must be reliably available for everyday users. Under the permit model companies compete for market share and have to weigh market viability with level of local investment in service. For customers who depend on these services for their transportation needs, such uncertainty and fluctuation can leave them stranded. Companies operating under contract have a longer-term commitment to operations than permitted entities, which enables them to prioritize long-term investment in the market, which could include newer devices, innovative technology (i.e. sidewalk riding tech), transit integration opportunities, docking station infrastructure, and diverse payment plan products. More company investment and a deeper partnership with shared mobility companies may also lighten administrative oversight and enforcement efforts required to ensure regulation compliance in a permitted system.
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 9 of 15
• Increase local influence on usage rates, equity programs, and maintenance standards enforceable through service level agreements (SLAs) While Bird and Lyft offer low-income payment plans for qualified community members, the standard e-scooter and e-bike per-minute user rate remains costly for regular riders. Today both Bird and Lyft charge $1.00 to unlock the device and $0.39 per minute to ride e-scooters. A Lyft e-bike is slightly cheaper at $1.00 to unlock and $0.34 per minute. Under the current Shared Mobility Pilot Program permit structure, the City does not set rider rates or equity efforts and could not without a contract or other binding action. Under a contract model the City could ensure dependable quality service by negotiating contract terms that pertain to affordably, equity, engagement, operational service levels, penalties, and contract termination.
• Address operations cost concerns through negotiated revenue sharing, sponsorship opportunities, or reduced operations fees
Transportation services typically do not net revenue, and are subsidized through federal, state, and local taxes. The City-owned Breeze System was operated under a 5-year contract and supported by user revenues, sponsorship revenue, and a small amount of City funds. As shared-mobility companies are withdrawing from cities due to financial strain, cities who want continued operations are reducing fees and some requirements in exchange for increased service levels, reduced user rates and increased equity programs. Santa Monica set the standard for shared mobility fees and insurance requirements and is now at the very top of the cost spectrum of comparable cities. Currently operators pay Annual Operator and Per Device fees, which pay for staff time to administer and enforce compliance with the pilot program Administrative Regulations, and a Per Trip PROW fee to support infrastructure to improve the safety for riders and citywide streets. While the fees have been necessary to support the creation of green lanes and pilot program staff and enforcement, consideration of costs and new revenue streams such as sponsorship may be needed to achieve other priorities (like greater equity and lower user rates) going forward. Any financial
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 10 of 15
changes or negotiated financial terms of a contract would be brought back to Council for approval.
Staff recommends amendments to the Municipal Code to extend the first shared mobility pilot program for 11 months from April 30, 2021 to March 31, 2022 and repeal the second pilot program. Should Council approve the pilot extension and direct staff to pursue a contracted model, over the next 11 months Staff would:
• work with Bird and Lyft to ensure a continuous shared mobility service through the remaining term of the shared mobility pilot program • develop a scope of work for contractual shared mobility services based on Council outcome priorities
• complete an RFP solicitation process to competitively select 1-2 operators • negotiate contract terms with selected operators
• return to Council for authorization to execute the contract(s) Operator Selection Priorities
Staff would structure the procurement selection criteria around clearly defined performance expectations with a focus on the outcome priorities previously identified for the second shared mobility pilot program that are described below. Staff recommends Council give direction on which outcomes are most important in order to help guide the procurement and contract negotiations processes. Staff will seek to optimize community benefits coming out of the program and Council direction will assist when financial challenges emerge, and tradeoffs need to be considered.
Criteria Category Outcome Priority
Reliability and Access Device distribution and rebalancing operations that provide equitable access to riders throughout the City
and enable riders to depend on the system. Includes
maintenance to avoid blocking ADA clearance, transit
stops, driveways, etc.
Customer Affordability Affordable fares for daily use and commitment to fare stability, provide reduced rates for income-qualified
customers, and discount programs.
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 11 of 15
Outreach and Education Regular education about safety, rules, and riding etiquette, outreach to and engagement with BIPOC,
lower-income and under-represented users.
Sustainability Sustainability goals and plans that ensure low emissions/ energy consumption operations, long device
life expectancy, and end of life device recycling
practices.
Customer Service Strength of customer service operation including hours of operation, phone/web services, mobile-app
notifications, and on device communications.
The procurement will continue to seek improvements in device quality and advanced safety features/technologies that can help to drive safe operations, improve rider behaviors, and reduce occurrences of haphazard parking, such as geo-fencing, parking incentives, “lock-to” features, and in-app messaging. Potential vendors will be required to provide the city with system data compatible with the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) and General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) data application program interfaces (API), and monthly reporting. The terms of the contractual agreement would need to be negotiated with selected vendors. Any revenue and/or sponsorship sharing terms will be coordinated with the Public Private Category Sponsorship program that was approved by Council on January 26, 2021. Staff would return to Council for any ordinance amendments, budget related actions, and authorization to execute the contract(s).
Alternatives and Future Considerations
Second Shared Mobility Pilot Program: As an alternative to shifting to a contracted model for shared mobility, Council could direct staff to proceed with the second pilot program as was planned before the start of the pandemic. This would also involve a solicitation and selection through a Request for Applications (RFA), and selected operators would be regulated by SMMC Section 3.22 and the second pilot program Administrative Guidelines. Staff would implement the equity distribution requirements defined in Section 3.22 but would not have authority to negotiate user rates to improve affordability. Companies would operate through a permit, which has no penalty for early withdrawal from the market. Enforcement of the program would be limited to the tools
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 12 of 15
available through traditional permit warnings and citations. For this alternative, Council would need to extend the first pilot program (Section 3.21.060) and postpone the second pilot program start date (Section 3.22.090) for a minimum of six months to allow enough time to solicit applications and select participating operators, without losing continuity of service of the current operations.
LA Metro Bike Share: Rather than providing bike/ e-bike share services as part of the Shared Mobility Pilot Program, the City may consider participating in the LA Metro public bike share system. The current structure of Metro Bike Share requires cities to pay 50% of capital cost and 65% of operating cost, which is a multi-million-dollar investment beyond reach in current financial conditions. However, LA Metro is currently exploring options for restructuring the program to encourage partner cities to join. The Metro Bike Share and operator contract will terminate in June 2021. Metro has indicated their interest in working with Santa Monica as a partner of the regional bike share system, however there is no indication yet what the financial terms would be. The Pilot program extension will allow staff time to consider this option and better understand the implications of this opportunity on how Santa Monica may provide bike share services in the long-term.
Class I and Class II Electric Bicycles on the Beach Bike Path E-bike usage and ownership has steadily increased over the past several years, and nearly all local bike shops in Santa Monica now sell and/or offer e-bike rentals. E-bike riders report an interest in reducing physical exertion and overcoming challenging topography, along with the desire to replace car trips and increase health. E-bikes are making it possible for more people to ride a bicycle, many of whom are incapable of riding a standard bicycle or do not feel safe doing so.
In 2015, the California Legislature passed AB 1096, which updated Vehicle Code provisions related to e-bikes, including permitting Class I and Class II e-bikes (20 mph maximum speed), on Class I bicycle paths, such as the beach bike path, unless otherwise prohibited by local municipalities. The bill designated three classes or types of e-bikes:
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 13 of 15
E-Bike Classification Max Speed Type of E-assist Speedometer Required
Class I E-bike 20 mph Low-Speed PedalassistNo
Class II E-Bike 20 mph Low-Speed
Throttle-assist
No
Class III E-Bike 28 mph Higher-Speed
Pedal-assist
Yes
When the first Shared Mobility Pilot Program was adopted in 2018, SMMC Section
3.12.600 was amended to clarify language that explicitly banned all motorized devices from the beach bike path including all types of e-bikes. At that Council meeting, Staff proposed that Council could consider an exemption for e-bikes in order to support the burgeoning local industry, and because it is difficult to distinguish between regular bikes and e-bikes. Ultimately, Council decided to include all e-bikes in the prohibition because of oversaturation of e-scooters and other types of devices on the beach bike path, and safety concerns regarding narrowness/ congestion of the path at that time. Council was interested in leaving open the possibility to revisit an exemption for e-bikes on the path at a later time.
Since the initial prohibition, staff has received occasional inquiries from community members regarding an exemption to allow e-bikes on the beach path and the beach path has seen substantial change.
• The City has completed the North Beach Bike Path project, which has separated cyclists and pedestrians, expanded the capacity of the beach path north of the pier, and incorporated high-visibility pedestrian crossings to reduce conflicts. • The number of shared mobility operators and devices has decreased. • Shared mobility operators have implemented geo-fencing technology that stops shared e-scooters and e-bikes entering the beach path area and has nearly eliminated the shared devices from the path.
Because of these changes, Staff recommends amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 3.12.600, to remove the prohibition of Class I and II electric bicycles on the
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 14 of 15
Beach Bike Path. Higher speed Class III e-bikes would continue to be prohibited by State law. This amendment will reopen the beach path to the growing number of commuters and recreational cyclist that are turning to lower-speed e-assist bikes as their mode of choice.
SMPD has raised safety concerns regarding the potential for excessive speed on the beach, and the challenge to distinguish among the different types of e-bikes. The speed limit on the beach bike path is 20 mph, however there are no speed limit signs posted.
Currently, all e-bikes are required to have a label that describes its types, speed, and motor wattage. Class III e-bikes are required to have a speedometer. If Class I and II ebikes were to be permitted on the path, some training would be needed for enforcement personnel to distinguish Class III e-bikes from Class I and II, and targeted enforcement actions to help educate the public should be considered.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
In September of 2020 the permitted shared mobility companies paid the Annual Operator and Annual Per Device cost recovery fees, which pay for staff time to administer and enforce compliance with the pilot program. Should Council extend the Pilot Program, permitted companies will continue to pay monthly per trip PROW fees through the program term, and annual cost recovery fees in September 2021. There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Based on Council direction, staff will include any potential budget impacts in the FY 21-22 proposed budget.
Prepared By: Kyle Kozar, Bike Share Coordinator
Approved Forwarded to Council
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 15 of 15
Attachments:
A. Staff Report 3126 - June 26, 2018 (Web Link)
B. Staff Report 3134 - August 28, 2018 (Web Link)
C. Staff Report 3615 - November 12, 2019 (Web Link)
D. Staff Report 3877- January 28, 2020 (Web Link)
E. Staff Report 4000 - February 11, 2020 (Web Link)
F. Staff Report 4089 - May 12, 2020 (Web Link)
G. Proposed Ordinance
H. 3/3/2021 Email from Councilmember de la Torre to Climate Action Santa Monica I. Written Comments
10.B.e
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment D. March 9, 2021 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.C
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward F King, Director, Mobility (DOT)
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending SMMC 3.22 and adding section 3.23 to allow shared mobility services to be provided under a contract agreement with the City
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance to do the following:
1. Amend Section 3.22.090 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to extend the term of the second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program from March 30, 2023, to September 30, 2023; and
2. Create Section 3.23 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish a contracting model for shared mobility device services.
Executive Summary
The City of Santa Monica has operated a shared mobility program since 2018. Since July 1, 2021, the City has been in the second pilot program with four companies (Lyft, Spin, Veo, and Wheels) who operate five distinct device types (Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, two-wheeled electric scooters, three-wheeled e-scooters, and sit-down e-scooters).
The second pilot program ends on March 30, 2023. Pursuant to Council’s direction on March 9, 2021, to transition shared mobility services to a contracting model, staff recommends Council adopt the attached ordinance that would take effect on October 1, 2023 and establish that shared mobility device services are only allowed to operate in Santa Monica when contracting with the City. The extension of the current pilot program will provide staff the time necessary to go through the procurement process The
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 of 15
ordinance would extend the second pilot program from its initial termination date on March 30, 2023 to September 30, 2023.
A contracting model is preferred because contracting provides a stronger foundation for cities and companies to work together toward improved outcomes such as affordability of service, improved device safety, and mitigation of bad rider behaviors. This stronger foundation is achieved through relationship-building, defined service level standards, and enhanced incentives, penalties, and fees.
The contracting model will:
• Incorporate a variation of the Administrative Regulations as comprehensive terms and conditions, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) within the contractual agreements with the selected operator(s). • Reduce the number of operators but maintain enough devices to meet rider demand.
• Improve reliability, affordability, and availability of shared mobility options while improving safety, sustainability, and administrative outcomes. • Seek to include multiple device types to meet an array of mobility needs. • Monitor technological modifications to shared mobility vehicles and integrate solutions to mitigate bad rider behavior such as improperly parked vehicles and sidewalk riding.
• Maintain open and productive partnerships between the City and the operator(s). • Generate cost recovery/revenue through innovative partnerships, sponsorships, and revenue sharing models to ensure that costs are recovered to oversee and manage the program.
This staff report requests authority to issue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to implement the contracted model and extend the second pilot program through September 30, 2023, to allow staff time to develop the contracting model, identify
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 of 15
members of the selection committee, complete a procurement process, negotiate with operators, coordinate a transition period, and launch service in October 2023 while maintaining continuity in shared mobility service.
The selection committee will select the recommended shared mobility device operator(s) for the contracting model through an RFP process scheduled for release in Fall 2022. Staff will then return to Council in Summer 2023 to recommend the contract award(s) with the selected operator(s).
Background
Since the 2015 launch of the City-owned Breeze Bike Share system and subsequent rollout of electric shared mobility devices in 2017, shared mobility device services have been a valued component of Santa Monica’s local transportation network. By promoting alternatives to car trips, the shared mobility industry has shifted from an era of disruption to one of integration within Santa Monica’s transportation network. Shared mobility services are ideal for Santa Monica because they provide flexibility, are usable year-round, provide first/last mile connections to the public transit network, and feel safe and reliable for many people to use on the 100+ mile bike network, much of which was installed in the last decade since City Council adopted the Bike Action Plan.
In September 2017, shared e-scooters were introduced by a private operator in Santa Monica. The new shared micromobility devices (e-scooters, e-bikes, etc.) provide loweremission mobility options for short trips around town. These devices aligned with City goals to reduce transportation emissions, mitigate congestion, and improve community members’ access to destinations.
On June 26, 2018 (Attachment A), Council approved the creation of a Shared Mobility Pilot Program to develop new area of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for shared mobility devices in Santa Monica. System performance improved during the first pilot program, which officially launched in September 2018. However, challenges remained in managing the public right-of-way (PROW), encouraging public safety,
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 of 15
adapting old regulations to new business types, and ensuring companies are accountable for public outcomes.
On March 9, 2021 (Attachment G), staff returned to Council to provide an update on the first pilot program and to recommend shifting from a permitted pilot program to a longerterm contract model that would strengthen the City’s partnership with operators. Council directed staff to implement a second Shared Mobility Pilot Program to allow time for COVID-19 related uncertainty to settle and shift to a contracted model on March 31, 2023.
Background Timeline
Date Description Attachment
September 2017 Bird Rides, Inc. e-scooter sharing launched in Santa Monica.
N/A
June 26, 2018 The City formally approved a Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and associated fees to
develop a new area of policy, regulation,
operation, and enforcement for shared mobility
devices in the City.
A
August 28, 2018 The City approved a Shared Mobility public right of way (PROW) usage fee to fund the creation of
infrastructure to improve the safety for riders and
citywide streets.
B
September 17,
2018
The Shared Mobility Pilot Program launched with
Bird, Jump, Lime, and Lyft, all of whom were
selected through a competitive process.
N/A
November 12, 2019 Staff returned to Council to present pilot program outcomes. The program showed high ridership
and utilization, but challenges remained in rider
behavior, PROW management, and provider
regulation.
C
January 28, 2020 Council directed staff to create a second pilot program to build on the successes of the first and
better address challenges.
D
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 of 15
February 11, 2020 The City extended the term of the first pilot program, and the City subsequently released in
March 2020 a Request for Applications (RFA) for
the second pilot program.
E
May 12, 2020 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second pilot program was postponed, and the first pilot
program was extended until April 30, 2021. The
Shared Mobility PROW fee was revised from $1
per device per day to $0.20 per trip.
F
November 2020 City-owned Breeze Bike Shared program
terminated, and Lyft launched e-bikes that were
originally permitted under the pilot program but
not initially deployed.
N/A
March 9, 2021 Council directed staff to implement a 21-month second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program.
Then, following the second pilot program, shift
from a temporary permit model to a longer-term
contracting model for shared mobility services in
the City.
G
July 1, 2021 The City launched the second pilot program. N/A May 10, 2022 Staff released an Information Item providing an update on status of the second pilot program.
H
Discussion
The first and second pilot programs were developed to test shared e-scooters and ebikes operated by private companies, using a flexible approach that could be responsive to community needs and technological advancements within an evolving industry. Ridership of shared mobility devices was strong from the first month of the first pilot program, with a total of 3,050,000 trips in 2019. When the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in March 2020, travel throughout the City dramatically declined across all modes. In 2021, during the first six months of the second pilot program, movement in the City continued to be impacted by the pandemic, with shared mobility ridership remaining at only 26% of pre-pandemic levels.
Between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, riders generated 849,916 trips, with a typical trip covering 1.46 miles in 10.1 minutes. While ridership growth has been slow to return to pre-pandemic levels, a core userbase continues to rely on these services for regular
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 of 15
transportation needs. According to a City-issued user survey conducted in January 2022, 43% of riders live in Santa Monica. These local riders make frequent use of shared mobility, with more than half (50.1%) of responding Santa Monica residents saying they use shared e-scooters and e-bikes once per week or more.
Figure 1: Shared Mobility trips by month for all providers, split across calendar years.
Source Mobility Data Specification (MDS) data collected through internal City data pipeline, Remix, and Ride Report.
Shifting to a Contracting Shared Mobility Device Services Model The first and second pilot programs demonstrated rapid adoption and ridership. Looking ahead, Santa Monica will continue to be impacted by private sector company volatility as the industry adapts to financial challenges. As ridership and rider revenue have slowed and financial viability has come under increased scrutiny, many shared mobility operators have had to downsize and/or change operational strategies, including decreasing staffing, service levels and withdrawing from some markets. These trends
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 7 of 15
are causing cities to consider adjustments to regulatory and partnership structures to ensure long-term reliable, consistent, available, and affordable service.
Multiple cities are shifting away from permitting models to contracts for shared mobility services. Portland, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado, both shifted from permitting models to contracts for shared mobility services. Following a second pilot program for electric scooters, Portland recently launched an RFP to solicit bids for up to two companies.
Currently, Denver has contracts with two companies who operate both e-scooters and e-bikes. Comparing Denver’s shared mobility ridership last quarter before their contracted model took effect – Q1 2021 – with the same quarter one year later, there is a 73% increase in daily rides. Denver communicated to staff that they have seen improvements in operation and service since switching to a contracting model.
Relative to the current permitting model, contracting provides a stronger foundation for cities and companies to work together toward contractually defined outcomes. The contract model focuses regulatory efforts in areas with clearly defined performance expectations and seeks to align them with reporting and enforcement processes. This approach narrows the focus on regulations, with emphasis on oversight and relationship-building with operators through continued development of technologybased tools for management and enforcement. Companies operating under contract have a longer-term commitment to operations than permitted entities, which enables them to prioritize long-term investment in the market. Examples include newer devices, innovative technologies (e.g., technologies to minimize sidewalk riding), transit integration opportunities, supplemental revenue options such as sponsorships, and diverse payment plans that will improve affordability for users.
Affordability for All Continues to be a Challenge
The City requires each permitted provider to offer low-income qualified rates that are easily accessible. The low-income programs each of the four current operators provide are based on requirements related to some combination of home zip code, participation in state or federal means-tested aid programs, and Santa Monica College (SMC) enrollment status. Incentives range from monthly memberships at a reduced price,
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 8 of 15
reduced or eliminated unlock fees, and per-minute trip costs ranging from $0.05 to $0.29 cents per minute. While these low-income programs offer meaningful affordability benefits for participants, they represent a small share of overall operations in Santa Monica. Based on complete reporting from current operators within Santa Monica, a total of 7,770 trips were taken between October 2021 and April 2022, representing about 2% of the 364,000 overall trips taken in that time.
Beyond the low-income rate offering, the four current operators offer similar payment plan options and charge a similar rate per trip. All four operators charge a $1 unlock fee and between $0.33 - $0.49 per minute of use, a substantial increase from rates charged at the end of the first pilot program ($0.23 - $0.30 per minute). While the second pilot program has delivered cost reduction for some shared mobility options, primarily for low-income riders and casual users, rates continue to be much higher than public transportation options, dominating the overall cost of a multi-modal transit/shared mobility trip. For example, BBB costs $1.10 per trip using the regional Transit Access Pass (TAP) or mobile ticketing ($1.25 cash fare) and Metro bus and rail lines cost $1.75 per trip. By comparison, a typical shared mobility trip that starts within 100 feet of the Downtown E (Expo) Line station lasts 9.5 minutes. Thus, a traveler who takes the train and then finishes their journey via shared an e-scooter or e-bike would pay $1.75 for the rail portion of their trip and as much as $5.66 for the shared mobility portion. In addition to presenting affordability issues, this mismatch of fees limits the role of shared mobility in linking users to transit and advancing the City's goal of multi-modal connectivity.
Reflecting the cost to ride, the current userbase skews wealthy. Based on the January 2022 bi-annual user survey, 47% of participants make more than $100,000 per year and 61% make $75,000 or more. The issue of affordability for users who make less than $100,000 is a barrier for habitual shared mobility use. When asked “What barriers prevent you from using e-scooters or e-bikes in Santa Monica?” 36% of survey respondents overall selected too expensive (the second most selected reason).
For low- and middle-income users, expense is even more of a barrier, with 42% of users who earn less than $100,000 and 47% of users earning less than $75,000 citing cost as
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 9 of 15
a barrier to entry. Under the current Shared Mobility Pilot Program permit structure, the City does not set rider rates or equity efforts and could not do so without a contract or other binding action. Under a contract model, the City seeks to ensure dependable quality service by negotiating contract terms pertaining to affordability, equity, community engagement, operational service levels, penalties, and contract termination.
Shared Mobility Contract Structure
Consistent with Council direction to pursue a contracted model for the next phase of shared mobility in Santa Monica, staff is preparing to solicit proposals to select and negotiate agreements with up to two vendors to provide shared mobility services under contract with the City. The contracted model will be structured as follows:
1. Contract Term: 3-year (beginning October 2023), with renewal options and final reporting at the end of each contract term.
2. Contract Authority: The proposed ordinance (Attachment I) defines basic program procedures including application and selection and authorizes staff to develop an RFP for soliciting bids from providers. Day-to-day oversight will be managed through negotiated contractual Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
3. New Device and Operations Selection Process: The City will launch a formal RFP selection process to identify no more than two operators with the best available devices to participate in the next iteration of the program. Devices could include e-bicycles, two-wheeled e-scooters, sit-down e-scooters, etc. Proposed devices would have to meet the City’s definition of device and comply with all federal and state laws. The selected operator(s) would begin operations on or after October 1, 2023. The City seeks operators with operational experience, a diversity of high-quality devices, tiered membership options, offer technologies/systems that reduce sidewalk riding and haphazard parking, and provide a commitment to reliable, equitable and affordable access. Provision of devices accessible to people with disabilities would be encouraged.
4. Scale of Program: The number of devices will be negotiated in the contract, adjusted to meet demand and drive ridership growth. Fleet caps could be adjusted based on demonstrated and sustained fleet utilization built into the
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 10 of 15
contract. Minimums and maximums of fleet counts will be determined in each neighborhood within the City of Santa Monica as defined in contract negotiations.
Operator Selection Priorities
Staff will structure the procurement selection criteria around clearly defined performance expectations with a focus on the outcome priorities described below. Staff will seek to optimize community benefits of the program, and Council direction will assist if/when financial challenges emerge, and tradeoffs need to be considered. To both streamline program administration and facilitate greater investment on the part of individual operators, the City will seek to procure the services of up to two operators.
Performance
Category
Points of Emphasis
Equitable, Affordable,
and Effective
Transportation
• Fare structures and membership options that provide
affordability for users at all income levels
• Easy access to devices throughout the City
• Operations that promote multi-modal connectivity
• Integrated connections with the City of Los Angeles and other regional partners
Safety and Order • Devices that make use of the best available technologies to keep riders and non-riders safe
• Operations and maintenance designed to keep streets
and sidewalks free and clear of parked devices
• Facility upkeep and road safety trainings for operator staff
Environmental
Sustainability
• Fleet operations and device lifecycles that minimize
greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental
harms
• Service levels designed to maximize the displacement of car trips and resulting emissions and congestion
Community Partnership • Active and thoughtful community outreach • Provision of secure data streams to the City for program administration, evaluation, and planning applications
• Corporate stability and the application of a sound and sustainable business model
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 11 of 15
Performance
Category
Points of Emphasis
System Maintenance • Shared Mobility Drop Zones/Bike Share Station maintenance
• Responsiveness to community concern and complaints
• System distribution/rebalancing
Organizational Stability • Comprehensive data sharing agreements • Information pertaining to revenue and growth projections The procurement will continue to seek improvements in device quality and advanced safety features/technologies that can help to drive safe operations, improve rider behaviors, and reduce occurrences of haphazard parking. Such technologies and operational measures may include geo-fencing prohibited zones, on-device modules that detect and deter sidewalk riding, parking incentives, built-in locking mechanisms, and in-app messaging.
Operator(s) will be required to provide the city with system data compatible with MDS and General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) data application program interfaces (API), along with monthly reporting. The final terms of contractual agreement(s) will be negotiated with the selected operator(s).
Cost Recovery and Sponsorship Options
Transportation services historically struggle to turn profit in the absence of federal, state, and/or local subsidy. For example, the City-owned Breeze Bike Share system was operated under a 5-year contract and was supported by user revenues, sponsorship revenue, and a small amount of City funds. Santa Monica, which currently finds itself at the top of the cost spectrum for shared mobility operators, will need to be flexible and creative to fully recover internal costs of program administration while enabling robust and useful shared mobility services.
As many shared mobility companies are withdrawing from cities due to financial strain, cities who want continued operations are adjusting fees and supporting alternative
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 12 of 15
revenue generation like sponsorships in exchange for increased service levels, reduced user fares, and expanded equity programs.
Through contract negotiations, the City will ensure full cost recovery for staff time and the associated software services needed to manage the program. Through the procurement process, the City will explore and negotiate a variety of strategies to balance the goals of affordability for users, long-term financial viability of operations, reliable/accessible service, and minimum cost recovery for administrating the program.
With a contract model, operators are better positioned to use sponsorships to offset costs of daily operations, fleet, and infrastructure maintenance. Staff will request details about sponsorship plans as part of applications submitted via the RFP process like the City’s agreement with Hulu, which helped generate revenue to cover Breeze Bike Share operational costs, membership programs for low-income users, and annual memberships. Per City guidelines, the City will approve contract terms which ensure that sponsorship aligns with the City’s Big Blue Bus advertising policy.
Through contract negotiations, sponsorship agreements could also include provisions for revenue sharing with the City of Santa Monica above agreed-upon revenue thresholds. Any sponsorship and/or revenue sharing terms will be coordinated with the Community Partnerships Program that was approved by Council on January 26, 2021.
Staffing Implications
The permitting, oversight, and enforcement required to ensure compliance with regulations of the first and second pilot programs has demanded considerable administrative and enforcement staff commitment consisting of a full-time program coordinator and a limited-term Code Enforcement officer. Following citywide restructuring in mid-2020, the Code Enforcement and Mobility divisions absorbed those duties among existing staff, at times to the detriment of other work efforts and priorities.
It is anticipated that a longer-term contractual partnership with fewer shared mobility companies will lighten administrative oversight and enforcement efforts required to
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 13 of 15
ensure that the selected shared mobility operator(s) maintain their service level obligations. The implementation of this model will uphold community expectations for public safety, access for all users, affordability, reliability, and data collection/analysis.
The full cost of service oversight and enforcement will be recovered through terms agreed upon as part of contract negotiations and/or revenue sharing. Staff will assess the staffing needs required to administer the program. Any personnel changes would align with the budget process.
In addition to shifting from permitted to contracting shared mobility operations, staff recommends amendments to the Municipal Code to extend the ongoing second Shared Mobility Pilot Program from March 30, 2023, to September 30, 2023. Should Council approve the pilot extension and direct staff to pursue a contracting model, over the next ten months staff would:
• Work with currently permitted operators (Lyft, Spin, Veo and Wheels) to ensure continuous shared mobility service through the remaining term of the second pilot program.
• Complete the scope of work for contractual shared mobility services. • Complete an RFP solicitation process to competitively select up to two operators, pursuant to the procurement process and return to Council at a later date with recommendation of award(s).
• Negotiate contract terms with selected operator(s).
• Return to Council for award of the contract(s) and authorization to execute the contract(s).
Environmental Impact Statement
CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. A project is not subject to CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The proposed
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 14 of 15
ordinance to change regulation of shared mobility devices from a permit system to a contracted service model would not result in a physical environmental effect on the environment.
In addition, Section 15302 exempts Class 1 projects from CEQA, which include the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures [or] facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.” The project consists of the regulation of shared mobility devices within the public right of way because it consists of alternate operation (and permitting) of public streets, sidewalks, and similar facilities that do not create additional automobile lanes. The shared mobility devices are required to be operated within existing public streets, would utilize existing shared mobility stations, and would not necessitate the construction of new vehicle travel lanes for operation.
Therefore, the project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption.
Furthermore, Section 15308 also provides an exemption for Class 8 projects, which include actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for the protection of the environment.
The proposed ordinance is intended to regulate shared mobility devices for the protection of the environment, including people. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline sections 15302 and 15308.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. The new program to be developed will provide for full cost recovery so that all costs to administer the program, as detailed in the Staffing Implications section, will be cost neutral and covered by revenues from the permanent program. Staff will return to Council as part of the biennial budget process if specific budget actions are required in the future.
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 15 of 15
Prepared by: Barbara Jacobson, Transportation Planning Associate Prepared By: Trevor Thomas, Transportation Planning Associate Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Staff Report 3126 - June 26, 2018 (Web Link)
B. Staff Report 3134 - August 28, 2018 (Web Link)
C. Staff Report 3615 - November 12, 2019 (Web Link)
D. Staff Report 3877- January 28, 2020 (Web Link)
E. Staff Report 4000 – February 11, 2020 (Web Link)
F. Staff Report 4089 - May 12, 2020 (Web Link)
G. Staff Report 4389 – March 9, 2021 (Web Link)
H. Shared Mobility Program Update July 2021-March 2022 Information Item – May 10, 2022 (Web Link)
I. 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt J. Written Comment
10.B.f
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment E. August 23, 2022 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.D
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Interim Director of Transportation, Mobility (DOT) Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.22.090 to Extend the Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
2. Introduce and adopt an urgency ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 3.22.090 to extend the term of the Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program from September 30, 2023, to a date thirty calendar days after execution of the contract(s) under SMMC Section 3.23 for permanent shared mobility services.
Executive Summary
The City of Santa Monica has operated a shared mobility pilot program (“Pilot Program”) since 2018. Since July 1, 2021, the City has been in the second phase of its Pilot Program with three companies (Spin, Veo, and Wheels; Lyft was initially a fourth operator who ceased operations across Southern California in November of 2022). The three operators operate four distinct device types (Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, two-wheeled electric scooters, and sit-down e-scooters). This second phase of the Pilot Program was initially slated to end on March 30, 2023, pursuant to Council’s direction on March 9, 2021, to transition shared mobility services to a contracting model.
On August 23, 2022, Council reaffirmed the transition of the shared mobility pilot program to a contracting model, directed staff to move forward with procurement for
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 of 7
contracted service with up to two shared mobility operators, and extended the ongoing second Pilot Program to September 30, 2023.
Following Council’s direction, staff initiated a formal procurement for contracted shared mobility services. In adherence to procurement protocol, staff crafted and, on January 18, 2023, released a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) that prioritized City goals of effective and affordable mobility, safety and order, environmental sustainability, community partnership, system maintenance, and organizational stability. Staff then assembled a selection committee of diverse internal stakeholders representing multiple City departments and one external subject matter expert to evaluate proposals and return with the two highest-scoring bidders for subsequent contract negotiations.
With the top-scoring bidders having been identified through the formal procurement process, staff is currently in the process of negotiating contract terms that best serve City goals and the mobility needs of the community. In order to achieve this task and bring an award recommendation to Council, staff recommends that Council adopt an urgency ordinance extending the end date of the second Pilot Program from September 30, 2023, to a date that is 30 calendar days after the execution of the contract(s) for permanent service. Such execution will only occur after Council approves negotiated contract terms for the two highest-scoring bidders at a future Council meeting.
Background
History of Shared Mobility in Santa Monica
Since dockless shared scooters were first deployed in Santa Monica in 2017, the City has worked to shape dockless shared mobility in ways that maximize its benefit to the community for both users and non-users alike. As part of this effort, the City launched a first-phase Pilot Program in 2018, which transitioned to a second phase in 2021, and which remains ongoing. See Table 1 for a thorough timeline of City actions in administering dockless shared mobility.
Table 1: Shared Mobility Timeline
Date Description Attachment
September 2017 Bird Rides, Inc. e-scooter sharing launched in N/A
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 of 7
Date Description Attachment
Santa Monica.
June 26, 2018 City Council formally approved a Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and associated fees to
develop a new area of policy, regulation,
operation, and enforcement for shared mobility
devices in the City.
A
August 28, 2018 City Council approved a Shared Mobility public right of way (PROW) usage fee to fund the
creation of infrastructure to improve safety for
riders and citywide streets.
B
September 17,
2018
The Shared Mobility Pilot Program launched with
Bird, Jump, Lime, and Lyft, all of whom were
selected through a competitive process.
N/A
November 12,
2019
Staff returned to Council to present pilot program
outcomes. The program showed high ridership
and utilization, but challenges remained in rider
behavior, PROW management, and provider
regulation.
C
January 28, 2020 Council directed staff to create a second pilot program to build on the successes of the first and
better address challenges.
D
February 11, 2020 The City extended the term of the first pilot program, and the City subsequently released in
March 2020 a Request for Applications (RFA) for
the second pilot program.
E
May 12, 2020 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second pilot program was postponed, and the first pilot
program was extended until April 30, 2021. The
Shared Mobility PROW fee was revised from $1
per device per day to $0.20 per trip.
F
November 2020 City-owned Breeze Bike Share program
terminated; Lyft launched e-bikes that were
originally permitted under the pilot program but
not initially deployed.
N/A
March 9, 2021 Council directed staff to implement a 21-month second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program,
and following the second pilot program, to shift
from the temporary permit model to a longer-term
contracting model for shared mobility services in
the City.
G
July 1, 2021 The City launched the second pilot program. N/A May 10, 2022 Staff released an Information Item providing an update on the status of the second pilot
H
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 of 7
Date Description Attachment
program.
August 23, 2022 Council extended the second pilot program from March 30, 2023, to September 30, 2023, and
directed staff to develop and release an RFP for
contracted shared mobility services.
I
November, 2022 Lyft ceases shared mobility operations in Santa Monica and across Southern California.
N/A
January 18, 2023 Procurement for contracted Shared Mobility service commences with release of RFP.
N/A
Current Shared Mobility Pilot Program
Currently, three operators are permitted to conduct shared mobility service in Santa Monica: Spin, which is permitted to deploy 700 e-scooters; Veo, which is permitted to deploy 200 scooters and 500 class 2 e-bikes; and Wheels/Helbiz, which is permitted to deploy 100 scooters and 100 class 1 e-bikes. Lyft was formerly permitted to deploy 600 class 1 e-bikes; however, they ceased operations in Santa Monica in 2022 as part of a broader withdrawal from Southern California markets.
This second-phase Pilot Program has furthered the City’s goals of providing for safe, effective, orderly, and equitable transportation for the community. Work remains to be done, however, in promoting system affordability, as well as ensuring a diverse set of shared mobility device types (particularly class 1 e-bikes, which have been largely absent since Lyft’s withdrawal).
Procurement of Contracted Shared Mobility
To address these issues and to advance the City’s goals for shared mobility service more effectively, City Council initially instructed staff to pursue a contracted shared mobility system on March 9, 2021. Council then reaffirmed this direction on August 23, 2022, with instructions to staff to begin procurement for shared mobility contracts with up to two operators.
As directed by Council, staff prepared an RFP for contracted shared mobility service that prioritized goals of affordability, equity, safety, order, and community partnership.
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 of 7
The RFP was released on January 18, 2023, with a total of six proposals received by the closing date of March 8, 2023. These proposals were then evaluated by a selection committee comprised of seven total members: six City staff members representing various departments, and one external expert in shared micromobility. The selection committee members read, analyzed, and scored the submitted proposals according to a scoring rubric developed by Mobility staff and made available to all bidders as part of the RFP process. In assigning scores, selection committee members met regularly with each other and with staff to discuss the substance and intent of the scoring rubric, as well as to discuss any proposal-specific questions that may arise.
Discussion
The terms of the final shared mobility contract(s) will be important to ensure the best possible service for Santa Monica community members. Specifically, staff will seek to negotiate terms that ensure affordable, safe, orderly, and environmentally sustainable provision of shared mobility service that is actively and equitably promoted throughout the community.
To achieve these goals, staff recommends that Council extend the current Pilot Program while contract negotiations proceed. Specifically, staff recommends that Council adopt the attached emergency ordinance amending SMMC Section 3.22.090 to extend the end date of the second Pilot Program from September 30, 2023, to a date that is thirty (30) calendar days after contract(s) for shared mobility service are executed. This recommended ordinance amendment needs to be done on an emergency basis, given that the current pilot program ends on September 30, 2023, which would not provide sufficient time for the second reading and subsequent 30-day period required of a standard ordinance modification.
If Council adopts the attached emergency ordinance, staff will continue with contract term negotiations with the two top-scoring bidders. After substantive agreement on terms are reached, staff will return to Council for approval of final contract execution with one or both recommended bidders. This will likely occur in Quarter 2 or Quarter 3 of fiscal year 2023-2024. If Council approves, the contract(s) will then be executed, and
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 of 7
the 30-day clock will begin, after which the current pilot program will end, replaced by the new contracted program.
Environmental Impact Statement
CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for have a significant effect on the environment. A project is not subject to CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The proposal to extend the current phase of regulation of shared mobility would not result in a physical environmental effect on the environment.
In addition, Section 15302 exempts Class 1 projects from CEQA, which include the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures [or] facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.” The project consists of the regulation of shared mobility devices within the public right of way because it consists of alternate operation (and permitting) of public streets, sidewalks, and similar facilities that do not create additional automobile lanes. The shared mobility devices are required to be operated within existing public streets, would utilize existing shared mobility stations, and would not necessitate the construction of new vehicle travel lanes for operation.
Therefore, the shared mobility program qualifies as a Class 1 exemption.
Furthermore, Section 15308 also provides an exemption for Class 8 projects, which include actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for the protection of the environment.
The shared mobility program is intended to regulate shared mobility devices for the protection of the environment, including people. Therefore, the program does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline sections 15301 and 15308.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 7 of 7
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. As discussed in the staff report delivered to Council on August 23, 2022, the next, contracted phase of the Shared Mobility program will provide for full cost recovery so that all costs to administer the program are covered by revenues from the permanent program. Likewise, the extension of the current Shared Mobility pilot program will entail the prorated extension of current annual operator fees, along with the continuation of current public right-of-way usage fees, which presently cover all City costs required to administer the program. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
Prepared By: Trevor Thomas, Senior Transportation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Urgency Ordinance Extending Second Pilot Program AC (004) Final B. Written Comment
10.B.g
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment F. September 26, 2023 Staff Report (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 1 David Yakobson
From: Linda Karr O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Items 5.A and 10.B Scooters
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’ve listened to scooter vendors tell you about their responsiveness to complaints. On March 14, a Veo scooter was abandoned in the disabled parking spot in front of our house, rendering the spot unusable. I called the number listed on the scooter, 855-Veo-2258, and was directed to login to their Veo app. I don’t need a Veo app nor did I want to open a Veo account – I simply needed someone to pick up the abandoned scooter. I reached a voicemail and no one answered.
The next day the Veo scooter was still there. I called the number they provided for emergencies only – and that also only went to voicemail. If you are in a serious accident or have trouble, you cannot reach a live person. No one ever called back. It took two days before the scooter was retrieved.
My daughter, who has disabilities and needs the parking spot, has nearly been mowed down by scooters on the sidewalk. Riders either assume she can jump out of the way or don’t care. Riding both bikes and scooters on sidewalks is rampant. It doesn’t appear you can control the inconsiderateness of the populace or the dangers to residents from scooters, but I urge you at a minimum to make the vendors more responsive than this for retrieving scooters, let alone responding in the case of accidents, than this incident demonstrates.
Linda Karr O’Connor
Sunset Park
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jeff Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 23 Meeting - Items 5a and 10b (to be heard concurrently) STATEMENT OF
SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
Hello, it is a pleasure to be here tonight - and thank you for taking the time to hear these items. I’d also like to thank staff for the work and commitment to a robust program required to bring these items to the agenda tonight.
My name is Jeff Hoover, representing Veo - one of Santa Monica's shared micromobility operators.
Veo strongly supports items 5a and 10b on the agenda this evening. It is critical that Santa Monica maintain a vibrant and healthy micromobility program, as it’s an essential component in meeting several of the city’s overarching priorities shared by Mayor Brock and Mr. White at this year’s state of the city.
Clean and safe: Veo’s team of W2 employees are residents and members of the community. They are constant “eyes on the street” and a sign of vitality. Further, Veo developed a first-of-its-kind partnership in Santa Monica with “People Concern”. The partnership unlocks car-free, safe, sustainable, and no-cost travel for People Concern’s case workers to reach unhoused clients and provide service delivery with the goal of humanely relocating people away from street living and into shelter, making a safer environment for all.
Sustainable and Connected: Micromobility enables trips too far to walk but possibly prohibitive in a car.
In Veo’s 2023 survey, 33% of our riders indicated that if a micromobility vehicle weren’t available they would have taken a personal car or TNC. It also serves the key function of bridging connections to local and regional transit. Veo’s fleet is uniquely suited to help Santa Monica’s safely, efficiently, and affordable reach destinations across town or into Los Angeles.
o So far in 2024, over 47% of Veo’s bike trips are two miles or longer, while the average scooter trip in the city is only slightly longer than 1 mile. Santa Monica’s program is no longer a “last mile” solution: Veo is created a “last three-mile solution”.
o 52% of our riders indicated they reduced their car use or actually got rid of a car because of the availability of micromobility.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 Economic Growth and Cultural Vitality: Veo’s riders- and micromobility riders generally- use zeroemission scooters and bikes to reach commercial destinations around Santa Monica and are not beholden to car traffic patterns or parking scarcity that inhibit car trips. In fact, the amount of cityscape needed for one car space can hold 15-20 scooters and bikes - many more patrons for local shops and restaurants. o Further - Veo made true its 2021 commitment to relocate to Santa Monica and remains the only permitted shared micromobility operator that calls this city home. Our home office is located on the Third Street Promenade.
o We joined the fabric of Santa Monica in early 2022 and have relished our front row seat to Santa Monica’s post-pandemic budding renaissance.
o We have several dozen employees based here and more who regularly visit, patronize the hotel and hospitality industry, our office routinely patronizes local restaurants and suppliers, and our employees enjoy our vehicles no differently than anyone else - using our bikes and scooters to reach shops, grocers, farmers markets, and other destinations around town. Justice, Equity, and Diversity: Santa Monica has endured a myriad broken promises and it is not curious why the city would be dubious about a brighter future.
o Strengthening the permit program will give the city new tools to enforce broader equity and require companies live up to promises large and small.
o For its part, Veo has a strong record, beyond our move to Thirds Street. o Veo earned support from People Concern, The Santa Monica Black Lives Association, The Santa Monica Ed Foundation, Santa Monica Spoke, and several other community organizations having “walked the walk” and demonstrating a meaningful commitment to the local community. o One of Veo’s core values is that “We all Ride” - and this is not just an axiom. It is displayed in the vehicles we have on Santa Monica Streets today - and have committed to in the future. Veo has the unique capability to “rebike” Santa Monica - which is a clear goal of the permanent permit program.
o Veo has five different bikes it can deploy on Santa Monica streets - several of which are evolutionary in the equitable mobility opportunities provided to residents. Our current flagship ebike, the Cosmo-e bike is a throttle driven bike which may be peddled, but critically pedaling is not a requirement - allowing use by folks who cannot pedal for long distances or at all. o Additionally - Veo has deployed the first two-seat bike, which was developed in partnership with New York City’s Office of Disability Rights to enable resident with limited vision to ride, even if they cannot drive. Veo is also thrilled to be developing a “cargo” adaptation of this bike, which will finally see residents use micromobility options to not just get to the grocery store, but also home. o Lastly - Veo is in the “design charrette” stage of developing a three-wheeled vehicle. We’re actively convening aging and accessibility advocacy organizations from around the U.S. to review our trike model and offer feedback and guidance so that when the Trike enters production next year it is the most effective accessible vehicle it can be, and the first scaled shared trike in the industry in North America.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these items.
Jeffrey Hoover
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 Director of Government Partnerships
Partnerships | Veo
855-836-2256 | 716-432-0848
[email protected]
www.veoride.com
1334 Third Street Promenade, STE 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Cc: David White; [email protected]; Anuj Gupta; Jason Kligier; Kyle Kozar Subject: Support concurrent agenda items 5A and 10B
Attachments: 2024-07 CC Support concurrent items 5A-10B.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Please see our attached letter in support of concurrent items 5A and 10B on the July 23rd Council Meeting Agenda
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez .
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 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.
July 23, 2024
Re: Agenda Items 5A and 10B (concurrent)
Approval to Reject All Bids for Contracted Shared Mobility Service Providers and Continue the Existing Permit-Based Program with Select Revisions
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
With enthusiasm, Santa Monica Spoke (SM Spoke), a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to improving biking and active transportation in the City of Santa Monica, wishes to express our support for the active mobility permit structure and Veo’s inclusion in Santa Monica’s shared micro-mobility permit program.
Both Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance fully support the Consent Calendar item 5A and concurrent Ordinance update item 10B.
While we are disappointed the contract model did not reach fruition, we believe an equitable and robust permit program can continue to serve our community well. To this end, we urge the Council to support both items 5A and 10B including staff’s recommended amendments to the Charter.
Significantly, Veo has been a steadfast partner in the community, to SM Spoke, to SaMo Safe Streets Alliance and to a variety of community organizations throughout the city. We’ve included our original letter of support below – supporting Veo during the Spring 2023 RFP.
Even during this past year of limbo, Veo has continued to nurture its roots in the community, offering support, maintaining its staff and office on the Third Street Promenade, and providing support for SM Spoke led events, including Kidical Mass, as well as giving invaluable support at our “learn to ride” and “active mobility” encouragement events for Santa Monica’s aging community during the Active Aging Pilot Program. Indeed, the program could not have had the success it had without Veo’s support by providing devices free of charge to participants who without that help would not have been able to participate.
Veo remains the only company that we are aware of able to provide multiple bike types to allow Santa Monicans to find a vehicle type best suited for each unique personality and ability. Veo has demonstrated its commitment to do its part in “re-biking” Santa Monica by adding additional bike models to its local fleet. We have long asked to see Veo’s other options - standard pedal assist bikes - added to their permit fleet.
Much work remains in Santa Monica’s mode shift efforts. To achieve a healthier, vibrant and more environmentally sustainable Santa Monica it is essential we support active modes of transportation, such as bikes and shared mobility devices. Affirming the importance of these options provided by shared mobility devices - with the benefit of community-rooted partners like Veo, a valued corporate constituent - that are uniquely suited to match a variety of vehicles to peoples’ comfort and ability is a wonderful and essential start to expand choices and diverse and equitable options for mobility.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) We agree with staff’s assessment that the City’s best interests are served by rejecting all bids under the Contracted Shared Mobility Services RFP and to continue with the permit-based operation model.
Please vote to support a vibrant community that includes active, shared mobility options and vote to approve staff's recommendation to continue with the permit-based operation model.
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 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) A community group dedicated to biking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable, bikeable place to live, work and play.
February 22, 2023
City of Santa Monica
Department of Transportation, Mobility Division
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Contracted Shared Mobility Services – Project ID 344 To Whom It May Concern:
As Director of Santa Monica Spoke (SM Spoke) and Co-Founder of the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, I am writing to express support for Veo’s application. As a local 501(c)3 organization Santa Monica Spoke is dedicated to improving biking and active transportation in the City of Santa Monica. We believe shared micro-mobility is an important option to promote and introduce our community and visitors to Santa Monica to the many benefits of biking and healthier active mobility.
We have enjoyed an authentic partnership with Veo, a local company that champions and amplifies our shared goals around active mobility. We believe Veo has demonstrated it does not just “talk the talk” but also “walks the walk”; Veo has been consistently and actively engaged, demonstrating a willingness, interest, and ability to participate enthusiastically in various SM Spoke-led events, providing free-use of their devices for learn-to-ride and other group-ride events like the tour for the visiting Consulate Delegates from the Netherlands and most recently Kidical Mass.
We are pleased to see Veo is uniquely positioned to provide a fully mixed-fleet of devices in Santa Monica. We think having the option of a wide variety of devices to choose from is key to a successful program. Veo is the only company that we are aware of that is prepared to offer such a diverse variety of micro-mobility form factors: acoustic pedal bikes, pedal-assist class I e-bikes, and class II e-bikes.
Santa Monica Spoke is very supportive of bringing in a variety and diversity of bike options and price points to be available for public use.
There is a lot of great work to be done locally to help shift our community to choose healthier and more sustainable transportation options to encourage folks out of their cars and toward more beneficial and more active mobility choices, such as shared bikes and electric devices.
We support Veo as a “right fit” partner for our diverse community here in Santa Monica. We look forward to continued collaboration and to working closely with Veo and their staff for years to come.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 1 David Yakobson
From: Raymur Flinn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VEO Donor Acknowledgement Letter
Attachments: LOS for VEO 7.23.2024.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Raymur Flinn
Executive Director
Santa Monica Education Foundation
1717 4th Street, Ste. 136
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310-396-4557
www.smedfoundation.org
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 1717 4th Street Ste 132A, Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-396-4557 smedfoundation.org Board of Directors
Danny Guggenheim
President
Kelly Naylor
Vice President
Elizabeth Urquhart
Treasurer
Thea Cappiccille
Secretary
Connie Alvarez
Emily Arms
John R. Baracy
Monica Batra
Elyse Bennett
Alison Havel
Deb Love
Duncan Rolph
Marilyn Speakman
Julie Waterstone
Nancy Wu
Raymur Flinn
Executive Director
July 23, 2024
City of Santa Monica
Department of Transportation, Mobility Division
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Santa Monica Department of Transportation,
The purpose of this letter is to share information about Veo’s support for our public-school students.
We are truly grateful for the commitment Veo has made to our students and schools. They have been a strong partner in helping to provide equitable education to all Santa Monica children in our public schools.
Veo has been a significant donor to the Education Foundation, generously contributing $35,000 between 2022 and 2024, and we look forward to receiving their continued support in the coming school year.
These funds ensure that our students receive a vibrant education, enriching their experiences in Academics, Arts, and Athletics across all Santa Monica public schools. Without support from Veo and other dedicated Corporate Heroes, Santa Monica Schools would look vastly different.
We appreciate Veo’s commitment to Santa Monica public schools and their investment in our community’s future leaders.
Sincerely,
Raymur Flinn
Executive Director
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jesus Jauregui Jr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:54 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 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world. Pedestrian deaths are at all-time highs. How many more people need to die before we, as a collective city, start treating traffic violence with the urgency it deserves and expanding alternatives to cars?
Santa Monica is the birthplace of shared scooters (link) and mobility programs, and anyone who opposes this spits in the face of Santa Monica's own history. Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Jesus Jauregui Jr, 90405
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sudeepti Bhatnagar <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: In support of 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing to express my strong support for item 10B, which will update our shared mobility program in Santa Monica. This initiative is crucial for our city's continued progress in sustainable transportation.
Shared mobility has proven its worth, replacing hundreds of thousands of car trips and becoming an essential mode of transport for residents, visitors, and workers alike. The proposed update, including the addition of class 1 e-bikes, will further enhance this successful program.
The flexibility to adjust parking incentives and vendor selection is vital in our rapidly evolving urban landscape. These changes will allow Santa Monica to remain at the forefront of innovative transportation solutions.
By approving item 10B, you'll be supporting cleaner air, reduced traffic congestion, and increased accessibility for all. It's a step towards a more sustainable and efficient Santa Monica.
I urge you to vote in favor of this important update. Let's continue to lead the way in smart, eco-friendly urban mobility.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
Sudeepti Rachakonda, 90403
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 David Yakobson
From: greg chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:25 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Council Mailbox; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: I support item 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Greg Chasen, 1318 10th St, Santa Monica, Ca 90401
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Burgess <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Support item 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As a resident who doesn't own a car, and whose partner doesn't own a car, having convenient mobility options are immensely important to our ability to get around the city. We were incredibly disappointed when the Breeze bikeshare program was stopped, and then again devastated when all of the Lyft bikes pulled out. We want the ability to travel a bit farther from where we live while also being able to enjoy the amazing weather and environment of Santa Monica. We love the Big Blue Bus, but sometimes there are places where it's not as convenient to travel to and we really dislike having to be stuck in cars.
Continue to give us more options for getting around Santa Monica that also allow us to fully enjoy it.
Please support item 10B
Thank you,
Andrew Burgess, 90405
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 David Yakobson
From: Adam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:20 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 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Adam Lawrence
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 David Yakobson
From: Paula Cizek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: In favor of 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I wanted to voice my support of item 10B, and would urge you to do the same. I use scooters and ebikes on a weekly basis, as they’re often the most effective method for getting around. Not only that, they literally improve my safety:
I unfortunately no longer feel safe walking around late at night in Santa Monica, but zipping home on a scooter gets me back quickly and safely.
If this option were removed it would make my and others’ lives much more difficult and expensive, and would result in putting more cars on the road, which is more dangerous for pedestrians. Santa Monica is leading the way in terms of mobility and sustainability, and should continue to support these initiatives.
Thank you,
Paula Cizek in 90405
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Comment: Support for Item 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Mobility options in Santa Monica are essential as we strive to meet our climate and sustainability goals, reduce road congestion, and create a livable community for all to enjoy. Our Shared Mobility program has replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips and many residents, workers, and tourists utilize these devices on a daily basis to move around the city. While we should continue to expand Metro Bikeshare in Santa Monica, the system is not an adequate substitute for Shared Mobility.
However, the current program does have shortcomings that a transition to a permit-based program will allow us to address more effectively. This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes (class 1 is pedal-powered, without a throttle, and limited to below 20 mph). It will allow the city to update device parking incentives and offers more flexibility in selecting/changing vendors-- crucial in an ever-changing world.
I would especially like to direct your attention to page 8, paragraph 3 of the Staff Report, which addresses many concerns that some members of the Council have expressed in the past (I myself share some of those concerns with the current program):
Beyond the recommended changes to SMMC, City staff would also take advantage of a refresh to the permit-based shared mobility system to update and refine the City’s Shared Mobility Administrative Regulations. These regulations present a set of operational requirements for operators, including number and type of permissible devices, fees paid by operators to the City, maintenance and order-keeping requirements, insurance and indemnification requirements, and enforcement structures. Given a continued and renewed permit-based program, City staff will administratively update these regulations to call for and enable a greater diversity of communitydemanded device types – most notably class 1 e-bikes, which have been absent from the City’s program since Lyft halted service in November 2022. Additionally, staff will enhance terms to incentivize improved order for user-parked devices and will adjust fees as needed to ensure continued cost recovery for the City’s administration and planning around the program.
It is clear that this permit-based program will allow Santa Monica to more tightly control device parking and expand access to e-bikes, and retain flexibility to further alter requirements as needed. To be clear, Shared Mobility has been an overall benefit for our city, but shortcomings with the status quo can be addressed in the new system (namely improper device parking and sidewalk-riding). For example, this system could allow the city to require the permitted companies to limit parking to daylighting zones, designated scooter parking zones, or near bike racks. Companies could be required to fine/charge users when the highly-accurate geolocation and/or AI analysis of the standard end-of-ride parking image Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 7 shows the user did not park correctly. A portion of this fine could go to the city and a portion to the company, providing incentives for the company to strictly implement these requirements while benefiting the city with additional income. Additionally, the city could require users who are repeatedly found to ride on sidewalks to be banned from device rentals across all permitted operators.
The staff recommendation will implement a flexible Shared Mobility system that allows Santa Monica to improve mobility, improve safety, and increase ADA access on sidewalks. Therefore, I urge you to support item 10B.
Thank you,
Connor Webb
Santa Monica Resident (90404)
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 8 David Yakobson
From: Rob Nickell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:14 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: I support item 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
I would like to encourage the city to focus its efforts on adding parking solutions for users and implementing fines or other disincentives for poor parking behavior. It’s important to make space for bicycles and scooters near residences, businesses, and transit so they can continue to serve as effective substitutes for trips by car; helping us to achieve our goals of a safer, cleaner, less congested city.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Robert Nickell,
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 9 David Yakobson
From: Varun Bhatnagar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:11 AM
To: Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: I support item 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Varun Bhatnagar
90401
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 10 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; [email protected] Subject: Support Item 10B
EXTERNAL
Good morning council,
I'm writing to encourage you to support item 10B during tonight's council meeting. Safe, reliable, and efficient mobility is key to a thriving community, and micro mobility projects such as this have shown that they're able to deliver, already replacing hundreds of thousands of car trips.
There are some challenges with micro-mobility, but they stem from the huge amount of space dedicated to cars. This forces pedestrians, cyclists, scooters, wheelchairs, roller blades, and other alternatives into narrow sidewalks, and even those are littered with signs, parking meters, and curb ramps specifically for cars. A permanent program following the city staff's own recommendations could allow for better allocation of space and implementation of rule sets to better address those challenges.
Please follow staff's recommendation and support item 10B instead of exacerbating the colossal safety, environmental, noise, and air quality issues from cars.
Thanks in advance
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 11 David Yakobson
From: Max Rico <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: ✨We support item 10B✨
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Max Rico, 90404
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 12 David Yakobson
From: Christine Sathre <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:19 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 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Christine
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 13 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:10 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 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
The councilmembers who read the staff report will have learned that Santa Monica's shared scooter program saw more rides in the first quarter of 2024 than Metro bikeshare saw in its entire service area (and Phil also could have learned that the staff report addresses working with the companies on parking concerns). But I know the mayor is too busy to read the staff reports, so here's the relevant excerpt for him to review:
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 14 Clearly, there's lots of demand for shared scooters. I know I personally have multiple days a month where with shared scooters, I can ride one to work and then walk back home if I'm in a rush in the morning, but where without the scooters that would result in two car trips. One to get to work and then a second one in the evening now that I'm stuck getting it back home. And Phil's planned motion to ban scooters would leave us with at least months of zero shared mobility, given we currently don't have any bikeshare operators in town either.
P.S. Phil, be sure to let me know when you intend to tackle by far the biggest source of dockless mobility devices left lying around blocking the sidewalks because they were irresponsibly ditched at the end of a ride.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 15 Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 16 Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 17 Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 18 Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 19 Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 20 Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 21 David Yakobson
From: Tiffany Tobias <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 9:34 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 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Tiffany Tobias 90403
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 22 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 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 strongly support item 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I strongly support item 10B, and I am deeply concerned by our mayor’s failure to properly read a staff report before speaking with the press about this item.
This program update will include "inserting terms for more effective parking incentives and requirements” and "enable a greater diversity of community-demanded device types – most notably class 1 e-bikes”.
Many of us, residents and visitors alike, thankfully do not have the option of relying on motor vehicles, either it’s for health reasons, financial reasons, age, or by choice.
Over 1 in 10 households in Santa Monica is car free, and all residents deserve to have their transportation needs met.
I’m also curious what alternatives mayor Brock is suggesting if he attempts to ban scooters. Is he going to offer people who rely on scooters their own scooters along with safe storage all over the city? Is he going to double the Big Blue Bus frequency and make it run 24/7 overnight? Is he going to fund the Circuit so well that it’ll be widely available all over the city? Or is he just going to ignore the transpiration needs of thousands of people in the city for which he is an elected official? If we want to use Paris as an example, then we should build safe active mobility infrastructure at the same rate that they are, and triple our SUV parking fees. That should make our streets safe enough for more people to get their own mobility devices and use them for most of their trips, so they won’t have to be as reliant on shared mobility. Paris also has a well-developed Bikeshare system, which we don’t, but which this item could help us get to.
Scooters should absolutely be regulated in a way that helps prevent them from obstructing the public right of way, and as noted in the staff printout, updates will be made on that front.
But that is by no means a reason to ban them. With that logic, we should ban cars, that obstruct the public right of way much more frequently, in much more dangerous ways, receive a lot more subsidies than shared mobility, and take up a lot more of our city resources, while being responsible for 2/3 of our emissions.
Many essential workers in our city rely on these devices to get to work, and scooters have helped prevent hundreds of thousands of car trips, and therefore reduced pollution, congestion, and traffic violence.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 23 A permit based shared mobility program will not only help our city continue to be a leader in sustainable transportation; it will also ensure that people who live, work, shop, and play in our amazing city have safe, efficient, and reliable access to modes of transportation that are in line with their needs and with our city’s goal of a Clean & Safe Santa Monica.
With proper vendor selection and regulations, which I know our awesome staff will continue to work hard on, shared mobility is one of the most effective ways to solve these issues and make our city more welcoming, accessible, and enjoyable for all.
I look forward to seeing what comes out of this program once made permanent.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 24 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:33 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 10B
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I am a Sunset Park resident who commutes three days a week into downtown Los Angeles on the E line. I bought where I did for many reasons, but one absolute requirement when I was looking was that I be within reasonable "last mile" distance to an Expo station because I have come to rely on the train for both for my work commute and for recreation. Being just a bit over a mile from the nearest station I certainly can walk, but that is a long time consuming walk. I have my own personal bicycle, but often my plans do not allow for me to securely store my bicycle at my destination, or make its use on a return commute to a different location infeasible. When this is the case, I am incredibly grateful that a fleet of micro-mobility vehicles is available to help me save time in my busy day. (Not to mention reducing car traffic, freeing up parking spots that I am not using at my destination and reducing local air pollution.) I have been a micro-mobility user since its inception here in Santa Monica, and I have seen its quality degrade steadily in the near decade I've been using it. Costs have gone up and quality has gone down. (Bicycles and e-bicycles are far more comfortable, faster, and feel safer than scooters to me. I really miss having ready access to bicycles when I need short term rentals for last-mile use or short trips, though scooters are certainly better than nothing.) It seems to me that the situation started getting worse when Santa Monica went to a system of chosen vendors rather than allowing many operators to compete, which makes sense to me as vendors locked in to long term contracts and protected from competition are poorly incentivized to please their customers.
It is my understanding that 10B returns us to a system where more operators can get permits to operate micromobility within Santa Monica. It seems to me that this would give us the best opportunity to reap the benefits of micromobility platforms without being subject to a handful of selected operators reducing service or ending service entirely without the rapid ability of competitors to reenter our market.
I further hear rumors that at least one councillor intends to introduce a motion to ban micromobility services in Santa Monica entirely. I assume a majority of council knows better than to support such a motion, but obviously I oppose such a short sighted, backwards looking move.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Ryan Olson 90405
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 25 David Yakobson
From: Auguste Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:29 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 10B in addition to more Metro Bike Share network docking stations
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
It's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility.
Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city.
Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B. Onward and upward.
—
Also on a related mobility topic, as a Venice resident living at the limit of SM, I would like to ask you to open more Metro Bike Share stations!
Right now I cannot drop off or take a bike easily anywhere in SM outside of the downtown train stop. The system needs denser network of bike share stations in the city.
Thank you,
Auguste Miller
90291
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 26 David Yakobson
From: Jason Hargrove <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:15 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Jason Hargrove 90404
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 27 David Yakobson
From: Phil's Eighty Grand Electric Mercedes <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis
Subject: item 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Hi councilmembers, it's me again, Phil's expensive electric Mercedes SUV. Please support Phil's motion to ban the scooters! They really ruin Phil's day when he has to watch out to avoid hitting someone riding them. Like he said, they're a major eyesore imposing lots of visual clutter, unlike cars and SUVs which are practically invisible and certainly never get left lying around in front of people's front doors.
And if you're a pedestrian, which one would you rather be hit by, a reckless scooter rider or a safe responsible driver operating a multi-ton electric SUV? That scooter rider didn't even require any special training to operate their dangerous 30 pound high-speed vehicle! Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 28 David Yakobson
From: Dan Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Support Item 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around. As a one car household, my partner and I frequently use these devices.
Less traffic, imagine that!
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Dan Hall
90404
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 29 David Yakobson
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:40 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Chasen Daniels
90401
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 30 David Yakobson
From: Jed White <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:14 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I have worked in Santa Monica for nearly 20 years as an attorney and partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (Broadway and 2nd). I use shared mobility to get to the office instead of drive. I do not want to be forced to drive my car into the office.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Jed White
This electronic message is from a law firm. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender to advise of the error and delete this transmission and any attachments.
We may monitor and record electronic communications in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Where appropriate we may also share certain information you give us with our other offices (including in other countries) and select third parties. For further information (including details of your privacy rights and how to exercise them), see our updated Privacy Notice at www.bclplaw.com.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 31 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:12 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I personally use the shared scooters in Santa Monica for local trips, and I would like to see the program improved, expanded, and designed to make the cost reasonable for residents to use. Please support these scooters - as my alternative would be to call an uber, adding more traffic to the city.
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 32 David Yakobson
From: Timothy Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:33 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Timothy Nguyen, 90404
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 33 David Yakobson
From: Ian Lundy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:22 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Choice is a critical element to transportation success. We must have options of different speeds and efficiencies to have a fluid, flexible and resilient transportation system. Scooters are a critical piece of the puzzle that help people not be forced into cars for trips that don’t have to be taken by car. As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Ian Lundy, 90025
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 34 David Yakobson
From: Juan Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: Great idea, Mayor Brock! (10B)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Mayor Brock stated that the City should focus on forging "a robust bike share system," https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2024/July2024/07_22_2024_Council_Takes_Up_Proposal_to_Keep_Scooters_Permanently.html I agree with Mayor Brock! The city should work with Metro Bikeshare and Bicycle Transit Systems to expand pedal bikeshare in Santa Monica.
Once Metro bikeshare is as plentiful in Santa Monica as Breeze bikeshare once was, then the city could phase out the scooters, like Paris did.
And the city should follow Paris's lead and triple parking fees on large vehicles that disrupt views from the sidewalk
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/bike-friendly-paris-votes-raising-parking-fees-suvs-2024-02-03/ Thank you,
Juan
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 35 David Yakobson
From: Pamela O'Connor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:32 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
To reach our sustainability and climate goals and to ensure public safety for all on our sidewalks, streets, and bike paths, we must continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica. It's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Pam O’Connor
Former Mayor
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 36 David Yakobson
From: Sid T Zahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:38 PM
To: Trevor Thomas; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Kyle Kozar
Subject: Re: Scooter Ordinance
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
I would like to provide input regarding the proposed Scooter Ordinance.
Firstly, thank you to Trevor Thomas for your response to me the other day regarding a serious scooter safety matter. (email thread below).
I read the proposed Ordinance and find some of the language vague in respect to enforcing public, especially pedestrian, safety. I do note that there is language relating to leaving scooters blocking the public areas and the consequence of being impounded.
However, much more is unaddressed:
May I first quote CA Vehicle Code:
In the state of California, it's illegal to ride electric scooters on the sidewalk. According to California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21235, electric scooters must be operated on the roadway or the bike lane. This law was designed with both pedestrian safety and rider safety in mind.
Given that riding scooters on sidewalks in Santa Monica is regulated by local ordinances. I suggest explicit language be included in the proposed Ordinance, including:
1. Street Riding: Electric scooters can reach speeds of up to 15 mph, so they are required to be ridden on the street, following the flow of traffic. They are not allowed on sidewalks, the Third Street Promenade, parks, or the beach bike path in Santa Monica.
2. Age and License: To operate an e-scooter (stand-up or sit-down), you must have a valid driver’s license or instruction permit.
3. Parking: When parking shared e-scooters and e-bikes, be respectful. Use designated drop zones or park upright at the edge of the curb to avoid blocking access.
Operate a motorized scooter with any passengers in addition to the operator.
Operate a motorized scooter carrying any package, bundle, or article that prevents the operator from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 37 Leave a motorized scooter lying on its side on any sidewalk, or park a motorized scooter on a sidewalk in any other position, so that there is not an adequate path for pedestrian traffic.
Attach the motorized scooter or himself or herself while on the roadway, by any means, to any other vehicle on the roadway.
May I finally say that I support the use of e-scooters as the City of Santa Monica intended, as a mode to minimize car use as a point-to-point means of transportation.
The issue, as you are all well aware, is that much of the use of scooters is for "joy riding" including by those under the age of 16. Of course, all these infractions are exacerbated by the lack of courtesy, if not outright hostility by those who abuse the use and we pedestrians.
And, of course, the issue of "consequences". We know that the SMPD does next to nothing to enforce the current Ordinance. (It's my understanding the fine for riding on the sidewalk is $200). And officers have consistently told me to take it up with City Council, as even if a written-up violation gets to the Court, it is summarily dismissed.
I appreciate your consideration for what I have said and trust you will continue to prioritize public safety in Santa Monica.
Thank you,
Sid T. Zahn
Trevor Thomas
From:[email protected]
To:Sid T Zahn
Cc:Kyle Kozar
Thu, Jul 18 at 3:58 PM
Dear Mr. Zahn,
Dear Mr. Zahn,
Thanks very much for passing this on. I agree that the behavior that you observed is egregious, and we'll work with both of our current operators (Spin and Veo) to make sure that it's not allowed to continue. I'll reach out to their operations teams and ask that we "geofence" off this internal walkway to make sure that shared e-scooters can't be operated on it.
With respect to Bird's purchase of Spin and Spin's continued operations: you're correct that Bird did acquire Spin, and that Bird has not been permitted to operated in the City since 2021. We've worked with our City Attorney's Office and with Spin to ensure that they're operating as a distinct entity. Spin can only operate Spin-branded devices and not Bird-branded scooters, and that all of Spin's prior obligations to the City and the community – including device limitations and operations and maintenance requirements –are unchanged after the purchase.
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 38 Thanks again. I'll reach out right now to direct both current operators to prevent future incidents like this.
Best regards,
Trevor
Trevor Thomas
Senior Transportation Planner
c: 734-709-8145
w: 310-458-2201 x 5715
[email protected]
From: Sid T Zahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Bird <[email protected]>
Cc: Kyle Kozar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Message from Bird and Spin Safety Team
EXTERNAL
Attached is a video of two individuals riding tandem on a Pedestrian walk street on Sunday July 14. 2024 between 1:30 and 2pm.
The location is between two residential buildings 1705 and 1725 Ocean Ave.
Also attached is a photo of a Sign PROHIBITING the riding of scooters on this walk street.
Initially they were asked to not ride on the walk street. They subsequently continued to do so going back and forth antagonizing residents.
This walk street is populated by senior citizens, persons with disabilities, small children and customers of nearby cafes.
It is obviously unsafe and is also illegal to ride these motor vehicles on pedestrian walks in the City of Santa Monica. It is also prohibited to ride tandem.
I just became aware that Bird owns Spin. As a resident of Santa Monica, it had been my understanding that Bird lost it's contract in SM due to numerous violations.
Sid T Zahn
[email protected]
On Monday, July 15, 2024 at 01:51:57 PM PDT, Jenni (Bird) <[email protected]> wrote:
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 39 Jenni (Bird)
Jul 15, 2024, 1:51 PM PDT
Hello there,
Thank you for reaching out and bringing this to our attention with what you witnessed yesterday. We are sincerely sorry to hear of it. When you have a moment, we would like to learn more about what happened. Please reply to us with the following information:
Location of the incident
Date and time the incident occurred
Any photos you may have in relation to this event
This information will help us investigate your report further. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to reach back out if you have any questions.
Thank you.
All the Best,
Jenni
Safety Team
[Y45XGX-NV9J2]
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 40 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 4:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tuesday, July 12 Agenda Items 5.A and 10.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
e-scooters are unsafe and unwanted. 99% of the time they are ridden by 2 people at a time, neither is wearing a helmet.
They terrorize people on the sidewalks.
I hope it won't take a $500,000 donation this time for you to make the correct decision.
They should be banned. Bicycles are an appropriate mode of transportation even for tourists.
Enough injuries have occurred as a result of all the law-breaking, irresponsible people on escooters.
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 41 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:56 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 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Michael Etzel, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 42 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: In Support of Item 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
City Council,
As a driver, biker, pedestrian, resident, and voter in Santa Monica, I support Item 10B. As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of Class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support Item 10B.
Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 43 David Yakobson
From: Ellory Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 2:57 PM
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support item 10B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As we continue to strive for a clean and safe Santa Monica, it's crucial that our community has reliable and efficient access to active mobility. Shared mobility has already replaced hundreds of thousands of car trips in our city. Many residents, visitors, and essential workers rely on these devices to get around.
This update will offer users more options, such as the addition of class 1 e-bikes. It will allow the city to update parking incentives and requirements for these devices and provide more flexibility in selecting vendors, which is crucial in this ever-changing world.
Please support item 10B.
Thank you,
Ellory Smith
90291
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 44 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: e-scooters Items 5.A and 10.B
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I Just read that at the July 23rd meeting the council is looking to expand the number of escooters in the City. Why? I can’t walk one block without dam-near tripping over a couple of them laying on the sidewalk.
I think the City’s encouragement of the scooters and the lack of enforcement in the operation of them will result in liability for the City. I have had many close encounters with illegally operated scooters but fortunately I have not suffered injury. If in the future I do suffer injury from an illegally operated scooter you can bet that I will be one who sues the City.
Respectfully,
Joseph Palazzolo
Santa Monica
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 45 David Yakobson
From: Mary Hubbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra
Subject: Support for complete ban of E-scooters
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
I am following up with my previous email detailing concerns regarding E-scooters in Santa Monica.
I urge you to listen to our very real safety concerns and ultimately make the decision to completely ban them in Santa Monica.
Many other cities have put their pedestrians’ safety as a number one priority and have banned these devices. It’s time for Santa Monica to follow suit.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Hubbell
Ocean Park
Sent from Mary's iPhone
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 46 David Yakobson
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis
Subject: E-scooter debate returns to Council yet again
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Councilmembers,
I read the SMDP article today regarding a change in the E-scooter/bike deployment. It states that City staff are proposing a change from a contract to permit mode. I didn’t see a clear explanation of the differences that will result from going from a contract to permit model for these devices.
My concern is that the numbers of these devices will be increased. As someone who walks our neighborhood and surrounding areas in Ocean Park including the beach paths, I continue to experience e-scooters blocking the pedestrian pathways/sidewalks, riders continuing to ignore the restriction of no riding on the sidewalks or pedestrian paths. These create pedestrian mobility safety issues.
I would like to hear how data is collected on the use of these devices regarding the notion that they replace “hundreds of thousands of automobile trips”. Also how many citations have been issued for; riding on the sidewalks, blocking sidewalks, unsafe speeds, and underage device riders.
Please do not expand these services until we know the impacts of their use on pedestrian safety issues. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://smdp.com/2024/07/22/scooter-debate-returns-to-council-yetagain/__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!pbblYnj3K1Kwy9BcWIfXUCRHWqRTuThB9ZPTIrpyl2KHtpdpY2stSyohXihwIf_0m_kf hsPM-wtw-Iwc26izj2eQmhM5meAh$
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Mary Hubbell
Ocean Park
Sent from my iPad
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
Item 10-B
July 23, 2024
10.B.h
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) Shared Mobility: Solidifying a Permit-Based System
Trevor Thomas | Sr. Transportation Planner | SaMoDOT, Mobility Division July 23, 2024
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 2 Whe re We Are Now
1,400 permitted devices
across two operators,
Spin & Veo
Over 600,000
systemwide trips in
2023
Solidified improvements
in safety and order
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 3 Annua l Sha re d Mob ility Trip s: C urre nt Syste m & C om p s 10.B.i Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 4 10.B.i
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 5 How We Got Here
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 6 Why Sha re d Mob ility Is
Im p orta nt
First-/last-mile
connectivity
Clean congestion
relief
Ridership well above
available substitutes
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) Goa ls for a Ma ture
Syste m
Address Affordability
Give More and Better Device
Options
Continue to Improve Safety and
Order
Ensure System Stability
7 10.B.i
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) Goa ls for a Ma ture
Syste m
Address Affordability
Give More and Better Device
Options
Continue to Improve Safety and
Order
Ensure System Stability
8 10.B.i
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) Goa ls for a Ma ture
Syste m
Address Affordability
Give More and Better Device
Options
Continue to Improve Safety and
Order
Ensure System Stability
9 10.B.i
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) Goa ls for a Ma ture
Syste m
Address Affordability
Give More and Better Device
Options
Continue to Improve Safety and
Order
Ensure System Stability
10 10.B.i
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 11 Refreshing and Solidifying Permit-Based Shared
Mobility
Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code to Set
Framework for Mature Permit-Based System
oChange SMMC 3.22 to:
o Have wording reflect the move past a “pilot” phase
o Retain permits for existing two operators
o Improve process for prudently adding service
o Remove permit end dates based on switch to contracts; replace with outline for ongoing oversight
oRepeal SMMC 3.23, which structures a contract-based
system
Formally close the procurement for contracted
service by rejecting all bids
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 12 Ne xt Ste p s
Adjust regulations to • Enable current operators to
deploy class 1 e-bikes
• Strengthen provisions to
mandate and incentivize orderly
parking
• Continue to ensure program cost
recovery
Continue to work with LA Metro to
expand access to low-cost
bikeshare
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 13 Ne xt Ste p s
Begin process to look for a third
operator • Make system more robust to
unexpected operator exit
• Work to provide best mix of fleet
devices and ride options for
community
• Ensure full compliance with
regulations and expectations
• Ensure total device deployments
are manageable and orderly
10.B.i
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6459 : Shared Use Mobility Ordinance Amendment) 14 Refreshing and Solidifying Permit-Based Shared
Mobility
Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code to Set
Framework for Mature Permit-Based System
oChange SMMC 3.22 to:
o Have wording reflect the move past a “pilot” phase
o Retain permits for existing two operators
o Improve process for prudently adding service
o Remove permit end dates based on switch to contracts; replace with outline for ongoing oversight
oRepeal SMMC 3.23, which structures a contract-based
system
Formally close the procurement for contracted
service by rejecting all bids