Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 2026

• 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:
• Contracts under $50,000
• Contracts where no party receives financial compensation • Contracts between two or more public agencies
• Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• 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
• 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 $500 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

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 _EB sig [Revision 1] (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and

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

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form 2025_3-27-25 _EB sig [Revision 1] (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 1573
Attachment: ACCO Oaks 4-28-26 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation)

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 1574
Attachment: ACCO Oaks 4-28-26 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation)

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 1575
Attachment: ACCO Oaks 4-28-26 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 1 - Rev. October 2023
Agreement No. 11584 (CCS)

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Contractual Services Agreement (“Agreement”), entered into as of _________________ (“Execution Date”), by and between the CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. (“ACCO Engineered Systems”), is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS:

A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.

B. ACCO Engineered Systems is qualified to do business, and is doing business, in the State of California. ACCO Engineered Systems represents it has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise necessary to provide the services set forth in this Agreement.

C. The City and ACCO Engineered Systems desire to enter into an agreement for the ACCO Engineered Systems to provide contractual services to the City as set forth herein, upon the terms and conditions set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Term. This Agreement begins on the Execution Date and terminates three calendar years after the Execution Date, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 14.

1.1 Option To Extend. The City, in its sole and complete discretion, shall have the option to renew this agreement for up to one (1) additional one (1) year period (“Extension Term”), in accordance with the pricing set forth in Exhibit B.

2. ACCO Engineered Systems Services. ACCO Engineered Systems will perform all of the services (“Services”) described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. ACCO Engineered Systems will complete the Services in accordance with Exhibit B, Budget.

3. City Services. The City agrees to:

3.1 Make available to ACCO Engineered Systems any currently existing documents, data or information required for the performance of the Services.

3.2 Designate a representative authorized to act on behalf of City.

3.3 Promptly examine and render findings on all documents submitted for staff review by ACCO Engineered Systems.

4. Compensation. The City will compensate ACCO Engineered Systems for the Services performed in an amount not to exceed FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) as set forth in Exhibit B.

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB 8/13/2024

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 2 - Rev. October 2023

4.1 Total Amount Not To Exceed. In the event the City exercises the (1) additional (1) year renewal option, the total amount for the Term and Extension Term shall not exceed SIX MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR ($6,500,000), as set forth in Exhibit B.

5. Invoices. ACCO Engineered Systems will invoice the City for the Services in accordance with Exhibit B and the City will pay any undisputed amount within 30 days of receipt.

6. Notices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, must be in writing and will be deemed served when delivered personally, by email, or on the third business day after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as follows:

6.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to the City:

Facilities Maintenance Division
City of Santa Monica
2500 Michigan Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90404
Attention: Shidan Adlparvar
Re: Agreement No. 11584
with a copy to:

Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attention: City Attorney
Re: Agreement No. 11584

6.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to ACCO Engineered Systems:

ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc.
888 East Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91101
Attention: John Reuter
[email protected] (818) 244-6571
Re: Agreement No. 11584

7. Independent Parties. Both parties to this Agreement will be acting in an independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers of one another. Neither the City nor its officers or employees will have any control over the conduct of ACCO Engineered Systems or any of ACCO Engineered Systems’s agents, employees, or subcontractors, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

8. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties. Any preliminary negotiations and agreements of any kind or nature are merged into this Agreement. No oral agreement or implied covenant may Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 3 - Rev. October 2023
be held to vary the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by City and ACCO Engineered Systems and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

9. Insurance. Prior to commencing work, ACCO Engineered Systems must procure, maintain and pay for insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services by ACCO Engineered Systems or ACCO Engineered Systems’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors for the duration of this Agreement. ACCO Engineered Systems must obtain insurance that, at a minimum, meets the requirements for insurance set forth in Exhibit C, Insurance Requirements and Verifications.

10. Defense and Indemnification.

10.1 ACCO Engineered Systems agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, boards and commissions, and employees (collectively, “City”) from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, or costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, or payments for injury to any person or property (collectively, “Losses”) caused or claimed to be caused by the act, errors, and/or omissions of ACCO Engineered Systems, or ACCO Engineered Systems’s employees, agents, officers, and subcontractors. ACCO Engineered Systems’s responsibilities under this Section 10.1 include liability arising from, connected with, caused by, or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of the City, which may be in combination with the acts or omissions of ACCO Engineered Systems its employees, agents or officers, or subcontractors; provided, however, that ACCO Engineered Systems’s duty to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless shall not include any Losses arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Notwithstanding ACCO Engineered Systems’s obligation to defend City hereunder, City has the right to conduct its own defense and seek reimbursement for reasonable costs of defense from ACCO Engineered Systems if City chooses to do so.

10.2 Enforcement Costs. ACCO Engineered Systems agrees to pay any and all costs the City incurs enforcing the indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions set forth in Section

10.1. 11. Prohibition Against Transfers.

11.1 ACCO Engineered Systems may not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without the City’s consent will be null and void, and any assignee, hypothecatee or transferee acquires no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

11.2 The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of ACCO Engineered Systems or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of ACCO Engineered Systems if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate exists, which results in changing the control of ACCO Engineered Systems will be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means 50% or more of the voting power of the corporation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 4 - Rev. October 2023

12. Permits and Licenses. ACCO Engineered Systems at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all required business and professional permits, licenses and certificates.

13. Waiver. A waiver of any breach of this Agreement may not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.

14. Default and Termination.

14.1 If ACCO Engineered Systems fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, and if the default is not cured within a period of five days after the City’s written notice of default specifying the nature of the default, City may immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to ACCO Engineered Systems.

14.2 The City has the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving ten days’ written notice to ACCO Engineered Systems. Upon termination of this Agreement, City will pay ACCO Engineered Systems any compensation earned and unpaid up to the effective date of termination.

15. Compliance with Law. ACCO Engineered Systems must comply with all laws of the State of California and the United States, and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City including, but not limited to, Articles 2 and 3, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the Labor Code, State of California related to prevailing wage, apprentices, penalties, and certified payroll.

16. Notice of Registration Requirements with and Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. ACCO Engineered Systems hereby acknowledges and agrees that:

16.1 No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project (submitted on or after March 1, 2015) unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].

16.2 No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded an agreement for public work on a public works project (awarded on or after April 1, 2015) unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5.

16.3 This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

17. Discrimination. ACCO Engineered Systems may not discriminate in the provision of services hereunder because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, AIDS or disability.

18. Nuisance. ACCO Engineered Systems may not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.

19. Records.

19.1 ACCO Engineered Systems must maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City for any services provided where compensation is on the basis of hourly rates, subcontractor costs, or other direct costs. ACCO Engineered Systems must keep the records, together with supporting documents, separate from other documents and records and maintain them for a period of three years after receipt of final payment.

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 5 - Rev. October 2023

19.2 ACCO Engineered Systems must maintain records in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the Services and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

ACCO Engineered Systems must clearly identify all records and make them readily accessible to the City. At the City’s request, ACCO Engineered Systems must provide records in an electronic format and, if necessary, access to any proprietary software to view such electronic records.

19.3 ACCO Engineered Systems must allow the City to have free access to ACCO Engineered Systems’s books and records and to inspect all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. The City has the right to examine or audit ACCO Engineered Systems’s records, and ACCO Engineered Systems agrees to cooperate with any examination or audit of its records. If a City audit discloses an error of 5% or more in information reported by ACCO Engineered Systems agrees to pay the cost of the City’s audit computed on the basis of four times the direct payroll of the audit staff completing the audit and audit report.

20. Work Product; Reports.

20.1 Any work product prepared or caused to be prepared by ACCO Engineered Systems or any subcontractor for this Agreement will be the exclusive property of City. No work product given to or prepared by ACCO Engineered Systems or any subcontractor pursuant to this Agreement may be made available to any individual or organization by ACCO Engineered Systems without prior written approval by City.

20.2 At the City’s request, ACCO Engineered Systems must furnish reports concerning the status of the Services.

21. Standard of Care. ACCO Engineered Systems agrees to provide all Services, including services performed by any subcontractor, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of ACCO Engineered Systems’s profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.

22. Subcontractors.

22.1 If ACCO Engineered Systems proposes to have any subcontractor perform any part of the Services, ACCO Engineered Systems must submit a request for approval in writing, describing the scope of work to be subcontracted, the name of the proposed subcontractor, and the total price or hourly rates used in preparing an estimated cost for the subcontractor’s services. The City, in its sole discretion, may grant or deny the request.

22.2 ACCO Engineered Systems will be responsible for the quality of any subcontractor’s work.

Every subcontract or agreement of any kind entered into between ACCO Engineered Systems and any subcontractor (or between any subcontractor and others) must contain the following provision:

This agreement is consistent with all terms and conditions of the Agreement No. 11584 (CCS) entered into between the City of Santa Monica and ACCO Engineered Systems on^^____________________.

23. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to any choice of law provisions, will govern this Agreement.

24. Venue and Jurisdiction. The City and ACCO Engineered Systems agree that the Services will take place in Los Angeles County. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement may only be brought in Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB 8/13/2024

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 6 - Rev. October 2023
either the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, as appropriate. The parties agree that venue exists in either court, and each party expressly waives any right to transfer to another venue. The parties further agree that either court will have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Agreement.

25. Survival of Provisions and Obligations. Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature must be exercised after termination of this Agreement, will survive termination and remain effective for a reasonable time. Any obligation that accrued prior to termination of this Agreement will survive termination of this Agreement.

26. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts with the same effect as if both parties hereto had executed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute a single Agreement. Any signature to this Agreement transmitted electronically through DocuSign or PDF shall be deemed an original signature and be binding upon the parties hereto (it being agreed that such electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature).
///
///
///
///
///
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) - 7 - Rev. October 2023

27. Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.

Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B Budget
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

ATTEST:
______________________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

LANE DILG
City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________

RICK COLE
City Manager
Acco Engineered SystemsCorporation
#VENDOR
By: ________________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB 8/8/2024

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc.

Assistant Secretary
Carlton Seyforth
8/13/2024
City Manager
8/13/2024
Nikima Newsome David White
City Clerk
8/14/2024

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) Exhibit A
Scope of Services

1. GENERAL. ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) services as follows:

1.1 Santa Monica Airport. ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide preventative maintenance every three (3) months, or four (4) visits per year. Preventative maintenance shall include in-depth inspections, diagnoses and cleaning of equipment and systems covered herein this agreement (Attachment A). ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide a detailed report of any findings at the conclusion of each inspection including specific recommendations for remedy.

1.2 Fire Stations and Fire Drill Tower. ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide preventative maintenance every three (3) months, or four (4) visits per year. Preventative maintenance shall include in-depth inspections, diagnoses and cleaning of equipment and systems covered herein this agreement (Attachment B). ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide a detailed report of any findings at the conclusion of each inspection including specific recommendations for remedy.

1.3 Main Library. ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide preventative maintenance every thirty (30) days, or twelve (12) visits per year. Preventative maintenance shall include in-depth inspections, diagnoses and cleaning of the equipment and systems covered herein this agreement (Attachment C). ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide a detailed report of any findings at the conclusion of each inspection including specific recommendations for remedy.

1.4 Citywide. ACCO Engineered Services shall provide as needed repairs and installation citywide.

Work may include, but is not limited to replacements / installations repairs of various HVAC systems including cooling / heating units, condensers, condensate lines/pans, ductwork, thermostats and other related items. Jobs shall be quoted individually and requested as required (no guaranteed usage).

2. APPROVAL OF WORK. ACCO Engineered Systems shall provide a written proposal with pricing for approval for all as needed jobs requested by Facilities Maintenance staff. The HVAC Crew Leader, Facilities Supervisor or Facilities Services Administrator must authorize all work under this contract. City staff shall approve all jobs in writing prior to the start of work (generally in the form of an e-mail approval) with the exception of emergency work requested by staff to address a clear and present hazard to the public, City staff, the environment and/or City property (e.g. repairs of leaks, server room A/C failures or other items). A written proposal or invoice shall be submitted to the City with accurate cost information as soon as is practicable after emergency work approval based on a verbally provided cost estimate.

3. CONTRACTORS LICENSE / REGISTRATION WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. ACCO Engineered Systems shall maintain a valid C20 Warm-Air Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning California State Contractors License during the term of this agreement. ACCO Engineered System shall maintain a valid registration as a Public Works contractor on the Department of Industrial Relations website: http://www.dir.ca.gov/PublicWorks/PublicWorks.html

4. PERFORMANCE OF WORK. Work dates / times shall be coordinated in advance with a Facilities Maintenance Supervisor or HVAC Crew Lead who shall facilitate access to City locations. The City may opt to provide materials and/or labor to assist with various work.

5. PREVAILING WAGE / CERTIFIED PAYROLL RECORDS. ACCO Engineered Systems shall perform all services under this contract under prevailing wage. Certified payroll records shall be Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) submitted electronically via the State Department of Industrial Relations’ electronic Certified Payroll Reporting (eCPR) system, and if requested, to Facilities Maintenance staff.

6. WASTE MATERIALS DISPOSAL. ACCO Engineered Systems shall remove any hazardous waste materials generated by work performed under this contract per Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. It is ACCO Engineered Systems’ sole responsibility to ensure that all hazardous waste materials are either recycled safely and effectively or treated and disposed of in landfills or incinerators per EPA guidelines.

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) Exhibit B
Budget
Pricing for Work Orders as Requested per bid SP2694
Line
Item
Labor Rates Years 1-3 (Term) Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
1 Hourly Labor Rate 1 $ $ 130.00 $ 130.00
2 OT/After-Hourly Labor Rate 1 $ $ 168.00 $ 168.00
3 % Discount/Mark-up Offered on
Materials
1 % $ 20.00 $ 20.00
4 Minimum Call-out Charge 1 $ $ 450.00 $ 450.00
Line Item Labor Rates Year 4 (Extended
Term)
Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
1 Hourly Labor Rate 1 $ $ 135.20 $ 135.20
2 OT/After-Hourly Labor Rate 1 $ $ 174.72 $ 174.72
3 % Discount/Mark-up Offered
on Materials
1 % $ 20.00 $ 20.00
4 Minimum Call-out Charge 1 $ $ 468.00 $ 468.00

1. Total Amount Not To Exceed. In the event the City exercises the (1) additional (1) year renewal option, the total amount for the Term and Extension Term shall not exceed SIX MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR ($6,500,000).

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) Exhibit C
Insurance Requirements
Contractual Services Agreement Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (Insurance Services Office Form CG 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 00 01 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Contractor has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and Code 9 (non-owned), with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employers’ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (see footnote #1).

If the Contractor maintains broader coverage or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Santa Monica requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Monica.

Other Insurance Provisions

1. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status: The City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. CGL coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38 and CG 20 37).

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this Agreement, the Contractor’s insurance shall be primary coverage as least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Santa Monica, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Notice of Cancellation: Each insurance policy required herein shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after notice has been given to the City of Santa Monica. d. Waiver of Subrogation: Contractor hereby grants to the City of Santa Monica a waiver of any right of subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City of Santa Monica by virtue of payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Santa Monica has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Monica for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide satisfactory proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the selfinsured retention may be satisfied by either the name insured or the City of Santa Monica.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in California with a current A.M.

Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Santa Monica.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City of Santa Monica with original certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage provided by this clause). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Santa Monica before work commences. However, failure to obtain required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City of Santa Monica reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including the endorsements required herein, at any time.

Failure to Maintain Insurance Coverage
Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. The City of Santa Monica, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach.

Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. All exceptions must be approved in writing by the Risk Manager.

Footnotes
# 1: Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage is not required if the Contractor does not have employees. The Contractor must, however, execute the City’s Workers’ Compensation Coverage Exemption Declaration Form.

Docusign Envelope ID: 82C5FD08-2370-425F-9150-05C8A3179ECB

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: _EXECUTED CSA_ACCO_CT11584 (7594 : ACCO First Modification HVAC Maintenance and Installation) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.L
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, Office of Economic Development Subject: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Office of Grants and Local Services Grant Authorized by Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) for the City of Santa Monica Capital Improvement of Airport Lands and Execution of All Necessary Associated Documents
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and a finding of statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $10,000,000, without a required local match, from the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) via California State Parks, Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) for the Airport Conversion Project.

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to accept the grant and all grant renewals.

4. Authorize budget amendment as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

Summary
The Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) has secured significant financial resources with the award of $10 million in State grant funds, authorized by Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) and allocated through SB 105 (Chapter 104): Budget Act of 2025, Item 3790-102-6093, Schedule (1)(a). Administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation through the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), this potential award reflects growing State recognition of the SMACP’s potential to deliver meaningful, lasting benefits to Santa Monica and the broader region, advancing a generational opportunity to create a community-centered, sustainable, and accessible public open

4.L
Packet Pg. 1589
2 of 5
space that responds to the park needs of an urban community. A portion of the grant funds shall be used to complete feasibility and environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In order to receive these grant funds, the California Department of Parks and Recreation requires the City's governing body to formally adopt a resolution certifying the Council’s approval of the filing of a grant application prior to submission to the State.

Accordingly, Staff is presenting the required resolution (Attachment A) for City Council adoption.

Adoption of this resolution is a prerequisite to entering into a formal grant contract with the State of California and represents a required procedural step to move the project forward and access the grant funds.

Discussion
The SMACP represents one of the most significant civic opportunities in the City's history. The transformation of approximately 192 acres of current airport land into a metropolitan park will deliver a generational public asset to Santa Monica and the surrounding region, addressing longstanding park-access inequities for urban environments in Los Angeles County. As part of our current planning efforts to study the feasibility of the conversion, the SMACP is being assessed through the lens of the Framework Diagram, which envisions eight distinct Districts, including Immersive Nature, Active Sports, Arts and Culture, The Urban Edge, The Stroll, The Lawn, The Meadow, and The Heart.

The scale and ambition of this vision also carries with it a significant funding challenge.

Transforming 192 acres of active airport infrastructure into a community and climate serving public park will require sustained investment over multiple phases, and identifying early external funding sources to explore feasibility will be critical to building the financial foundation that will make the project viable. Unlike typical municipally funded capital projects, a park of this scope and significance will depend on a diverse and layered funding strategy that draws from State and Federal grants, philanthropic

4.L
Packet Pg. 1590
3 of 5
partnerships, and other creative revenue sources developed in coordination with the City's long-term fiscal planning.

The $10 million Proposition 4 Climate Bond grant marks an important investment towards that broader effort. It positions the City well to pursue additional funding, and should serve as a catalyst, opening doors to additional funding opportunities including other state and federal programs aligned with the project's goals around climate resilience, equitable access, and sustainable park infrastructure.

Equally important, securing these funds creates a pathway towards achieving a substantive Phase 1 project which delivers real, visible, and lasting improvements to the site. While the full buildout of the park will unfold over many years, a well-designed Phase 1 has the power to establish the character and quality of the park, build community trust, and demonstrate what is possible as part of the overarching SMACP effort.

The potential receipt of this award also reflects the power of partnership in advancing a project of this magnitude. The City's sustained collaboration with State Senator Ben Allen and his office was instrumental in securing this funding, and moving ahead, staff will continue to coordinate closely with the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), the Department of Parks and Recreation, and other key stakeholders to fulfill all grant requirements, execute the project scope, and position the City for continued funding success.

Next Steps
If Council adopts the resolution to move forward with the OGALS Grant process and if the California State Parks issues a notice to proceed allowing project activities to begin upon execution of the grant agreement. As these funds were authorized by Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) and allocated by SB 105 (Chapter 104): Budget Act of 2025, Item # 3790-102-6093, Schedule (1)(a) they can only be used for the restoration, rehabilitation, protection, and capital improvement of former airport lands to create parks and open space.

4.L
Packet Pg. 1591
4 of 5
Environmental Review
The acceptance of grant funds is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. The grant money is covered by the commonsense exemption 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.” A portion of the grant money will be spent to complete feasibility analysis and environmental review, which is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15262 because the analysis and review will not have any legally binding effect to approve the design and/or construction of the park.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to secure the Proposition 4 Grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Airport Conversion Project and to accept all grant renewals. Staff seeks approval from City Council to adopt a resolution to authorize the application for grant funds and to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all documents necessary for the completion of the project grant scope.

Approval of the recommended action requires the following budget amendment.

FY 2025-26 Grant Budget Amendment
Establish Revenue Budget Appropriate Funds
Account Number Amount Account Number Amount
20200007.406260 $10,000,000 C2008280.689201 $10,000,000 Total $10,000,000 Total $10,000,000
If renewals are awarded, budget changes will be included in subsequent year budgets, contingent on Council budget approval.

4.L
Packet Pg. 1592
5 of 5
Prepared By: Amber Richane, Principal Design and Planning Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 25-26 Prop 4 Specified Resolution

4.L
Packet Pg. 1593
1 City Council Meeting _________ Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA APPROVAL OF APPLICATION(S) FOR SPECIFIED GRANT FUNDS AUTHORIZED BY PROPOSITION 4 (CLIMATE BOND) AND ALLOCATED BY SB 105 (CHAPTER 104): BUDGET ACT OF 2025, ITEM # 3790-102-6093, SCHEDULE (1)(A) $10,000,000 SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OF AIRPORT LANDS.

WHEREAS, Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of a grant to the City of Santa Monica, setting up necessary procedures governing application(s); and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant’s Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of project application(s) before submission of said applications to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete project(s) as outlined in Budget Item 3790-102-6093 [Provision #].

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

SECTION 1. Approves the filing of project application(s) for specified grant project(s); and
SECTION 2. Certifies that said applicant has or will have available sufficient funds including those provided by this grant, prior to commencement of project work utilizing specified grant funds, to complete the project; and

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: 25-26 Prop 4 Specified Resolution (7664 : Grant Resolution- $10M CIP Improvement Airport Lands) 2 SECTION 3. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and SECTION 4. Delegates the authority to the CITY MANAGER or designee to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the project grant scope(s); and
SECTION 5. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: 25-26 Prop 4 Specified Resolution (7664 : Grant Resolution- $10M CIP Improvement Airport Lands) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.M
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Parking Operations (DOT) Subject: Approval of First Modification to Agreement #11730 with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for Resurfacing Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Structures) and Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a first modification to agreement #11730 (CCS) in the amount of $375,485 with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for Parking Structure 2 stair resurfacing services for the Department of Transportation. This will result in a three-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,126,456, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
Parking Structure 2 (PS2), located at 1235 2nd Street, is a highly utilized facility in Downtown Santa Monica, serving over 370,000 parkers annually. The two staircases within the structure have experienced significant wear over time and need resurfacing to maintain safety and accessibility for all users. The Department of Transportation (DOT) Parking Division is seeking the approval to remove the outdated vinyl staircase coverings and install a durable Silikal R-61 CQ floor system to enhance safety, durability, and appearance. This new flooring system will provide improved slip resistance, durability against wear, and ease of maintenance, ensuring the stairwells remain functional for daily use. Staff recommends modifying the existing contract with AAAdvantage Concrete Coating in an amount not to exceed $375,485 (which includes a 5% contingency) to include the PS2 stair resurfacing. The existing contract with

4.M
Packet Pg. 1596
2 of 4
AAAdvantage covers the resurfacing of the stairways at Parking Structures 4 and 5, and that work is now complete. The existing contract has a fixed fee for each structure stair resurfacing and the vendor is extending the same fixed fee for PS2, mirroring the original scope and cost. This modification would add the stair resurfacing scope for PS2 and extend the contract term to three years, for a revised total of $1,126,456.

Discussion
Parking Structures 2, 4, and 5 are vital components of Downtown Santa Monica’s parking infrastructure, collectively serving more than 1,170,000 parkers annually. Most users exit on foot via one of the two staircases located at opposite corners of each structure. Given the high volume of foot traffic, these staircases endure significant wear, causing the vinyl stair coverings to become dated and damaged over time. The project to replace the stair coatings at PS4 and PS5 has been completed and is considered a successful project, providing a more suitable coating to replace the old vinyl covering.

Before and after pictures of work at PS4 and PS5 are attached for reference.

Parking Division staff have identified the need to replace the existing stairwell surfaces in PS2 to maintain the safety and functionality of the facility. The current vinyl covering in PS2 no longer supports the demands of such high foot traffic, and its condition has deteriorated beyond routine maintenance.

Staff recommends replacing the worn coverings with the Silikal R-61 CQ floor system which was used on PS4 and PS5. This flooring solution was chosen for its durability, and proven performance in high-traffic environments such as stairwells. In addition, its slip resistance ensures safety and improves long-term maintenance of the facility.

The Silikal system is resistant to a wide range of chemicals, making it ideal for the environmental conditions in parking structures. Its easy maintenance and quick curing time means that the installation will result in minimal disruption to the daily use of PS2, allowing the structure to remain accessible during the resurfacing process. This project will address both safety and aesthetic concerns, ensuring that the staircases remain in good condition for years to come. Replacing the flooring will also improve the overall appearance of the parking structure (as currently seen in PS4 and PS5), creating a more inviting and professional environment for those who use the facilities. With this long-lasting upgrade, PS2, PS4, and PS5 will continue to serve as reliable, attractive, and safe parking options for the Downtown Santa Monica community, thereby

4.M
Packet Pg. 1597
3 of 4
supporting Realignment Plan objectives of economic development and Downtown business success.

Public Outreach
The project is anticipated to take up to six weeks, with a phased scheduling approach to ensure that both stairwells in the structure are not closed simultaneously. Parking staff and the City’s parking operator will coordinate with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings to minimize impacts on PS2 users. Monthly permit holders will receive an email notification, and notices detailing the planned work will be prominently displayed at both the vehicular and pedestrian entrances to PS2. The same work performed at PS4 and PS5 was successfully completed with minimal user disruptions or complaints from the public.

Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 exempts Class 1 (Existing Facilities) projects from CEQA, which include the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15302 exempts Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) projects which include the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. The project would resurface and replace existing worn stairs in PS5, and therefore, it has been determined that the project would fall within the Class 1 and Class 2 categorical exemptions. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 applies to this project.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to increase the agreement amount with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for the PS2 Stair Resurfacing project.

Agreement Modification Request

4.M
Packet Pg. 1598
4 of 4
Agreement
#
Current
Authorized
Amount
FY 2025-26
Modified Request
Amount
FY 2026-27
Request Amount Dept Account #
Total Revised
Contract
Amount
11730
(CCS) $750,971
$96,911.61 - C0104890.689000
$1,126,456
- $278,573.39 Operating TBD
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Zach Pollard, Parking Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 7-8-2025 Staff Report
B. Living Wage
C. Before
D. Before 2
E. PS4 After
F. PS4 After2
G. PS5 After
H. PS5 After2
I. Santa Monica_UPDATED LEVINE ACT 06032026
J. Santa Monica_UPDATED OAKS INIT 06042026

4.M
Packet Pg. 1599
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Parking Operations (DOT) Subject: Award Bid to AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for the Resurfacing of Parking Structure 5 Stairs
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award Bid #4504 to AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for resurfacing of Parking Structure 4 and 5 stairs for the Department of Transportation Parking Operations Division; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with AAAdvantage Concrete Coating in an amount not to exceed $750,971 (including a 5% contingency) for two years.

Summary
Parking Structure 4 (PS4), located at 1321 2nd Street, and Parking Structure 5 (PS5), located at 1440 4th Street, are highly utilized facilities in Downtown Santa Monica, serving over 800,000 parkers annually. The two staircases in each structure (4 total), are worn and in need of resurfacing. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is recommending approval of a proposed project to remove the outdated vinyl staircase coverings and install a durable Silikal R-61 CQ floor system to enhance safety, durability, and appearance. This new system will provide improved slip resistance, durability against wear, and ease of maintenance, ensuring the stairwells remain functional for daily use. Staff is recommending negotiating and executing a contract with AAAdvantage Concrete Coating in an amount not to exceed $750,971 (including a 5% contingency). This would likely be a two-year contract with no renewal options.

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: 7-8-2025 Staff Report (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage) 2 of 5
Discussion
PS4 and PS5 are vital components of Downtown Santa Monica's parking infrastructure, serving an average of over 800,000 parkers annually. Most users exit on foot via one of the two staircases located at opposite corners of each structure. Given the high volume of foot traffic, these staircases endure significant wear, causing the vinyl stair coverings to become dated and damaged over time.

DOT’s Parking Operations Division has identified the need to replace the existing stairwell surfaces to maintain the safety and functionality of the facility. The current vinyl covering no longer meets the demands of such high foot traffic, and its condition has deteriorated beyond routine maintenance. Furthermore, the lack of any documented refurbishments or updates makes it critical to address the issue proactively before the condition worsens.

Staff are recommending replacing the worn coverings with the Silikal R-61 CQ floor system. This flooring solution has been chosen for its durability, specifically designed for high-traffic areas like stairwells. It offers superior resistance to wear and tear, which is essential given the daily foot traffic. Additionally, the system’s slip resistance ensures a safer experience for users.

The Silikal system is resistant to a wide range of chemicals, making it ideal for the environmental conditions in parking structures. Its easy maintenance and quick curing time mean that the installation will result in minimal disruption to the daily use of PS4 and PS5, allowing the structures to remain accessible during the resurfacing process.

This project will address both safety and aesthetic concerns, ensuring that the staircases remain in good condition for years to come. Replacing the flooring will also improve the overall appearance of the parking structures, creating a more inviting and professional environment for those who use the facilities. With this long-lasting upgrade, PS4 and PS5 will continue to serve as reliable, attractive, and safe parking options for the Downtown Santa Monica community, thereby supporting economic development and Downtown business success.

Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder AAAdvantage Concrete Coating

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: 7-8-2025 Staff Report (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage) 3 of 5
Evaluation Criteria The bids were evaluated based on cost and experience.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
Submittal Received
AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings $357,605.00
Bid Data
Posted On Posted On Advertised In
(City Charter &
SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
May 1, 2025 City’s Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica
Daily Press
2 May 28, 2025
Justification to Award
Staff recommends AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings as the best bidder. They ranked high in the categories of cost and experience, making them the best bidder.

Experience in similar projects (such as at Santa Monica Place) and with the required materials is essential to this work. They also are a certified installer of the Silikal flooring system, which was a bid requirement, unless a suitable approved alternate material was proposed.

This is a public space with a high volume of foot traffic and the project must be installed correctly in order to create a safe and functional public area. AAAdvantage brings proven expertise, having successfully completed similar projects. Their extensive experience with Silikal ensures that the material will be properly applied, delivering lasting, high-performance results. Ultimately, the choice of AAAdvantage provides the City with the best value in terms of performance, durability, and longterm cost savings. This investment is justified by their ability to meet the City's material specifications, provide expert installation, and deliver a superior, more reliable solution.

Public Outreach
The project is anticipated to take up to five weeks, with a phased scheduling approach to ensure that both stairwells in each structure are not closed simultaneously. Parking staff and the City’s parking operator, SP Plus, will coordinate with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings to minimize impacts on PS4 and PS5 users. Monthly permit holders will receive an email notification, and notices detailing the planned work will be prominently displayed at both the vehicular and pedestrian entrances to PS5.

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: 7-8-2025 Staff Report (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage) 4 of 5
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 exempts Class 1 (Existing Facilities) projects from CEQA, which include the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15302 exempts Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) projects which include the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located in the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. The project would resurface and replace existing worn stairs in PS5, and therefore, it has been determined that the project would fall within the Class 1 and Class 2 categorical exemptions. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 applies to this project.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve available funding from the General Fund to award a contract with AAAdvantage Concrete Coatings for the PS5 Stair Resurfacing project.

Contract Request
FY 2025-26 Request
Amount
Department/CIP Account # Total Contract Amount
$700,000 C0104890.689000 $650,000
$50,971 01600004.529460 $100,971
$750,971 Total $750,971

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: 7-8-2025 Staff Report (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage) 5 of 5
Prepared By: Joyce Perez, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. AAAdvantage - Levine_Act_Disclosure
B. AAAdvantage Oaks_Initiative

4.M.a
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: 7-8-2025 Staff Report (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.b
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Living Wage (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.b
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Living Wage (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.c
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Before [Revision 1] (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with

4.M.d
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Before 2 [Revision 1] (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.e
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: PS4 After [Revision 1] (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.f
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: PS4 After2 [Revision 1] (7704 :

4.M.g
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: PS5 After [Revision 1] (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.h
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: PS5 After2 [Revision 1] (7704 : 1st Modification of

4.M.i
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED LEVINE ACT 06032026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.i
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED LEVINE ACT 06032026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.i
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED LEVINE ACT 06032026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.i
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED LEVINE ACT 06032026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.i
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED LEVINE ACT 06032026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.j
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED OAKS INIT 06042026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage)

4.M.j
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Santa Monica_UPDATED OAKS INIT 06042026 (7704 : 1st Modification of Contract with AAAdvantage) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.N
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Darrick Jacob, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Award Bid and enter into Agreements With Airwave Communications Enterprises, Inc. for Emergency Vehicle Upfitting for Police and Fire Departments
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 Bid #4500 to Airwave Communications Ent., Inc. to provide labor and parts required to upfit, repair and maintain specialty equipment for the City’s fleet of emergency vehicles for the Police and Fire departments;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Airwave Communications Ent., Inc. for the Police Department in an amount not to exceed $7,041,250 for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Airwave Communications Ent., Inc. for the Fire Department in an amount not to exceed $719,125 for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
Upfitting new emergency vehicles with specialized equipment such as sirens, radios, and strobe lighting is vital to public safety as it enables Police and Fire vehicles to safely navigate throughout the City during emergencies and reduces response times. The Santa Monica Fire Department currently has 50 light and medium duty emergency vehicles, and the Santa Monica Police Department currently has 232 emergency vehicles, all of which require installation, maintenance, and parts associated with making them emergency-response compliant. The City’s Police and Fire Departments

4.N
Packet Pg. 1620
2 of 4
issued Request for Bids (“RFB”) #4500, reviewed and evaluated all of the bids submitted in response, and determined that Airwave Communications Enterprises, Inc. (“Airwave”) is the best bidder to provide the City with public safety vehicle installation, repair and maintenance services, and vehicle parts. The cost to implement and maintain public safety vehicles for five years for the Police Department is $7,041,250, and $719,125 for the Fire Department, resulting in a total amount of $7,760,375. Staff has worked with Finance to ensure funds are available within the Vehicle Management Fund and the respective Police and Fire department budgets to support this request.

Discussion
Fleet Management consulted with the Police and Fire departments to develop 322 upfitting line items to include in RFB #4500 that represent a subset of vehicle parts required when upfitting the diverse public safety fleet. Each vehicle will be upfitted with emergency lighting and warning systems, and a highly specialized communications system to ensure safe and efficient emergency response. Equipping emergency vehicles is a complex process, as there is significant equipment that must be installed to the manufacturer specifications for the equipment to operate properly in a rigorous environment. Computer and camera equipment must be mounted to ensure it is secured and positioned to have an unobstructed view. The life cycles for emergency vehicles are between four to ten years according to the City’s Vehicle Replacement Program and contracting with an upfitting vendor enables the City to replace its obsolete fleet of emergency vehicles in an expeditious manner. This is especially important when a vehicle is damaged beyond repair and must be replaced in a relatively short period of time. The recommended agreements would allow police officers and firefighters to continue to safely and effectively provide emergency response services to Santa Monica residents. To help further reduce the costs of upfitting, equipment from existing vehicles would be transferred to new vehicles whenever possible.

Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder Airwave Communications Enterprises
Evaluation Criteria
(include all that
apply)
Cost
Experience
Compliance with minimum qualifications

4.N
Packet Pg. 1621
3 of 4
Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
Submittals Received
Airwave Communications
Enterprises $191,702.90 Dana Safety Supply, Inc $2,872,586.01 Commline, Inc. $374,297.08
Bid Data
Date
Posted Posted On
Advertise In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
12/04/2025 City's Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily
Press
31 01/14/2026
Best Bidder Justification
Based on the relevant criteria in SMMC 2.24.180, the evaluation committee recommends Airwave Communication Enterprise, Inc. as the best bidder. Bids were evaluated based on cost, vendor experience, and compliance with minimum qualifications. The project requires specialized equipment compatibility, appropriate equipment and parts warranty, and technical expertise through similar projects within southern California professional Fire, Police, or Sheriff’s Departments. Based on these factors, Airwave Communication Enterprise, Inc. is evaluated to be the best bidder.

Environmental Review
The proposed agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (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 agreement would provide uplifting improvements for new vehicles and would not result in any adverse physical environmental effects. Therefore, the agreement is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental under CEQA is required.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Vehicle Management Fund and General Fund to award an agreement with Airwave Communications Enterprises, Inc. (Airwave)for public safety vehicle upfitting. Funds have been included in the FY 2026-27

4.N
Packet Pg. 1622
4 of 4
Budget Plan which was approved by Council in the FY 2025-27 Adopted Biennial Budget.

Agreement Request
Department Funding
Source(s)
FY 2026-27
Request
Amount
Future
Years
Amount
Department Account #
Total
Contract
Amount
Police
Vehicle
Management
Fund
$1,388,250 $5,553,000 70800005.532550 $6,941,250
General Fund $20,000 $80,000 01180005.525260 $100,000
Fire
Vehicle
Management
Fund
$138,825 $555,300 70800005.532550 $694,125
General Fund $5,000 $20,000 01190001.529240 $25,000
Total $7,760,375
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Kiajett Charles, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Airwave
B. Levine Act Disclosure Form - Airwave

4.N
Packet Pg. 1623

4.N.a
Packet Pg. 1624
Attachment: OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Airwave (7710 : AIRWAVE VEHICLE UPFITTING) e Cityof
Santa
Monica

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 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:/lwww.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 $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? _DvEs.21.No
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: ______ ________ _ 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.

City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form - Airwave (7710 : AIRWAVE VEHICLE UPFITTING) e Cltyof
Santa
Monica
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 entitf ement.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDERPENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT E~~uy,~ IS TRUEAND CORRECT.

Date: 5/26/2026
Print Name: Title: Partner ----------- ---------
Company: Airwave Communications
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

4.N.b
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form - Airwave (7710 : AIRWAVE VEHICLE UPFITTING) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):

John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.

City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV0239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v.

City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v.

City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158

5.A
Packet Pg. 1627
2 of 2
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Administrative Services Officer Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 1628
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Amending Chapter

4.63, Hotel Worker Living Wage Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits and Introduction for First Reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.63, Hotel Worker Minimum Wage, Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.63, Hotel Worker Living Wage Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits; and

3. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.63, Hotel Worker Minimum Wage, Related to Regional Alignment for Wages and Health Benefits.

Executive Summary
In 2016, Santa Monica took actions to adopt a Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance, which was structured to achieve a regional wage alignment by matching the City’s hourly wage set for hotel workers with the wage established for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles.

More recently, on May 26, 2026, the City of Los Angeles adopted Ordinance Number 188944, revising wage and health benefit provisions for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles that are set to take effect on July 1, 2026. Through that change, Los Angeles restructured the relationship between wages and health care, such that hotels in Los Angeles which do not provide a defined level of health care benefits will be required to

10.A
Packet Pg. 1629
2 of 8
provide workers with an additional, separate hourly amount, on top of the required minimum base wage rate.

Santa Monica’s current ordinance does not cleanly account for the new wage-andbenefit interaction, with our local regulation requiring only that Santa Monica’s hotel worker wages be set to “match the hourly wage set for Hotel Workers in the City of Los Angeles.” Also of note, Los Angeles has defined a covered “Hotel” as a property with 60 or more guest rooms, which has the effect of exempting smaller properties from the increased hotel worker wage rate, leaving those hotels with less than 60 rooms subject only to the City of Los Angeles’ general minimum wage. These factors create an internal inconsistency that needs to be resolved, with key considerations as follows:
• Should the City adopt an updated hotel worker wage schedule, which tracks expressly with future Los Angeles related increases?
• Should the City adopt the same health care benefit-or-pay structure, in alignment with Los Angeles guidelines?
• Should the City adopt the 60-room threshold exempting smaller hotel properties from the specific hotel worker wage schedule?
Given that the intention behind Santa Monica’s original adoption of our Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance was to algin our local wage requirements with that being required in the City of Los Angeles, and the most recent changes in the City of Los Angeles are set to take effect on July 1, 2026, both an Emergency Ordinance and a regular Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.63 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code have been prepared for City Council consideration. If adopted, the set of Ordinances would allow for the City to, effective July 1, 2026, align our local hotel worker wage schedule, the health care benefit-or-pay structure, and the 60-room threshold with what was recently adopted by the City of Los Angeles.

Alternatively, the City Council can also provide alternate direction to adjust how or if Santa Monica should couple our hotel worker compensation requirements with Los Angeles.

Discussion

10.A
Packet Pg. 1630
3 of 8
The City of Santa Monica, host to millions of visitors annually, has a long history of supporting its tourism and hospitality industries, as well as supporting the wellbeing and rights of workers in those establishments.

For example, on January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2509 (CCS), adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 4.62, requiring a minimum wage for employees, Chapter 4.63, requiring a living wage for hotel workers, and Chapter

4.65, Living Wage, requiring a living wage for certain City contractors. On May 10, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2515 (CCS), which, in part amended portions of Chapter 4.63 to provide for regional wage alignment by matching the hourly wage set for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles, and required notice to employees related to one-year waivers for certain hotels as contemplated under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.020.

Ordinance 2515 included a change to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

4.36.015(b)(2), which now provides that: “On July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage shall match the hourly wage set for Hotel Workers in the City of Los Angeles.”
Although Ordinance 2515 implemented regional alignment with respect to hotel worker living wages, one notable distinction between Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

4.63 and the Los Angeles Citywide Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance is that a “hotel” under the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance is any hotel with at least 60 guest rooms, and a “hotel” under Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.63 is any hotel regardless of size.

On May 26, 2026, the City of Los Angeles adopted Ordinance Number 188944 revising wage and health benefit provisions for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles set to take effect on July 1, 2026. Specifically, Ordinance Number 188944 sets forth a schedule for wages to increase to $30/hour by July 1, 2030, as follows:
• Beginning on July 1, 2025: $22.50 per hour.
• Beginning on July 1, 2026: $25.00 per hour.
• Beginning on July 1, 2027: $25.50 per hour.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1631
4 of 8
• Beginning on July 1, 2028: $28.50 per hour.
• Beginning on July 1, 2029: $29.00 per hour.
• Beginning on January 1, 2030: $30.00 per hour.

In addition, the recently adopted City of Los Angeles ordinance, beginning on July 1, 2030, and annually thereafter on July 1, states the hourly wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, as measured from January to December of the preceding year.

Ordinance Number 188944 further provides that the minimum wages stated above apply to hotel employers who pay at least the following amounts toward the provision of health care benefits for a hotel worker:
(1) Beginning July 1, 2026: $4.25 per hour;
(2) Beginning July 1, 2027: $6.00 per hour;
(3) Beginning July 1, 2028: $8.35 per hour as adjusted by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare's Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The DAA [Department of Public Works, Bureau of Contract Administration] shall announce the adjusted rate on April 1, 2028, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rate, which shall take effect on July 1, 2028. (4) Beginning on July 1, 2029, and annually thereafter each July 1, the health care benefits payment shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare's Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The DAA shall announce the adjusted rates annually each April 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1632
5 of 8
If a hotel employer does not provide a hotel worker with health benefits in the amounts stated above, Ordinance Number 188994 provides that the hotel worker shall be paid the applicable wage rate plus an additional wage equal to the health benefit payment in effect.

Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.63 does not cleanly account for the new wageand-health benefit interaction that is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, and it does not contain an exemption for smaller hotels, as the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance does. This creates an inconsistency in Santa Monica that needs to be clarified and resolved, with key considerations as follows:
• Should the City adopt an updated hotel worker wage schedule, which expressly tracks future rate increases in Los Angeles?
o Expressly adopting a rate schedule for the next several years that matches the City of Los Angeles schedule would provide advance notice to hotel businesses rate changes for years into the future and while ensuring regional consistency if the City of Los Angeles does not amend its wage increase schedule in the future. If the City of Los Angeles does change the wage increase schedule, the wage rate in Santa Monica will not match unless the Santa Monica ordinance is also amended. • Should the City adopt the same health care benefit-or-added wage structure, in alignment with Los Angeles ordinance?
o Requiring Santa Monica hotel employers to provide health benefits or pay an additional amount toward wages would promote regional consistency in wage rates and benefits for hotel workers and would increase the effective minimum wage rate by at least $4.25 per hour beginning July 1, 2026. • Should the City adopt the 60-room threshold exempting smaller hotel properties from the specific hotel worker wage schedule?
o There are 41 hotels in Santa Monica. 16 have fewer than 60 guest rooms, and of those 13 have fewer than 40 guest rooms.
o A chart outlining the hotels located in the City and the room count for each hotel is included below.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1633
6 of 8
Address Coastal / Non-Coastal Type Rooms
2001 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 45
220 California Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 36 101 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 302 1707 4th Street Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 253
1434 2nd Street Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hostel 260
201 Broadway Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 97
1910 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 129
1111 2nd Street Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 204
1667 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 20
2452 Lincoln Boulevard Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 29 1447 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 70
849 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 70
1001 Third Street Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 28
1700 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 342
1740 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 175
2102 Lincoln Boulevard Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 34 1670 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 35
2637 Main Street Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 20
1760 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 17
1515 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 178
1 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 198
2219 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 4
1301 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 71
1415 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 84
120 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 132 205 Washington Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 52 1819 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Coastal Zone Hotel 169
1255 20th Street Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 77 1234 Lincoln Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Motel 9 2815 Santa Monica Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 108 1554 5th Street Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 136 3007 Santa Monica Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 67 1920 Santa Monica Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 123 501 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 143 1102 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Motel 11 530 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 315 2680 32nd Street Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Motel 46 2020 14th Street Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Motel 26 815 Grant Street Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Motel 14

10.A
Packet Pg. 1634
7 of 8
710 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 285 3102 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica Non-Coastal Zone Hotel 83 Given Chapter 4.63 does not cleanly account for the changes adopted by the City of Los Angeles that are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, and the uncertainty in applicable wages for both workers and employers that will result, staff has prepared both an Emergency Ordinance, which, if adopted, would take effect immediately, and an Ordinance for introduction and first reading, which if introduced and subsequently adopted on second reading at a future meeting, would take effect 30 days after adoption.

Environmental Review
The action taken by the City Council 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 measures are administrative in nature in that they provide for a hotel worker living wage and health benefits. 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 Impacts & Budget Actions
None.

Prepared By: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council

10.A
Packet Pg. 1635
8 of 8
Attachments:

A. ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage

06.09.26 B. ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 C. Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015
D. Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016
E. Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016
F. City of Los Angeles Ordinance 188944
G. Written Comments

10.A
Packet Pg. 1636
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND CHAPTER 4.63, HOTEL WORKER LIVING WAGE,

RELATED TO RELATED TO REGIONAL ALIGNMENT FOR WAGES AND HEALTH

BENEFITS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica, host to millions of visitors annually, has a long history of supporting its tourism and hospitality industries as well as supporting the wellbeing and rights of workers in those establishments; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2509 (CCS), adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 4.62, requiring a minimum wage for employees, Chapter 4.63, requiring a living wage for hotel workers, and Chapter

4.65, Living Wage, requiring a living wage for certain City contractors; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2515 (CCS), which, in part amended portions of Chapter 4.63 to provide for regional wage alignment by matching the hourly wage set for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles, and required notice to employees related to one-year waivers for certain hotels as contemplated under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.62.020; and WHEREAS, although Ordinance 2515 implemented regional alignment with respect to hotel worker living wages, one notable distinction between Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.63 and the Los Angeles Citywide Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance is that a “hotel” under the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance is any hotel with at least 60 guest rooms, and a “hotel” under Santa Monic Municipal Code Chapter 4.63 is any hotel regardless of size; and

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026 the City of Los Angeles adopted Ordinance Number 288944 revising wage and health benefit provisions for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles that are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 188944 sets forth a schedule for wages to increase to $30/hour by July 1, 2030; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 188944 further sets forth a schedule for a separate health care benefits payment commencing on July 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, Chapter 4.63 does not cleanly account for the separate health care benefits payment that is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, and it does not contain an exemption for smaller hotels as the City of Los Angeles’s does; and WHEREAS, these inconsistencies need to be clarified in order to provide certainty in wages for both hotel workers and hotel employers; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles provides an exemption for hotels with 60 rooms or fewer; and
WHEREAS, the City maintains its commitment to improve the welfare of the City’s workers, particularly those in low-wage positions, by supporting fair employment practices and ensuring that workers receive decent compensation for the work they perform and the services provided, and ensuring that workers are able to take time off work to care for themselves or family members.

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.010 is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Section 4.63.010. Definitions.

As used in this Chapter:
(a) “City” means the City of Santa Monica.
(b) “Health care benefits” means health coverage, dental, vision, mental health, and disability income. Health care benefits does not include retirement benefits, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, life insurance and other benefits that do not provide medical or health related coverage.
(c)(b) “Hotel” means a residential building that is designated or used for lodging and other related services for the public, and containing 60 or more guest rooms or suites of rooms. “Hotel” also includes any contracted, leased or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. “Hotel” does not include hostels, which is defined as any lodging facility that is primarily characterized by dormitory-style accommodations, shared bathrooms, and reservations of beds rather than rooms.
(d)(c) “Hotel employer” means any person, including a corporate officer or executive, association, organization, partnership, business trust, and limited liability company or corporation, who owns, controls, and/or operates a Hotel in the City, or a person who owns, controls, and/or operates any contracted, leased or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the Hotel's purpose, or a person who provides services at the Hotel.
(e)(d) “Hotel worker” means any individual whose primary place of employment is at one or more Hotels and who is employed directly by the Hotel Employer, or by a person who

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) has contracted with the Hotel Employer to provide services at the Hotel. “Hotel Worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee. (f)(e) “Service charge” means any separately-designated amount charged and collected by an Employer from customers, that is for service by Employees, or is described in such a way that customers might reasonably believe that the amount is for those services or is otherwise to be paid or payable directly to Employees, including those charges designated on receipts, invoices, or billing statements under the term “service charge,” “table charge,” “porterage charge,” “automatic gratuity charge,” “healthcare surcharge,” “benefits surcharge,” or similar language. Service Charge does not include a tip or gratuity as defined under State or federal law.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.015 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 4.63.015. Minimum wage payment requirements.
(a) Hotel Employers shall pay Hotel Workers a wage of no less than the hourly rates set under this section.
(b) If a Hotel Employer provides a Hotel Worker with health benefits as provided in Section 4.36.017 of this Chapter, the Hotel Worker shall be paid the following:
(1) Beginning on July 1, 2025, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $22.50 per hour.
(2) Beginning on July 1, 2026, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $25.00 per hour.
(3) Beginning on July 1, 2027, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $25.50 per hour.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) (4) Beginning on July 1, 2028, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $28.50 per hour.
(5) Beginning on July 1, 2029, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $29.00 per hour.
(6) Beginning on January 1, 2030, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $30.00 per hour.
(7) Beginning on July 1, 2030, and annually thereafter on July 1, the hourly wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. (b) The minimum wage for each Hotel Worker shall be as follows:
(1) On July 1, 2016, the hourly wage shall be $13.25; and (2) On July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage shall match the hourly wage set for Hotel Workers in the City of Los Angeles. (c) Beginning on July 1, 2026, if a Hotel Employer does not provide a Hotel Worker with health care benefits as provided in Section 4.63.017 of this Chapter, the Hotel Worker shall be paid the applicable wage rate in subsection (b) of this Section and an additional wage rate equal to the health care benefits payment in effect pursuant to Section

4.36.017.
(cd) The City shall announce the adjusted rates annually each February January 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s CPI-W, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.017 is hereby added to read as follows:

Section 4.63.017. Health care benefits.
(a) Unless exempt under section (b), below, a Hotel Employer shall provide a Hotel Worker a payment towards the provision of health care benefits for the Hotel Worker and dependents (“health care benefits payment”) equal to the following amounts:
(1) Beginning July 1, 2026, the health care benefits payment shall be equal to at least $4.25 per hour.
(2) Beginning July 1, 2027, the health care benefits payment shall be equal to at least $6.00 per hour.
(3) Beginning July 1, 2028, the health care benefits payment shall be equal to at least $8.35 per hour as adjusted by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare's Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The City shall announce the adjusted rate on April 1, 2028, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rate, which shall take effect on July 1, 2028. (4) Beginning on July 1, 2029, and annually thereafter each July 1, the health care benefits payment shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare's Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The City shall announce the adjusted rates annually each April 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.
(b) Hotel employers that provide health care benefits for hotel workers shall be exempt from providing health care benefits payments. Hotel Employers shall keep proof of the provision of such health care benefits on file at the Hotel, and such proof shall be provided to the City Attorney’s Office upon request.
(c) If the Hotel Employer’s hourly health care benefit payment is less than that required under this article, the difference shall be paid to the Hotel Worker as an additional hourly wage.
(d) Health care benefits payments are not required to be paid on overtime hours.

SECTION 4. Any provision of the 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 5. 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 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Emergency Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. Pursuant to Sections 615 and 619 of the City Charter, for the reasons stated in the recitals above, the staff report accompanying this ordinance, oral and written testimony received by the City Council, and City Council discussion, the City Council declares this ordinance to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, and safety, with the result that this ordinance shall be introduced and adopted at the same meeting and shall become effective immediately upon its adoption, and its effective date shall be June 9, 2026.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: ORD--Emergency Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND CHAPTER 4.63, HOTEL WORKER LIVING WAGE, RELATED TO REGIONAL

ALIGNMENT FOR WAGES AND HEALTH BENEFITS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica, host to millions of visitors annually, has a long history of supporting its tourism and hospitality industries as well as supporting the wellbeing and rights of workers in those establishments; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2509 (CCS), adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 4.62, requiring a minimum wage for employees, Chapter 4.63, requiring a living wage for hotel workers, and Chapter

4.65, Living Wage, requiring a living wage for certain City contractors; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2515 (CCS), which, in part amended portions of Chapter 4.63 to provide for regional wage alignment by matching the hourly wage set for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles, and required notice to employees related to one-year waivers for certain hotels as contemplated under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.62.020; and WHEREAS, although Ordinance 2515 implemented regional alignment with respect to hotel worker living wages, one notable distinction between Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.63 and the Los Angeles Citywide Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance is that a “hotel” under the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance is any hotel with at least 60 guest rooms, and a “hotel” under Santa Monic Municipal Code Chapter 4.63 is any hotel regardless of size; and

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026 the City of Los Angeles adopted Ordinance Number 288944 revising wage and health benefit provisions for hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles that are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 188944 sets forth a schedule for wages to increase to $30/hour by July 1, 2030; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 188944 further sets forth a schedule for a separate health care benefits payment commencing on July 1, 2026; and WHEREAS, Chapter 4.63 does not cleanly account for the separate health care benefits payment that is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, and it does not contain an exemption for smaller hotels as the City of Los Angeles’s does; and WHEREAS, these inconsistencies need to be clarified in order to provide certainty in wages for both hotel workers and hotel employers; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles provides an exemption for hotels with 60 rooms or fewer; and
WHEREAS, the City maintains its commitment to improve the welfare of the City’s workers, particularly those in low-wage positions, by supporting fair employment practices and ensuring that workers receive decent compensation for the work they perform and the services provided, and ensuring that workers are able to take time off work to care for themselves or family members.

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.010 is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Section 4.63.010. Definitions.

As used in this Chapter:
(a) “City” means the City of Santa Monica.
(b) “Health care benefits” means health coverage, dental, vision, mental health, and disability income. Health care benefits does not include retirement benefits, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, life insurance and other benefits that do not provide medical or health related coverage.
(c)(b) “Hotel” means a residential building that is designated or used for lodging and other related services for the public, and containing 60 or more guest rooms or suites of rooms. “Hotel” also includes any contracted, leased or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. “Hotel” does not include hostels, which is defined as any lodging facility that is primarily characterized by dormitory-style accommodations, shared bathrooms, and reservations of beds rather than rooms.
(d)(c) “Hotel employer” means any person, including a corporate officer or executive, association, organization, partnership, business trust, and limited liability company or corporation, who owns, controls, and/or operates a Hotel in the City, or a person who owns, controls, and/or operates any contracted, leased or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the Hotel's purpose, or a person who provides services at the Hotel.
(e)(d) “Hotel worker” means any individual whose primary place of employment is at one or more Hotels and who is employed directly by the Hotel Employer, or by a person who

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) has contracted with the Hotel Employer to provide services at the Hotel. “Hotel Worker” does not include a managerial, supervisory or confidential employee. (f)(e) “Service charge” means any separately-designated amount charged and collected by an Employer from customers, that is for service by Employees, or is described in such a way that customers might reasonably believe that the amount is for those services or is otherwise to be paid or payable directly to Employees, including those charges designated on receipts, invoices, or billing statements under the term “service charge,” “table charge,” “porterage charge,” “automatic gratuity charge,” “healthcare surcharge,” “benefits surcharge,” or similar language. Service Charge does not include a tip or gratuity as defined under State or federal law.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.015 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 4.63.015. Minimum wage payment requirements.
(a) Hotel Employers shall pay Hotel Workers a wage of no less than the hourly rates set under this section.
(b) If a Hotel Employer provides a Hotel Worker with health benefits as provided in Section 4.36.017 of this Chapter, the Hotel Worker shall be paid the following:
(1) Beginning on July 1, 2025, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $22.50 per hour.
(2) Beginning on July 1, 2026, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $25.00 per hour.
(3) Beginning on July 1, 2027, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $25.50 per hour.

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) (4) Beginning on July 1, 2028, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $28.50 per hour.
(5) Beginning on July 1, 2029, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $29.00 per hour.
(6) Beginning on January 1, 2030, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $30.00 per hour.
(7) Beginning on July 1, 2030, and annually thereafter on July 1, the hourly wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. (b) The minimum wage for each Hotel Worker shall be as follows:
(1) On July 1, 2016, the hourly wage shall be $13.25; and (2) On July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage shall match the hourly wage set for Hotel Workers in the City of Los Angeles. (c) Beginning on July 1, 2026, if a Hotel Employer does not provide a Hotel Worker with health care benefits as provided in Section 4.63.017 of this Chapter, the Hotel Worker shall be paid the applicable wage rate in subsection (b) of this Section and an additional wage rate equal to the health care benefits payment in effect pursuant to Section

4.36.017.
(cd) The City shall announce the adjusted rates annually each February January 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s CPI-W, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.63.017 is hereby added to read as follows:

Section 4.63.017. Health care benefits.
(a) Unless exempt under section (b), below, a Hotel Employer shall provide a Hotel Worker a payment towards the provision of health care benefits for the Hotel Worker and dependents (“health care benefits payment”) equal to the following amounts:
(1) Beginning July 1, 2026, the health care benefits payment shall be equal to at least $4.25 per hour.
(2) Beginning July 1, 2027, the health care benefits payment shall be equal to at least $6.00 per hour.
(3) Beginning July 1, 2028, the health care benefits payment shall be equal to at least $8.35 per hour as adjusted by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare's Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The City shall announce the adjusted rate on April 1, 2028, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rate, which shall take effect on July 1, 2028. (4) Beginning on July 1, 2029, and annually thereafter each July 1, the health care benefits payment shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare's Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The City shall announce the adjusted rates annually each April 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.
(b) Hotel employers that provide health care benefits for hotel workers shall be exempt from providing health care benefits payments. Hotel Employers shall keep proof of the provision of such health care benefits on file at the Hotel, and such proof shall be provided to the City Attorney’s Office upon request.
(c) If the Hotel Employer’s hourly health care benefit payment is less than that required under this article, the difference shall be paid to the Hotel Worker as an additional hourly wage.
(d) Health care benefits payments are not required to be paid on overtime hours.

SECTION 4. Any provision of the 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 5. 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 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: ORD--Amendments to Chapter 4.63 Hotel Worker Living Wage 06.09.26 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) City Council
Report
City Council Special Meeting: September 29, 2015
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 21
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department Subject: Introduction for First Reading of an Ordinance Setting a Santa Monica Minimum Wage
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Receive the attached report and community comment regarding a minimum wage increase in the City of Santa Monica;
2) Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance setting a minimum wage to be effective in the City of Santa Monica following the model of the City of Los Angeles, a phased approach to reach $15 per hour by 2020 for most businesses; 3) Direct staff to return with future modifications as appropriate, including those reflecting potential future changes in the Los Angeles Ordinance; and 4) Direct staff to initiate research and outreach to consider matching the City of Los Angeles Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Executive Summary
In September 2014, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti proposed an increase in the minimum wage for the City of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles City Council adopted a minimum wage ordinance at its June 10, 2015 meeting. The Santa Monica City Council directed staff to review the Los Angeles proposed ordinance and its potential impact on Santa Monica, including the possibility of passing a similar ordinance, in September 2014 and again in June 2015 following the Los Angeles ordinance adoption. Staff coordinated meetings for the Santa Monica business and nonprofit communities to discuss a minimum wage increase. At these meetings, experts in minimum wage economic impacts who analyzed the Los Angeles proposal made presentations on these results and discussed, at a broad level, implications for Santa Monica. Staff recorded concerns raised by the individuals who attended outreach meetings, and experts clarified information through the outreach process. Staff recommends the Council adopt the proposed ordinance increasing the minimum wage in the City of Santa Monica, based on the Los Angeles legislation, and including Council direction for

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 of 21
service charges and union supersession. The result would be a phased increase, starting at $10.50 per hour on July 1, 2016 and reaching $15 per hour by July 1, 2020 for most businesses. Staff recommends returning to Council with modifications related to paid leave and enforcement, and seeks further Council direction for a hotel worker minimum wage and a seasonal workers exemption.

Background
On August 25, 2015, the City Council unanimously supported preserving Santa Monica as an inclusive and affordable community as one of the City’s top three Priority Strategic Goals. One aspect of affordability is the cost of housing. Another is the ability of low - wage workers to afford the rising cost of housing in Santa Monica.

The primary goal of raising the minimum wage is to increase the pay of low wage workers at a time when their share of overall income has declined and the cost of housing has risen faster than inflation. Economic research literature agrees that minimum wage laws achieve this goal, and consistently finds that the affected workers are mostly adults, and disproportionately women and people of color. In addition to the immediate benefits of increased income, research literature suggests longer -term benefits in improved health outcomes for workers and children, and in increases in children’s school achievement and cognitive and behavioral outcomes. The nation as a whole and specific regions have historically prospered when the benefits of economic growth are widely shared.

Since Measure JJ, a proposed living wage measure, lost by a narrow margin in 2002, the Santa Monica community has supported minimum wage rules for those employed in the City. Effective July 1, 2005, Council approved a living wage requirement for any contractor providing services to the City of Santa Monica pursuant to a contract in the amount of $54,200 or greater. This living wage, currently $15.37 per hour, is also included in the development agreements for three upcoming hotels.

At its September 9, 2014 meeting (Attachment A), the Council directed staff to monitor Mayor Garcetti's proposal to raise the minimum wage in the City of Los Angeles and to analyze the effect that raising the minimum wage in Los Angeles would have on the City

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 3 of 21
of Santa Monica. Council further directed staff to place a discussion regarding the possibility of raising the minimum wage in Santa Monica on the Council agenda, in the event that the City of Los Angeles implemented the minimum wage increase.

The Los Angeles City Council approved its minimum wage ordinance on June 10, 2015.

On June 5, 2015 (Attachment B), staff submitted an informational report to the Council on the ordinance, and informed Council of plans to move forward with a study estimating impacts of a similar increase in Santa Monica. At its June 9, 2015 meeting Attachment C), Council discussed the Los Angeles minimum wage increase and directed staff to initiate community outreach and begin preparation of an ordinance setting a minimum wage and other minimum terms for Santa Monica employers.

Council further recommended that staff contract with researchers from the University of California at Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE) to conduct outreach with the community. The IRLE has provided analysis for minimum wage increases in many California and other U.S. cities, and a peer review of several studies related to the Los Angeles minimum wage cited the IRLE report as the best supported and most reasonable assessment of the law’s economic impact.

Discussion
As a smaller city sharing borders with the City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica coordinates with Los Angeles on many policy issues, and is an active partner in the greater Los Angeles economy. Staff’s recommendation is to match the City of Los Angeles minimum wage policy on a broad level. Doing so would promote fairness, provide regional wage equality, decrease market distortions, and facilitate implementation and compliance.

The data necessary to perform an in-depth, City-level economic analysis of a minimum wage increase in Santa Monica is not readily available apart from Census data, quarterly labor market reports and annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) surveys, all of which report summary data. This data is insufficient for a reliable in -

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 4 of 21
depth analysis. However, available Santa Monica business and economic data, when compared to the same values for Los Angeles, provide some indication of how Santa Monica and its businesses may respond to a minimum wage increase.

The draft Santa Monica ordinance matches the Los Angeles wage levels and schedule, and its exceptions for small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and youth learners. It differs from the Los Angeles ordinance in areas where Los Angeles has not yet come to a decision, and where Council has provided specific direction: union supersession, service charges, and transitional jobs programs.

Staff recommends providing for union supersession, which is consistent with the City’s living wage and provides flexibility for employers of employees represented by a valid collective bargaining agreement. In response to Council direction given on June 9, 2015, staff recommends language that requires service charges to be spent on employees providing the service. Based on Los Angeles direction and consistent with community needs, staff recommends a limited transitional jobs program exemption, to be reviewed and revised as necessary following final Los Angeles language. Staff recommends returning to Council with further direction on paid leave and enforcement, pending more research and information.

Finally, staff recommends the Council authorize conducting research and outreach for pursuing a hotel minimum wage increase that would mirror the Los Angeles hotel “living wage” as well as consideration of a potential transitional exemption for seasonal and trainee workers and any other changes the Council wishes to consider implementing beyond the provisions of the current proposed ordinance The Los Angeles Minimum Wage
The Los Angeles ordinance phases in annual increases to reach $15 per hour by 2020 for most businesses. The increase will be effective July 1 of each year, as follows:

Year Rate

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 5 of 21
2016 $ 10.50
2017 $ 12.00
2018 $ 13.25
2019 $ 14.25
2020 $ 15.00
Beginning in 2022, the wage will increase annually by a rolling 20-year average Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate. Independent of the City wage proposal, the State minimum wage is set to increase from the current $9 per hour to $10 per hour on January 1, 2016.

The Los Angeles ordinance, like other local wage laws, will not cover self -employed workers, county, state and federal workers, or workers employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District. California labor law also allows for subminimum wage payments to disabled individuals and employees with disabilities through an Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) special license.

The ordinance includes exceptions to this schedule for learners (those working in a position for the first time) aged 14-17, businesses and nonprofit organizations with 25 or fewer employees, and nonprofit organizations meeting certain other criteria. These exceptions are defined in the City of Los Angeles minimum wage ordinance, included as Attachment D. Los Angeles City Council direction for the transitional job program exemption, which Los Angeles has approved but which is not yet incorporated in the ordinance, is included as an exhibit to the ordinance. This language provides the basis for the transitional jobs program exemption included in the draft Santa Monica ordinance.

Outstanding Items
Los Angeles Council members directed the city’s Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) to return with additional analysis and clarification on several issues not determined at the law’s signing. The Los Angeles Council expects to vote on these items and amend the ordinance as necessary prior to the wage implementation.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 6 of 21
Sick leave. An early amendment had directed staff to develop paid time off policies consistent with previous City wage policies, which most understand to translate to 12 paid and 10 unpaid leave days per year. This is the same as the requirements of the hotel worker minimum wage ordinance. Separately, a new State law effective July 1, 2015 mandates at least three paid sick days annually for workers. The Los Angeles City Council removed this item from the ordinance and directed the Chief Legislative Analyst to review other California cities’ sick leave policies and current State law, and return with a recommendation for a sick leave policy for all employees working in the City of Los Angeles. This item is still pending.

Service charges. An early amendment directed staff to ensure consistency with the City’s hotel worker minimum wage related to service charges.

Council removed this item from the ordinance and directed staff to conduct an analysis of mandatory service charges, commissions, and guaranteed gratuities in the City of Los Angeles and to include options for a policy that protects employees. This item is not yet scheduled.

Collective bargaining. A collective bargaining exemption would allow for employees otherwise represented to negotiate below the established minimum wage. This item is not yet scheduled.

Enforcement and Reporting
Based on the City of San Francisco model, the Los Angeles ordinance creates a Division of Wage Enforcement with five employees and an outreach and advertising budget of $200,000 in 2015, which would grow to 39 positions and a $2.1 million outreach plan by 2020. The first year also includes two additional attorney positions to provide legal support and interpretation of the new law, and an additional contract administration position. The full position and allowance target will be phased in over four years as the number of employees covered by the wage law increases. The IRLE and other reports stressed the importance of enforcement in realizing the positive benefits projected with a minimum wage increase.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 7 of 21
The ordinance requires a study every three years starting July 1, 2016 to review the state of the City's economy, based on data currently collected, and requires annual collection of economic data, including jobs, earnings and sales tax revenue.

Projected Impacts in Los Angeles
The Los Angeles City Council’s Economic Development Committee (LAEDC) selected the UC Berkeley IRLE to provide an analysis of the projected impact of a minimum wage increase as originally proposed by the Mayor and expanded on by the LAEDC:
reaching $13.25 by 2017 and $15.25 by 2019. The study assessed the economic impact of the proposal on workers, businesses and the city’s economy, and analyzed policy design options. While the progression of the increases studied in the report was more aggressive than the adopted wage progression, the results are still indicative of potential impacts of the final proposal, with a longer phase-in and lower ultimate target.

The study concluded that positive impacts in income gains to low income residents and regional economic growth would largely outweigh any potential decreases to city economic growth, marginal job losses and slight increases to business operating costs.

This is in part due to the benefits produced by a higher wage, such as reduced employee turnover and improved performance offsetting some of the labor cost increases, and increased consumer demand from wage increases offsetting declines in sales from higher prices. Analysis indicates that the benefits from reduced employee turnover and increased performance would apply equally to nonprofit organizations, and would also lead to increased quality of care for service recipients. However, certain types of nonprofits and those relying significantly on government reimbursement rates would benefit from a longer phase-in period. For all covered groups, researchers recommended strong monitoring and a focus on enforcement.

Major points from study conclusions include:

Many low wage workers will benefit. By 2019, over 40% of workers, about 609,000 individuals, would receive a pay increase associated with the minimum wage change.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 8 of 21
Business operating costs will not change significantly. Across all industries, the minimum wage increase would translate to a 0.9% increase in operating costs. This is a very small impact given the wage change from $9 per hour to $15.25 per hour is a 67% increase. This includes the cost increases necessary to maintain salary level distinctions (i.e. supervisors would require a wage increase to remain at a level higher than their subordinates). Operating costs differ by industry with restaurants affected most at an estimated 7.8% increase in costs.

Economic growth will not be strongly affected. The wage increase would have very little economic impact in either a positive or negative direction.

Projections for Los Angeles city are a 0.1% decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) versus a scenario with no increase; for Los Angeles County this number changes to a 0.1% GDP increase.

Some industries will have a harder adjustment. Minimum wage workers are concentrated in a few industries that would be more affected than others.

Food services, with 17.3% of minimum wage workers, and among the highest percentage of industry workers receiving an increase at over 75%, would be most impacted.

Small firms will be most impacted. Smaller firms tend to have a larger percentage of low wage workers than larger firms; the study estimates that for businesses with 99 or fewer employees, 50% or more of their employees will receive a raise associated with the minimum wage increase, this number drops to about 40% for firms with 100 to 499 workers, and to 35% for firms with more than 500 workers.

Nonprofit organizations have specific challenges. In Los Angeles, the share of nonprofit workers projected to receive wage increases is substantially lower than in the private sector, at 30.4% compared to 45.2%.

However, average nonprofit labor costs represent about 38% of operating costs, compared to 22% in the private sector, so an increase in labor costs would affect a nonprofit organization more. And, unlike the private sector, which may pass through operating cost increases to customers, nonprofit

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 9 of 21
funding comes from a variety of sources – program revenues, private donations, and government funding – that organizations cannot control or manage to the same extent.

Nonprofit impacts are concentrated in childcare and residential care.

The nonprofit sector varies widely, from large hospitals and universities to childcare, religious, and civic organizations. Within these categories, the majority of low wage workers are centered in residential care facilities and childcare services, where more than half of workers would receive wage increases (62.0% and 58.9%, respectively), compared to just 13.6% for hospital workers, who make up the largest segment of nonprofit workers.

Similarly, these types of organizations will experience the greatest payroll cost increases, at an estimated 8.1% for childcare and 7.0% for residential care by 2019.

Nonprofits dependent on government funding sources may need assistance. The Los Angeles report cites organizations providing services to people with developmental disabilities and those in early childcare and education as the most impacted. California law guarantees a system of comprehensive support services to people with developmental disabilities and sets reimbursement rates. These rates have been largely frozen since 2003- 2004, and organizations are unable to recoup cost increases by charging clients above reimbursement rates due to State law; so that private fundraising is the only option to avoid service cuts. In childcare and early education, the State subsidy rates have also not kept pace with inflationary increases. In this area, low-income consumers have limited ability to pay higher costs.

Projected Impacts in Santa Monica
Staff engaged Dr. Michael Reich and Ken Jacobs of the IRLE to assist with community outreach and provide perspective on a Santa Monica increase based on the Los Angeles analysis.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 10 of 21
While the Santa Monica and Los Angeles local economies are dissimilar in many ways, there are sufficient similarities to suggest that the analysis conducted for Los Angeles would provide insight into the wage increase’s potential impact on Santa Monica’s economy.

In 2014, average total employment in Santa Monica was about 86,000, with an average 9,253 establishments. About 62% of total employment is in five sectors:
accommodation and food services (16.1%); professional, scientific, and technical services (12.7%); health care and social assistance (11.3%); information (11.4%); and retail trade (10.7%). The largest contributors to average payroll, making up 40.6%, are information (23.0%) and professional, scientific and technical services (17.7%). In Santa Monica, businesses with fewer than 100 employees make up 67% of total City employment1.

According to the 2014 labor market data, the accommodations and food services sector employs approximately 14,000 people in a total of 429 establishments. The majority of the jobs in this sector are in restaurants. Food services and drinking places make up 78% of the sector’s employees (11,000 employees) and have a smaller payroll per employee, with 69% average contribution to payroll. With a large percentage of total employment and relatively low contribution to total payroll (5.3%), food services and accommodations is both a significant part of Santa Monica’s workforce, and one with lower wages.

As of 2014, Santa Monica had 307 public charities, with 56% in three categories:
human services (24.1%); arts, culture and humanities (18.6%); and education other than higher education (13.7%)2. This distribution tracks roughly with Los Angeles.

Santa Monica has a slightly higher percentage of organizations dedicated to arts and 1 State of California Economic Development Department Labor Market Information Division, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sector Data; City of SM Principal Employers List 2015
2 Data from the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics. To best match the Los Angeles Data analysis, this is limited to public charities ( versus private foundations) that have filed a 990 or 990 EZ. Nonprofit data is from 2013 or 2014 – most recent documents available. The comparisons to Los Angeles rely on percentages, which should remain roughly consistent year over year.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 11 of 21
culture, the environment, and higher education, and slightly lower percentages in religion and human services. Santa Monica’s nonprofit organizations are on average larger; even when adjusting overall nonprofit industry revenue data to exclude some outliers such as RAND Corporation, average revenue per organization is substantially above that of Los Angeles, at $10.3 million compared to $2.3 million in Los Angeles.

Using this information and conclusions drawn from relevant minimum wage research, researchers project that a minimum wage increase in Santa Monica would likely have less impact on employment, prices, and the overall economy than what is estimated for Los Angeles. The following summarizes major points of comparison between the cities and supports staff’s recommendation to adopt a minimum wage ordinance aligned with Los Angeles.

Size and Scope. Los Angeles is the dominant economic force in the region, and its wage increase will impact Santa Monica’s businesses and labor market even if Santa Monica does not act. Absent any Santa Monica action, businesses and nonprofits will need to increase wages to remain competitive with Los Angeles. Several of Santa Monica’s nonprofit organizations also operate in Los Angeles, where they would be subject to the higher minimum wage rate.

Industries. The Los Angeles analysis estimates that over half of the workforce affected by the minimum wage is concentrated in four industries, led by food services. A higher percentage of Santa Monica’s private sector employment is in the accommodations and food services industries (17.5%) than in Los Angeles (10.2%). This suggests that a minimum wage increase could potentially have a greater impact on the City’s economy than it would for Los Angeles. However, some Santa Monica specific elements, such as higher average pay rates and substantial tourism, would offset this impact.

Average weekly pay. Santa Monica businesses already pay higher average wages than Los Angeles employers in the restaurant and accommodations industries. In Santa Monica, the average weekly pay in the accommodations industry is approximately 12% greater than that of LA; in the restaurant

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 12 of 21
industry that difference is 19%. This means that although a greater proportion of Santa Monica’s industries are among the most vulnerable to minimum wage increases, the effect on labor costs will not be as great.

Tourism. Santa Monica’s economy is more dependent on tourism than that of Los Angeles. Tourism is unlikely to suffer from a Santa Monica minimum wage increase for several reasons:

A large part of Santa Monica tourism is linked to Los Angeles, so that any change occurring in Los Angeles would impact Santa Monica whether or not the City adopts its own ordinance.

Tourists are generally less price-sensitive than other consumers; and Santa Monica has a distinct tourist appeal as a beach city, which makes its visitors less price-sensitive than those in Los Angeles.

Hotels have demonstrated resiliency during the 2008 recession, and Santa Monica continues to have very high hotel occupancy rates, despite being among the highest priced in the region.

Nonprofits. Santa Monica’s nonprofit organizations will be impacted to varying degrees, based on organizations’ funding sources and services. For example, organizations with interim housing services employing staff around the clock will be impacted at a higher rate than other programs. Childcare organizations are likely to be among those most impacted by the minimum wage increase, as a large percentage of their employees are commonly low wage workers. Santa Monica also has a number of nonprofits providing jobs and training to transitional employees. Continued support of these nonprofits through the transition to a higher minimum wage would further the City’s strategic initiative goals related to maintaining an inclusive and diverse community, reducing homelessness, and emphasizing Santa Monica as a learning community from Cradle to Career and beyond.

Community Discussions and Input
Staff held three sessions for the Santa Monica business and nonprofit communities.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 13 of 21
In the business community meetings, Dr. Michael Reich addressed business owners and managers, answered their questions and clarified the analysis. The meetings took place on August 12 and August 18, 2015. Staff recorded each two hour session, and posted links to the recordings on the City’s website (Attachment E). A total of 39 attendees from 34 businesses and organizations attended the sessions. The majority of attendees were from restaurants and business interest groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Santa Monica Inc., and the Main Street Business Improvement Association. Most attendees acknowledged the need for a coordinated regional approach to the minimum wage, but expressed concern about treatment of tipped workers, timing, and the magnitude of the increase. Other concerns included the ability to stay in business, concern for independent or smaller restaurants, and student seasonal workers. A full list of questions and responses is included as Attachment F.

Staff made a presentation to the Downtown Santa Monica Inc. Board of Directors at the August 27, 2015 meeting. The Board was interested in understanding the potential impact to businesses. Concerns were expressed as to how restaurants would modify their operations to accommodate the proposed increase. Overall, there was support of Council’s interest in the issue and effort to address those in the workforce earning a minimum wage. The Board voted in unanimous support of the proposed minimum wage increase.

The nonprofit organization meeting took place on September 8, 2015. Twenty-three attendees from 21 organizations attended. Attendees expressed support for the goals of the minimum wage increase, and some concern about managing associated operating cost increases. A full list of questions asked and comments submitted during the meetings and sent to staff directly is available as Attachment F.

Santa Monica Ordinance
Coordinating minimum wage policies improves fairness and promotes regional economic equality. In addition to the Los Angeles City ordinance, Los Angeles County is expected to adopt the same minimum wage parameters for the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, where the Board serves as the wage setting entity, and nearby

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 14 of 21
cities including Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Long Beach, and Pasadena are considering similar increases. The proposed Santa Monica ordinance mirrors that of the City of Los Angeles and includes the same conditions and exceptions for youth learners, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations.

Like the Los Angeles ordinance, the proposed minimum wage law would apply to all private organizations and those not specifically exempted under California labor law.

Santa Monica’s living wage, established in 2005, would still apply to City contractors over the established threshold.

The Santa Monica City Council provided staff with specific direction on two policy issues that differ from the Los Angeles ordinance.

Collective bargaining. Santa Monica’s Council directed staff to include an exemption for employers whose staff are protected by a collective bargaining agreement. The proposed ordinance includes this requirement. Union supersession is already a condition of Santa Monica’s living wage policy and some development agreements. However, some businesses have expressed concern that including this provision in the minimum wage ordinance could create a competitive disadvantage for nonunion businesses.

Service charges. According to State law, mandatory service charges may be distributed at the employer’s discretion, while voluntary service charges are the property of employees. Santa Monica’s Council directed staff to include language in the ordinance that ensures any service charge remains the property of the staff providing the service. The proposed ordinance includes language to this effect, drawn from the City of Los Angeles Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance. This provision does not affect a business owner’s decision to use a service charge, but ensures that the charge is spent on the employees providing the service. However, this is a complex issue and the language from the LA Hotel Ordinance may not achieve the broadest Council objectives. As a result, staff seeks Council direction to work with the business community to identify approaches that provide flexibility in how services charges are distributed to

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 15 of 21
employees, while ensuring that consumers have good information about how services charges are being used. If alternative ordinance language could better achieve the Council’s goals, staff will return with recommendations.

The draft ordinance includes a limited exemption for transitional job programs, based on Los Angeles direction and consistent with community needs. Staff will review the final language in the Los Angeles ordinance once it is adopted, and return with updates to match this language if appropriate.

The draft ordinance is included as Attachment G.

Enforcement and Reporting
State law governs minimum wage in Santa Monica, including posting requirements.

Staff currently follows complaint-based enforcement for the State minimum wage, and can withhold or revoke business licenses as a tool to deal with noncompliant businesses per the municipal code. Staff recommends continuing these practices for the City minimum wage, and complementing enforcement with communication and outreach about the change to residents and employees. Based on other cities’ approaches, staff proposes working through existing community partners to communicate the wage increase and build consumer support for local businesses as they work to manage associated labor cost increases. Enforcement of the minimum wage law, with its various implementation dates and exceptions, would be complicated and could therefore be labor intensive and require substantial additional resources.

Even a complaint-based structure would require audits and an eventual legal process.

Forming a wage enforcement division, as the larger cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles have done, could bring significant long term costs in personnel, in addition to any added legal costs. Staff will explore these costs, and costs associated with other options like regional enforcement, potentially more suited for a smaller city, and will return to Council with a detailed plan for enforcement prior to the ordinance taking effect.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 16 of 21
Staff would monitor business license and sales tax revenue to look for any impact on business health. Staff would include this information in regular biannual financial status updates to Council. Staff would continue to work with the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations supporting businesses in the community, and would engage with the City’s human services and arts grantees to assess ongoing impacts for nonprofit organizations.

City Support and Advocacy
Staff will research other city methods and work with partners to explore ways that the City can support Santa Monica’s business and nonprofit communities through this policy change.

On the business side, staff would continue to partner with the Chamber of Commerce, business improvement districts (BIDs), the Buy Local and Santa Monica Alliance and Santa Monica Travel and Tourism bureau to assist with communication. The Library is also evaluating taking a more active role in having information/messaging tailored to small businesses.

For nonprofits, City staff can assist with communication, and partner with other cities and nonprofit organizations to advocate at the County, State, and federal levels for funding changes. Again, staff will research other cities’ best practices and make recommendations to Council. For example, San Francisco has implemented a city task force to work with nonprofits on contracting issues, including incorporating cost-of-living provisions into their contracts, and has created a compensation program to help support those childcare organizations serving low income families that are affected by wagerelated cost increases.

Wage Law Recommendations and Further Considerations
The Los Angeles ordinance contains a small number of exceptions to the minimum wage law. These represent deferrals for certain businesses and nonprofits, and exemptions for specific categories of workers working during a limited time period. No organization, apart from public entities not governed by local wage laws, is excluded

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 17 of 21
from compliance with the law. In general, experts who study the minimum wage recommend against specific carve outs. This is because, while potentially serving a specific interest, they can also create loopholes and incentives to encourage organizations to hire subminimum wage workers. Staff recommendations and policy options for further Council discussion are based on this logic.

Staff recommends consistency with the Los Angeles ordinance. This promotes regional fairness, and makes compliance and enforcement simpler and more effective for businesses and government. Included in the draft Santa Monica ordinance are exceptions for small businesses and some nonprofit organizations, and for limited transitional jobs programs that are in the process of being incorporated into the Los Angeles ordinance.

Policy Options for Discussion
There are a number of policy options that have not been incorporated into the draft ordinance pending Council direction and further review. These items are outlined below.

Hotel Minimum Wage. Council members have expressed support for matching the City of Los Angeles hotel worker “living wage” ordinance as consistent with the principles underlying matching the minimum wage ordinance for all workers.

Staff recommends the Council authorize research and outreach on this proposal.

Upon Council direction, staff would return with information about the potential impact of such an action, including timing, how many hotels may be affected, and comparisons between the Los Angeles and Santa Monica hotel industries.

Council could also direct staff to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration.

The Los Angeles Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance, adopted in October 2014, sets a living wage of $15.37 for certain hotel workers, with inflation-based increases beginning on July 1, 2017. The ordinance applies to hotels as shown below:
o 300 or more rooms: July 1, 2015
o 150 or more rooms: July 1, 2016
o Airport Hospitality Enhancement Zone (AHEZ) Hotels: July 1, 2015

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 18 of 21
The Los Angeles Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance also includes compensated and uncompensated leave provisions for full-time workers as outlined below:
o 96 compensated hours per year for sick leave, vacation, or personal necessity
o 80 additional hours of uncompensated time off for personal or family sick leave after compensated sick leave is exhausted
The City of Santa Monica’s living wage ordinance, which applies to employees of City contractors with contracts of $54,200 or greater, mandates a living wage of

15.37 per hour. This living wage is also incorporated in development agreements for three hotels scheduled to open in Santa Monica in the next three to five years.

Seasonal exception. Pacific Park has provided staff with a proposal to delay paying minimum wage to employees for a period not to exceed six months in any 12 month period, provided that the employer also employs at least 50 other workers at or above minimum wage working at least 35 hours per week on average. This exemption could support businesses providing employment to first time workers, and could mitigate the impact on labor costs of the minimum wage increase for organizations with a significant number of seasonal employees.

Minimum wage experts suggest that exempting seasonal employees can create an incentive to substitute full time jobs with short term jobs, which is contrary to the goals of the minimum wage increase. Staff has drafted language to implement this provision in the draft ordinance language if that is Council’s direction.

Paid time off. As discussed above, the Los Angeles City Council has not yet provided direction on paid leave. For the sake of consistency across borders, staff recommends waiting on this item and returning to Council once Los Angeles

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 19 of 21
has reached a decision, and also with a discussion of the potential impact on businesses and workers. As an alternative, Council could provide specific direction before hearing the Los Angeles decision and other considerations.

Should Council direct staff to move forward with a specific paid leave policy, staff would recommend research and outreach on this proposal, its impacts and alternatives.

Enforcement. The draft ordinance includes basic authority to impose penalties, but does not provide a comprehensive enforcement framework. Staff recommends returning to Council with a revised ordinance that would include a detailed enforcement plan suited to community needs. Returning to Council would allow staff additional time to research the most effective structure.

Alternately, Council could direct staff to follow a specific plan, such as to create an enforcement division on the model of San Francisco and Los Angeles. This would preclude consideration of other options, like regional enforcement, that could potentially be more efficient.

Alternatives
Council could provide alternate direction to staff on any of the ordinance conditions, including wage level, timing, exemptions, adopting the Los Angeles “living wage” law for hotels or other policy direction. Depending on the scope of such changes, particularly to the basic outlines of wage level and timing, this could exclude benefits to be gained from coordinating with Los Angeles policy, and has the potential to create confusion among businesses, employees, and patrons. As discussed above, Council could choose to exempt or provide waivers for other specific groups or types of businesses.

Doing so could provide short-term relief in some areas, but can create incentives that are contrary to minimum wage goals of improving quality of life for low wage individuals.

In the nonprofit industry, studies show a strong link between quality jobs and quality care in human services and childcare and early education where there are many low wage jobs. Exempting these organizations, with the goal of maintaining services, can increase turnover and vacancies, leading to service cuts and decreased quality of service. Similarly, exempting seasonal employees from the minimum wage could

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 20 of 21
create an incentive towards short term jobs. Finally, Council could direct staff to prepare a Hotel Minimum Wage ordinance matching that of Los Angeles.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact associated with the staff recommendation.

However, increasing the City’s minimum wage could impact the City’s expenditures and revenue in a variety of areas. Staff anticipates incurring expenses related to enforcement, including for personnel and communication. The extent of enforcement - related expenses could vary greatly depending on the model selected; staff expects that a standalone enforcement division would require a significant investment, possibly requiring tradeoffs with other programs or services. Nonprofit organization needs may increase as a result of the minimum wage increase, which could impact the City’s human services and arts grantee funding requests. And, there may be some impact to sales, transient occupancy, and other tax revenue related to the recommended policy change.

Staff would return to Council prior to the ordinance’s July 1, 2016 implementation with an enforcement plan that would include any known budget requests associated with enforcement. Staff would monitor the proposal’s impact on nonprofit organizations, and would return to Council with any budget requests as appropriate. Finally, staff would report to Council on any revenue changes along with its biannual financial status updates.

Prepared By: Stephanie Lazicki, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 21 of 21
Attachments:

A. September 9, 2014 Minutes (Weblink)
B. June 5, 2015 Information Item (Weblink)
C. June 9, 2015 Agenda Item (Weblink)
D. City of Los Angeles Minimum Wage Ordinance
E. City of Santa Monica Minimum Wage Information Website (Weblink) F. Questions and Comments
G. City of Santa Monica Minimum Wage Ordinance

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1673 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ORDINANCE NO.

An ordinance adding Article 7 to Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code requiring a minimum wage for employees and amending the title of Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. A new Article 7 is added to Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to read as follows:

ARTICLE 7

LOS ANGELES MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE
SEC. 187.00. PURPOSE.

According to consultants retained by the City and studies submitted to the City for its consideration, Los Angeles is a low-wage city with a high cost of living. Without action to raise the wage floor, the problems caused by incomes that are inadequate to sustain working families will become more acute. The cost of living is continuing to rise in Los Angeles and labor market projections by the California Employment Development Department show that the number of low-wage jobs will grow faster than the number of mid- and high-wage jobs. Inaction will mean that the share of the labor force that does not receive sustaining pay will grow and the gap between stagnating low wages and the cost of a basic standard of living in Los Angeles will continue to widen.

Contrary to popular perception, the large majority of affected workers are adults, with a median age of 33 (only three percent are teens). The proposed minimum wage increase will greatly benefit workers of color, who represent over 80% of affected workers. Workers of all education levels will benefit from the proposed law, with less educated workers benefitting the most.

Los Angeles also ranks highest in California in child poverty rates. In short, although the City is experiencing strong economic growth which has spurred employment, poverty and inequality remain high and wages continue to stagnate.

Affected workers disproportionately live in low-income families; on average, affected workers bring home more than half of their family's income. Affected workers live disproportionately in the lower-income areas of the City. These areas will experience greater earnings gains than the City as a whole due to a higher minimum wage. The research literature suggests that downstream benefits will result from the proposed wage increase, such as improved health outcomes for both workers and their children, and increases in children's academic achievements and cognitive and behavioral outcomes.
1 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Studies show that minimum wage increases reduce worker turnover. Turnover creates financial costs for employers. Reduced worker turnover means that workers will have more tenure with the same employer, which creates incentives for both employers and workers to increase training and worker productivity.

The City has recognized that income inequality is one of the most pressing economic and social issues facing Los Angeles. Workers, who must live paycheck to paycheck, are frequently forced to work two or three jobs to provide food and shelter for their families. These workers often rely on the public sector as a provider of social support services and, therefore, the City has an interest in promoting an employment environment that protects government resources. Therefore, by paying a higher than state-mandated minimum wage, the City seeks to promote the health, safety and welfare of thousands of workers by ensuring they receive a decent wage for the work they perform.

SEC. 187.01. DEFINITIONS.

The following definitions shall apply to this article:

A. " City" means the City of Los Angeles.

B. " Designated Administrative Agency (DAA)" means the
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Contract Administration, which shall bear administrative responsibilities under this article.

C. " Employee" means any individual who:

1. In a particular week performs at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City for an Employer; and

2. Qualifies as an Employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any Employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

D. " Employer" means any person, as defined in Section 18 of the California Labor Code, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any employee.

E. " Non-Profit Corporation" means a non-profit corporation, duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation and, if a foreign corporation, in good standing under the laws of the State of California, which corporation has established and maintains valid non-profit status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue 2 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1675 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Code of 1986, as amended, and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

F. " Person" means any person, association, organization, partnership, business trust, limited liability company or corporation.

SEC. 187.02. PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE TO EMPLOYEES.

A. An Employer shall pay an Employee a wage of no less than the hourly rates set under the authority of this article.

B. Employers with 26 or more Employees shall pay a wage of no less than the hourly rates set forth:

1. On July 1, 2016, the hourly wage shall be $10.50.

2. On July 1, 2017, the hourly wage shall be $12.00.

3. On July 1, 2018, the hourly wage shall be $13.25.

4. On July 1, 2019, the hourly wage shall be $14.25.

5. On July 1, 2020, the hourly wage shall be $15.00.

C. Employers with 25 or fewer Employees shall pay a wage of no less than the hourly rates set forth:

1. On July 1, 2017, the hourly wage shall be $10.50.

2. On July 1, 2018, the hourly wage shall be $12.00.

3. On July 1, 2019, the hourly wage shall be $13.25.

4. On July 1, 2020, the hourly wage shall be $14.25.

5. On July 1, 2021, the hourly wage shall be $15.00.

D. On July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA), which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The DAA shall announce the adjusted rates on January 1st and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1 of each year.

E. Employees, who are "Learners" as defined in Labor Code Section 1192 and consistent with wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare 3 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1676 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Commission and are 14-17 years of age, shall be paid not less than 85% of the minimum wage rounded to the nearest nickel during their first 160 hours of employment.

After more than 160 hours of employment, Learners shall be paid the applicable minimum wage pursuant to this section.

F. For purposes of this article, the size of an Employer's business or NonProfit Corporation shall be determined by the average number of Employees employed during the previous calendar year.

SEC. 187.03. DEFERRAL APPLICATION FOR CERTAIN NON-PROFIT EMPLOYERS.

The DAA shall establish a procedure to allow an Employer that is a Non-Profit Corporation with 26 or more Employees to qualify for the deferral rate schedule specified in Section 187.02.C. A Non-Profit Employer seeking the deferral must establish by compelling evidence that:

A. The chief executive officer earns a salary which, when calculated on an hourly basis, is less than five times the lowest wage paid by the corporation; or B. It is a Transitional Employer as defined in Section 10.31.1(h) of the Los Angeles Administrative Code; or
C. It serves as a child care provider; or
D. It is funded primarily by City, County, State or Federal grants or reimbursements.

SEC. 187.04. NOTIFYING EMPLOYEES OF THEIR POTENTIAL RIGHT TO THE FEDERAL EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

Employers shall inform Employees of their possible right to the federal Earned Income Credit (EIC) under Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.

Section 32.

SEC. 187.05. RETALIATORY ACTION PROHIBITED.

No Employer shall discharge, reduce in compensation or otherwise discriminate against any Employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this article, for participating in proceedings related to this article, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this article.
4 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) SEC. 187.06. IMPLEMENTATION.

The DAA may promulgate guidelines and rules consistent with this article for the implementation of the provisions of this article. Any guidelines or rules shall have the force and effect of law, and may be relied upon by Employers, Employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this article.

SEC. 187.07. NO WAIVER OF RIGHTS.

Any waiver by an Employee of any or all of the provisions of this article shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable.

SEC. 187.08. COEXISTENCE WITH OTHER AVAILABLE RELIEF FOR SPECIFIC DEPRIVATIONS OF PROTECTED RIGHTS.

The provisions of this article shall not be construed as limiting any Employee's right to obtain relief to which he or she may be entitled at law or in equity.

SEC. 187.09. CONFLICTS.

Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any power or duty in conflict with any federal or State law.

SEC. 187.10. REPORTS.

Every three years after July 1, 2016, the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) with the assistance of the City Administrative Officer (CAO) shall commission a study to review the state of the City's economy; minimum wage impacts; textile and apparel manufacturing impacts; temporary workers, guards and janitors impacts; home health care services impacts; residential care and nursing facilities impacts; child day care services impacts; restaurants and bars impacts; personal and repair services impacts; transitional jobs programs impacts; service charges, commissions and guaranteed gratuities impacts; and wage theft enforcement. On an annual basis, the CLA and CAO shall collect economic data, including jobs, earnings and sales tax.

SEC. 187.11. SEVERABILITY.

If any subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a 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 adopted this section, and each and every subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
5 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Sec. 2. CHAPTER XVIII of the Municipal Code is retitled EMPLOYEE WAGES AND PROTECTIONS.
6 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Sec. 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public places in the City of Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records.

I hereby certify that this ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of Los Angeles, at its meeting of JUN 1 0 2015
Approved //)-
Approved as to Form and Legality
MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney
By 4/6t ALIAA-)4'(

BA JANKOWSKI
De ylty City Attorney
Date c.5 -/9/9 -/ 5
File No.

HOLLY L. WOLCOTT, City Clerk
By
Deputy
Mayor
m:\muni counsel\ david michaelson\ ordinances\ draft la minimum wage ordinance 5-22-15 (final). docx 7 10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1680 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) File No. 14-1371-S5
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to adding an exemption for transitional job programs to the Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Recommenation for Council action, as initiated by Motion ( Cedillo - Huizar - Bonin - et al.):

REQUEST the City Attorney to:
a. Draft an ordinance that would allow for employers of job training programs an exemption from the Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance during the first 18 months of training for each worker participating in the training program; and, INSTRUCT the Public Works Bureau of Contract Administration ( BCA) to certify that the employers meet specific criteria before being granted the exemption as outlined in Los Angeles Administrative Code Section

10.31.3(c), with additional criteria requiring 501(c)(3) status. b. Include, in drafting the ordinance, strict and tightly-defined language regarding the definition of a transitional employee and those that would be considered hardest to employ in order to ensure that employers do not abuse this exemption.

Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

SUMMARY
At tis regular meeting held on June 23, 2015, the Economic Development Committee considered Motion ( Cedillo - Huizar - Bonin - et al.) relative to an exemption for transitional or job training programs from the Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance.

During discusssion of this matter, the Committee Chair requested that the City Attorney, in drafting an ordinance for an exemption, include strict and tightly-defined language regarding the definitions of a transitional employee and those who would be considered " hardest to employ," in order to ensure that employers do not abuse the exemption. The Committee member and maker of the original Motion further moved to amend the Motion by asking the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that would allow the exemption from the Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance for employers of job training programs during the first 18 months of training for those employees in such programs, and for the BCA to certify that employers meet certain specific criteria for the exemption including the requirement of 501(c)(3) status ( tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code). The Committee member and original maker of the Motion also submitted into the record a letter outlining the basis and findings for such an exemption.

After providing an opportunity for public comment, the Committee approved the Motion as amended. This matter is now forwarded to the Council for its consideration.

EXHIBIT 1 - TRANSITIONAL JOB PROGRAMS

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Respectfully Submitted,

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MEMBER VOTE
PRICE: YES
KREKORIAN: YES
HUIZAR: ABSENT
CEDILLO: YES
MARTINEZ: YES
WESSON: YES
KORETZ: YES
REW
6/24/15
FILE NO. 14-1371- S5
NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL COUNCIL ACTSEXHIBIT 1 - TRANSITIONAL JOB PROGRAMS

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Questions & Comments
Santa Monica Business Community: 8/12 and 8/18
Cost of
Goods
Q. Will the Cost of Goods be impacted?
A. Yes, but this is less an issue in Santa Monica due to there not being significant manufacturing, farms. etc. There may be some impact since many of our Small / Medium Enterprises / Buy Local SM businesses source local wherever possible and we have many SM- based artisan food production industries popping up e.g. ice cream, beer, candy. They will be affected to some degree, but the impact on Santa Monica as a whole will be minor.

Cost of
Goods
Restaurants
Q. What about restaurants that purchase directly from the Farmers’ Market? Won’ t this increase our Cost of Goods?
A. I don’t think very many of them will be impacted by the minimum wage increase— at least not per City of SM or City of LA. Most of our farmers live in Ventura or the Central Valley or SD County so would be covered by State minimum wage unless their cities / counties have made changes.

Service
Charge / Tip
Q. How to handle tips? Will there be an exemption for employees in the service industry who currently make over minimum wage due to tips? A. Employers will need to pay servers the higher wage. In Oakland, CA some high-end restaurants implemented a 20% service charge at restaurants ( in lieu of tips), which can be shared equitably among all the restaurant staff. The money is the property of the employer and not the employees. Front of house staff could be given higher % of this than back of house but it’s up to employer, This is somewhat complicated but it is one solution to dealing with the tip issue.

Service
Charge / Tip
Q. Property managers are compensated with a combination of payment and rent credit (1/ 3 rent goes to wage rent credit towards compensation). Will the minimum wage law count this credit as part of compensation? A. The State of California does not allow workers to be paid less than a minimum wage ( there is no tip credit). There has been no direction specifically on this item.

Small Bus. Q. Will the impact be greatest on “ mom and pop” retail shops? What about small corporations?
A. Small corporations are often franchises. Franchisers have access to greater pools of cash; potential for corp. to reduce the franchise costs to help offset the increased labor costs. A bigger issue for many mom and pop shops is the

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1683 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
cost of rent, over labor, particularly in places like Santa Monica. Dr. Reich also cited examples in other cities where higher minimum wage leads to higher local disposable income.

Economy Q. What are the CPI/ inflation increase projections in 8-10 years? A. Based on past CPI adjustments and inflation, Dr. Reich estimated 2-4% increase/ year.

Service
Charge /
Rest.

Q. Full service restaurants typically have ½ staff working off tips (estimating they make $15-40/ hr.). Have there been any cities who have allowed them to continue to keep the tips versus pay minimum wage for the cooks? A. 43 states have tip credits. CA is one that does not allow tip credit (along with OR, WA, MN, AL, HI). There has not been a significant effect on wages comparing states with tip credits vs. without. (“Tip Credit” allows an employer to deduct the employee’ s tips from their hourly wage so it often results in no increase in actual wage). Dr. Reich was not aware of a study focused just on chefs.

Tourism Q. Impact on tourism sector?
A. There have not been any studies that Dr. Reich is aware of, in response to minimum- wages causing price increases and the impact on tourism spending.

His approach would be to infer visitor response by changes in currency exchange rates versus actual spending. He believes that fluctuations in the exchange rate have a much bigger, rather than prices, impact on tourism.

Noted that Santa Monica relies much more heavily on tourism than City of LA or San Francisco. In case of tourism rising operating costs are disproportionately paid by non-residents.

Enforcement Q. Impact on Black Market Labor and “ Independent Contractors”? A. The impact is tied to the level of enforcement activity to ensure that all businesses are paying their staff minimum wage and operating legally. There has been an increase in some area in “Independent Contractors” ( e.g. exempt from full time benefits) but this also depends on enforcement activity.

General
Study
Q. Can you provide a greater breakdown of the Santa Monica economy regarding Hospitality industry (did not see hospitality specifically in industry breakdown - is this accommodations and food services)?
A. Hospitality combines accommodations and food services, ancillary services also. Different agencies groups use somewhat different classifications when reporting data, but in general Accommodations and Food Services would cover much of the hospitality industry. Accommodations and food services is a larger fraction of in Santa Monica than of Los Angeles.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Cost of
Goods
Q. How would minimum wage impact cost of other goods ( food, manufactured goods, etc.), which in turn would impact operating costs? Does the LA study include these impacts?
A. These effects would be very small – in terms of operating costs, changes in rent and labor will have some impact, everything else is likely to be minimal.

The pass through effect of minimum wage on these costs is likely to be very small.

Restaurants Q. Are restaurants that rely on local sources going to have significantly higher costs than others (sources do not have the min. wage increase)? A. No – – these inputs are likely to be a small proportion of operating costs, so there might be a very marginal cost difference, but not enough to have any measurable effect. The industry as a whole will be facing roughly the same cost challenges, which makes it less of an issue for an individual business.

Cost of
Goods
Q. You stated that wage increases lead to increased consumer demand spending), and that workers in the lower third of earners tend to spend all their disposable income. Don’t some low wage workers use the money to pay off debts instead (this wouldn’ t go back into the economy in the same way)?
A. Some may do this, but on average, lower wage workers tend to take on more debt – one study showed that workers’ spending increases were 4-6 times the wage increase. In this study, most of the additional earnings were spent on used cars.

Restaurants Q. What is the impact on Section 8 + Food Stamp eligibility? A. Higher wages will lower eligibility for Federal and State assistance. This implies savings for tax payers at both the Federal and State levels.

Extraction /
Impact on
Local
Economy
Q. What about “ extraction” ( wages earned in one area will be spent in a different one)?
A. Yes, this will happen – Santa Monica workers may spend their money in LA city county; this is assumed in the LA analysis. Also, workers will definitely spend money earned in different areas – i.e. they will spend money earned in food service on clothes, car repair, groceries, etc.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1685 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Restaurant /
Small Bus.

Q. Will full service / independent restaurants be hardest hit? A. It would depend on the type of restaurant / number of workers and how much they’re paid, etc. Higher end restaurants generally already pay employees more. Franchises have had difficulties in the past when franchisees must absorb the additional cost, but franchisees may also have access to additional funds that independent restaurants don’t have. Smaller restaurants tend to experience a larger impact than large ones.

Research Q. Should these businesses get some kind of credit / assistance / exemption, etc. to help adjust?
A. Other cities have followed various strategies to assist restaurants – longer time to reach minimum wage, tax credits or other benefits for local businesses mentioned San Francisco as having adopted this strategy. The San Francisco Airport and Berkeley have local business preferences in public contracts to help support and prioritize locally- owned businesses.

Small Bus. Q. Do you see an increase in conglomeration as a result of minimum wage laws?
A. Conglomeration is different from size; clarified the question was in regards to size ( e.g. large businesses). Yes, there is a correlation between wages and size of restaurants. Smaller restaurants tend to pay employees less. Smaller businesses also tend to have more challenges with compliance/ regulation.

General
Study
Q. Do the LA calculations take into account other factors occurring in the State like the drought, regulations, etc.?
A. No – these events will happen independent of the minimum wage. The study looks only at impacts that can be directly tied to the minimum wage law.

Enforcement Q. What about compliance – you’ ve mentioned smaller businesses tend to comply less. Any suggested strategies to address this? Are there examples from other cities of assisting small business with awareness campaigns, compliance requirements, etc.?

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
A. Enforcement levels the playing field for all business. Community involvement in enforcement, and in particular having visible enforcement has been very effective in increasing compliance. Bad publicity / press relating to infractions is also effective. In Oakland, there is a positive community enforcement notices in many languages, posters with slogans to support the community by paying the increased wage—e..g. Support our community. Eat at your local restaurant.) – these could be effective. San Francisco as a model, which Seattle is adopting, that gives grants to community organization to promote awareness of the minimum wage laws in multiple languages including bus shelter signs in Spanish ( Mission District) and Chinese/ Mandarin ( China Town).

This also helps make consumers/ employees aware of the minimum wage.

Service
Charge /
Restaurant
Q. Can you talk about other cities’ experience with a tipped credit / service charge and how this works?
A. The use of service charges instead of tips is a fairly new issue. We do have a bit of research on more recent experiments in San Francisco with a service charge, or charge for health insurance. Tipped credit studies show no change in employment between states with tipped credits or without. The service charge effectively shifts money received from the employee to the employer, there are consequences to this if not fully thought out.

Restaurant Q. Restaurants may go out of business in Santa Monica because the wage increase is too high and we’ ve barely recovered from the recession.

A. Evidence in other cities doesn’ t support the conclusion that many restaurants will leave and/ or go out of business. Some will though, while others are likely to take their place.

General
Study
Q. What is the overall goal for the proposal?
A. In the City of LA, the goal was to reduce the growing inequalities. Los Angeles has among the highest rates of urban poverty in the country. The minimum wage increase was seen an instrument to reduce poverty among workers and working families. The original Federal minimum wage law, passed in 1938, was for purposes of creating fair working standards across the country.

Another goal is to make minimum wage closer to the actual living wage in an area so that people can afford to live and work in their community.

Service
Charge /
Restaurants
Q. If we are not allowed a tip credit and move to the service charge model, this may result in lower wages for some of our staff used to getting tips. Our overall profit margin of 10-20% will also be impacted by the minimum wage increase as we will need to adjust our pay to our other employees ( e.g. managers will need to be compensated at higher rates than entry level workers). Our supplier costs will also increase due to their own labor costs increasing, which will further eat up our profit margin. There are also the

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
healthcare benefits. Collectively, this will eat into all our profits and not allow much margin for error.

A. Some restaurants in SF have adopted standard language on their bills “ e.g. Per new local mandates, a service charge has been added to help pay for our employee’ s health insurance. Thank you for supporting them.” Customers are generally happy to help support these items as they know what the funding is being used for.

Additional Questions / Comments
Q: When was the last time the minimum wage was increased by 50% in a 5 year period and what was the result? Both good and, if any, bad.

A: I don't know of any previous increases that spanned five years. However, there have been many that rose at an equal rate over three years, such as the federal increase of 2007 to 2009, from $5.15 to $7.25, an increase of about 40 percent. Others at the local level are mentioned in our Los Angeles report. Many studies of these increases did not find negative employment effects. See the literature review in our Los Angeles report.

Q: We' d love to see the study that analyzes other expenses that will increase beyond purely labor costs when the minimum wage jumps 50%. Cost of goods, worker' s comp insurance which is tied to payroll, liability insurance which is tied to sales (which will go up as retailers increase their prices to stay in the black), etc. What' s the impact of these increases beyond just the 50% increase in minimum wage?
A: Our Los Angeles study took into account many of these payroll- related increases.

Q: If the city were to implement a total compensation package whereby tips and other benefits would be counted when meeting the minimum wage requirement, what would the results be? Would they be better, worse, same as the proposal on the table? What has happened in other places where this was implemented? Yesterday the consultant said 43 states have a "tipped wage". Why is California one of only 7 states that does not support this approach? A: State law mandates that tips cannot be credited toward a minimum wage. All cities in California have followed state law. I understand that Santa Monica has already decided to do the same. A forthcoming study by Allegretto and Nadler (Industrial Relations Fall 2015) compares states with varying amounts of tip credits. Increasing tip credits did not increase employment among tipped workers.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Q: Since Santa Monica is a tourist destination city more so than the greater city of Los Angeles, are there any other implications to take into account with this change? We are very unique as a place so curious to see the study that shows the comparison to non-tourist driven cities.

A: (from 8/18 responses and comments re. tourism). There aren’t studies that specifically focus on cities with a large tourism sector. However, Santa Monica tourism should not experience significant impacts. First, because Santa Monica tourists are in a large degree also Los Angeles tourists, a wage change in Los Angeles would affect tourism almost to the same degree as a Santa Monica ordinance.

Santa Monica tourism is also less price sensitive than tourism in greater Los Angeles area due to its beach and ocean view advantages, and restaurant and accommodation sectors in Santa Monica already pay higher wages than LA.

COMMENTS
Owner of Pioneer Magnetics, the “last” manufacturing business in Santa Monica talked about reduction in his workforce due to higher cost of business compared to global competition.

From my own observation, I would suggest staff give some kind of preview of what the ordinance will look like, including what the rate would be, how it would be phased in, what sectors it would cover, whether or not tipped employees would be exempt, will nonprofits be included and what is the estimated job loss following implementation. I think there is a general consensus amongst business owners to support an increase, however, they want more details so they can weigh in.

I think council' s decision to move so swiftly, instead of having a study session in September introducing a draft ordinance and then having another round of outreach meetings, is causing some anxiety.

Please include tipped wages in the minimum (living wage) calculation. It will have a huge impact on employee hours and job reductions.

Santa Monica Nonprofit Organizations: 9/8
Q: Is City of Santa Monica looking to mirror City of LA minimum wage ordinance? A: Yes, although it is at the discretion of SM City Council. There’ s a big advantage of there being a coordinated, regional minimum wage with all jurisdictions passing the same rules. It’s easier for employers operating office/ stores/ branches in each of the areas and also easier to inform employees across the region of their rights and the wage requirements, also easier for enforcement. Cited the SF Muni Bus ads on minimum wage with contact info for the region so that people in SF know what they should be getting paid.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Q: We have over 25 employees. We’ re also concerned about the new Department of Labor ( DoL) requirements related to overtime for salaried workers. The combination of overtime, health care benefits and wage increases is a real concern to our non-profit.

A: Under current California law, salaried workers may be exempt from overtime if they earn more than twice the state minimum wage, $ 37,440 a year. Under new federal regulations the threshold for an exemption would be increased to $50,440. These provisions may not cover all nonprofit organizations.

The implications are still being reviewed.

Q: Would the new minimum wage costs apply to both full time and part time employees? A: Yes.

Q: What about interns/ stipends?
A: CA Law has a narrow definition of interns, including a requirement that they receive academic credit for the internship. If they do not meet the state law definition then they would be subject to the minimum wage.

Q: Would the transitional job exemptions for training program participants on a limited term apply to SM too?
A: Santa Monica has not officially determined this at this point, but staff is recommending that we follow the Los Angeles ordinance, so likely this will be in Santa Monica’ s draft ordinance.

Q/ Statement: We partner with Work Source Centers where many of their staff are making minimum wage, which is often substantially lower than the job placement agencies they’re recruiting people for, so it’d be nice to see there be more equality in salaries.

A: This is an issue with many non-profits. For employees in the child care sector, approximately 48% are considered low wage workers and are on some form of public assistance.

Comment about a “ carve out” for summer employees 18 years old or under.

Q: Obama paid sick leave policies and impact on SM?
As stated, this applies only to federal contractors; it mandates sick leave of one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked, with a cap at seven days of paid time off per year.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ATTACHMENT F – QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Q: Many unions have collective bargaining agreements that can supersede minimum wage and living wage requirements. What is City of SM’ s approach to this? A: Collective bargaining is where workers organized in a union can collectively decide to trade wages for more benefits/ pensions/ etc. In City of LA, this is still under review. City of SM Living Wage Ordinance includes collective bargaining and Council will be considering including in the Minimum Wage Ordinance too per direction from the Mayor.

Statement from the CA Association of Non-Profits rep: We have over 10k members in CA and have surveyed our members about minimum wage increases. Our members have voiced concerns over the likelihood of needing to reduce staff, decrease services and the impacts of wage compression. 25% plan to increase time spent on fundraising. 15% plan to operate on a budget deficit in the short term, which is a bit worrying. Overall there is support for minimum wage increases and our members want to try to meet the challenge but do acknowledge there will be many challenges. Interestingly enough, 60% felt that it would not impact them—the ones most concerned were in child card and development disability services. The organization will hold a webinar on September 23 to discuss wage increases and strategies for dealing with these.

Q: What is the overall % of non-profits you estimate will be impacted? A: (Pulled up the slide from the presentation with the #s). There will be less impact to the large hospitals and universities. Many non-profits rely heavily on volunteers so they will not feel a great impact. The most impact will be on child care services.

Comment: I’m a non-profit employee and make the minimum wage. Unfortunately I also still require public assistance in order to live. $20 is not unreasonable and I advocate we achieve this, but even sooner than 2020.

Comment: We are grateful the city is doing this and very supportive; this is a moral issue and we should think about the people involved. Quality of life is important.

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1702 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage September 29, 2015 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) City Council
Report
City Council Regular Meeting: January 12, 2016
Agenda Item: 7.C
1 of 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department Andy Agle, Director
Subject: Introduction for First Reading an Ordinance Setting a Minimum Wage to be Effective in the City of Santa Monica
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance setting a minimum wage to be effective in the City of Santa Monica with a phased approach to reach $15 per hour by 2020 for most businesses; and to reach

15.37 per hour by July 1, 2017 for hotel workers.

Executive Summary
On September 29, 2015 (Attachment A), staff presented Council with a draft minimum wage ordinance based on the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance, expert input, and community feedback. At the meeting, Council directed staff to meet with additional stakeholder groups, and to return with a comprehensive ordinance reflecting input from these meetings and responding to Council direction regarding service charges, seasonal jobs, paid leave, and enforcement. Council also directed staff to incorporate into the ordinance a minimum wage paid to hotel workers similar to the City of Los Angeles hotel wage, with appropriate tiers for Santa Monica hotels. Staff submitted an Information Item to Council on December 16, 2015 describing stakeholder outreach and presenting recommendations and alternatives. Staff recommends that Council introduce for first reading the Minimum Wage Ordinance (Attachment D) increasing the minimum wage in phases to reach $15 per hour by July 1, 2020 for most businesses, and setting the minimum wage for all hotel employees at $13.25 per hour starting July 1, 2016 and reaching $15.37 per hour on July 1, 2017.

Background
Santa Monica currently has one local wage law in effect. This is the living wage ordinance for contractors providing services to the City of Santa Monica pursuant to a contract in the amount of $54,200 or greater. This law has been in place since July 1, 2005, and the minimum wage for such contractors’ employees is currently $15 .37 per hour. Three development agreements for new hotels contain the same wage provision.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 of 26
All other businesses in Santa Monica follow the State minimum wage, $10 per hour as of January 1, 2016.

In October 2014, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a hotel worker minimum wage ordinance, setting a phased increase to reach $15.37 per hour for hotels of 300 rooms or greater starting July 1, 2015, and for hotels of 150 rooms or greater on July 1, 2016.

In June 2015, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a general minimum wage ordinance that progressively reaches $15.00 per year by 2020 and 2021 for smaller or non-profit organizations. In September 2014 and again in June 2015, the Santa Monica City Council directed staff to review the Los Angeles proposed ordinance and its potential impact on Santa Monica, including the possibility of passing a similar ordinance. At its June 9, 2015 meeting (Attachment A), Council directed staff to initiate community outreach and begin preparation of an ordinance setting a minimum wage and other terms for Santa Monica employers. Council further directed staff to conduct outreach with the community and contract with researchers from the University of California at Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE) to provide insight into the law’s likely impact in Santa Monica In August 2015, Council unanimously approved the Priority Strategic Goal of preserving Santa Monica as an inclusive and diverse community, recognizing challenges from the rising cost of housing in Santa Monica, and workers’ ability to afford it. According to the IRLE report on the proposed Los Angeles minimum wage, increasing the minimum wage is an effective method of increasing low wage worker income. Increasing the minimum wage thereby is one policy tool that could help to increase the chances that local workers are able to live in Santa Monica.

On September 29, 2015 (Attachment B), staff presented Council with a report and draft ordinance reflecting community outreach and work with IRLE researchers. The report projected that Santa Monica’s economy would not be significantly impacted by a minimum wage increase; slight price increases would likely be lower than those in neighboring Los Angeles as Santa Monica businesses already pay higher average wages than Los Angeles employers in most impacted industries, and Santa Monica’s

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 3 of 26
distinct appeal as a beach destination makes visitors less price-sensitive than those in Los Angeles. Furthermore, the report noted that the increase would benefit Santa Monica’s low-wage workers; that a one-year implementation delay would help nonprofit organizations and businesses with 25 or fewer employees adjust to the wage increase; and that strong enforcement would be necessary to realize the benefits of increased wages. The report also recommended matching Los Angeles as much as possible to promote fairness, support regional policy, and simplify compliance and enforcement.

Following testimony from workers, employers, advocacy groups, and community members, Council directed staff to conduct additional stakeholder outreach and return with amendments and clarifications to the draft ordinance that addressed the following topics: a hotel wage, service charges, seasonal workers, paid leave, and enforcement.

Staff submitted an information item on December 16, 2015 (Attachment C), describing the stakeholder outreach process, outlining staff’s recommendations for each area, and including formal position letters from the Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant Coalition (SMNRC), the Chamber of Commerce, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism SMTT), Unite Here Local 11, the Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles (ROC LA), the Housing Commission, and a group of Los Angeles hotel associations American Hotel & Lodging Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association, Hotel Association of Los Angeles).

Discussion
This report presents an ordinance for first reading addressing each Council-directed topic (hotel wage, service charges, seasonal workers, paid leave, and enforcement) based on staff’s recommendations. The report also includes alternatives for each topic, with associated alternative ordinance language, that would allow the Council to adopt alternatives for the first reading, if desired. For extensive changes, staff would need to return at a future Council meeting with an updated ordinance for first reading.

The proposed ordinance, Attachment D, introduces a City minimum wage ordinance, including a hotel living wage, for Council consideration and approval. A summary of recommendations and alternatives for each of the five key issues is included as

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 4 of 26
Attachment F. Ordinance language for each alternative is included as Attachment E.

The following is a summary of each topic identified by Council for further research and outreach.

Hotel living wage
Council direction. Council directed staff to recommend room thresholds appropriate to Santa Monica’s hotel industry, and to prepare an ordinance setting a hotel minimum wage in Santa Monica similar to that of Los Angeles.

Background. At the September 29, 2015 meeting, Council members unanimously expressed support for matching the Los Angeles hotel wage. The Los Angeles law currently applies to hotels of 300 rooms or greater (as of July 1, 2015), and will apply to hotels of 150 rooms or greater starting July of 2016. The phase-in and application to larger hotels were mechanisms to avoid layoffs, and were recommended in prospective studies of the hotel law’s impact. These studies estimated that larger hotels are likely better able to absorb a wage increase without laying off staff as a result of greater access to resources, broader marketing reach, and sources of income beyond room rental. They also suggested that providing hotels more time to adjust operations would decrease the possibility and impact of any layoffs. It is too soon to assess the impact of the most recent wage increase in Los Angeles. Early evidence from Los Angeles’ previous hotel wage increase - a 2008 law affecting 13 Airport Hospitality Enhancement Zone (AHEZ) hotels - suggests that it was not harmful to the affected hotels or workers in that there were no property closures or measurable decrease in employment or visitors, even during the Great Recession.

The Los Angeles hotel sector is significantly larger than Santa Monica’s and has lower average occupancy rates and indicators of profit, including average daily room rate ADR) and revenue per available room (RevPAR). There also more workers per room in the Santa Monica hospitality sector than there are in Los Angeles, due to the higher

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 5 of 26
level of service provided in Santa Monica hotels.1
Los Angeles2 Santa Monica3
Hotels 350 38
Rooms 39,000 3,603
Workers 17,000 3,000
Average workers per room 0.4 0.8
Occupancy 79% 86%
Average Daily Room Rate $ 147 $ 336
Revenue Per Available Room $ 116 $ 287
According to available data and information from stakeholder groups, many of the factors differentiating large and small hotels’ ability to absorb a labor cost increase in Los Angeles do not apply in Santa Monica, or are true to a much lesser extent. Many of Santa Monica’s smaller hotels have similar ADR to large hotels, share owners with other large hotels in Santa Monica or elsewhere, have sources of income beyond room rental, and benefit equally from tourist travel. And unlike Los Angeles, Santa Monica hotels share approximately the same benefits of location, transportation, and tourist attractions, where Los Angeles hotel ADR and occupancy varies more widely depending on location.

Stakeholder input. The Chamber of Commerce, Santa Monica Travel & Tourism SMTT), Unite Here Local 11, and the Los Angeles hotel association group addressed the Santa Monica hotel wage in formal communications to staff and Council, as shown in Attachment C. Workers, labor advocacy groups, and many community members expressed support for the hotel minimum wage. Hotel operators expressed support for minimum wage increases but voiced concern with the proposed hotel living wage increases as unfairly targeting the hospitality sector. Hotel groups recommended a phased or slower implementation to assist with associated operational adjustments.

There was general agreement that any change in hotel wage should apply to all hotels 1 Economic Roundtable, “ Impacts of Living Wages in the Airport Hospitality Enhancement Zone,” Dec. 2010.
2 PKF Consulting, September 2014.
3 PKF Consulting, August 2015; Transportation Marking District information December 2015.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 6 of 26
regardless of number of rooms. Many SMTT members, the Chamber of Commerce, and some community members did not agree with or had questions about exempting hotels with unionized workers.

Recommendation. Staff recommends a phased approach applying to all non-union hotels, matching the Los Angeles hotel wage by July 2017. The wage would increase to $13.25 per hour on July 1, 2016 and $15.37 on July 1, 2017, followed by annual consumer price index (CPI) increases. Like Los Angeles, the wage increase would take place over two years, and would reach the same rate. Unlike Los Angeles, the wage increase applies to all hotels regardless of size. Also like the Los Angeles ordinance, the recommendation includes a one-year waiver upon application for hotels that demonstrate that, to avoid bankruptcy, they would need to lay off an appreciable number of staff or significantly decrease hours to accommodate the increased wage cost. Again like Los Angeles, the hotel wage would apply to leased spaces connected to hotels, and to employees of contractors working on site.

Phasing in the increase provides additional adjustment time for hotels, and reduces the likelihood and extent of possible negative consequences like layoffs, cuts to hours or cuts to services provided. It also reduces the disparity between minimum wage rates for workers at hotel restaurants and shops and non -hotel restaurants and shops.

Applying the wage to all hotels makes sense in the Santa Monica context, where smaller hotels do not necessarily have lower room rates or profits, or less access to resources. Applying the wage rate to all hotel sizes promotes fair competition, makes enforcement and compliance simpler, and would mean that hotel workers doing the same job receive the same pay. The recommendation matches LA’s ordinance within one and half years.

Alternative. Council could choose to match LA’s $15.37 wage starting July 1, 2016 for all hotels. This would increase hotel wages faster, matching the Los Angeles wage level more quickly. Santa Monica hotels’ high occupancy rates and ADR, including exceptionally strong performance over the past three years, indicate a strong and profitable industry that already typically pays above the State minimum wage and

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 7 of 26
primarily competes with the Los Angeles hotels subject to their minimum wage rates.

However, while Los Angeles hotels had either eight or 20 months to adjust to a higher wage, Santa Monica hotels would have less than six months to make the change, and this could result in sudden changes to hotel employment or operations that could negatively affect hotel workers and reduce Santa Monica’s competitiveness as a destination. Another variation on this alternative would be to push the hotel wage rate shift to January 1, 2017, which would entail a smaller initial rate increase matching the citywide minimum wage increase pegged for July 1, 2016.

Service charges
Council direction. In June, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that goes beyond State law in directing how employers use service charge revenue. Following the September 29 meeting, Council directed staff to address concerns related to the use of service charges that were raised at that meeting, including providing transparency to the customer, clarifying who can receive service charge revenue, and how to enforce any violations of service charge regulations.

Background. Service charges are similar to tips, but are treated differently in State law.

Absent direction beyond State law, replacing tips with service charges can lead to lower income for regularly tipped workers, and can be opaque to consumers. Specific direction in the proposed ordinance can mitigate against these potential problems.

Many service workers including restaurant workers earn a significant proportion or majority of their income from tips. According to Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC) data, in Los Angeles 56% of tipped workers are outside of the restaurant industry in the hospitality, carwash, nail and beauty salon, and massage industries. In Los Angeles, over 60% of all tipped workers make less than $25,000 per year. The proposed ordinance language would also apply to these types of service -based businesses if the employers chose to introduce service charges.

According to State law, tips are the property of the employee. This means that the employer must return all income received as a tip or gratuity to those employees

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 8 of 26
providing the service. Applying tips toward minimum wage calculation is called a tip credit, and is illegal in California and six other states. State law also determines how tip income is distributed, and allows employees to share tip income through tip pools.

However, tips shared through pools must go to workers in the chain of service. Many employers believe it is unclear in State law which staff is considered part of the chain of service and thus eligible to participate in tip pools. Consequently, in practice in the restaurant industry, “front of house” (FOH) workers such as servers, bussers, hosts, bartenders, food runners, receive tip income, but “back of house” (BOH) workers such as cooks and dishwashers do not. This contributes to an often significant income gap between the front and back of the house staff. However, courts have ruled in favor of mandated tip sharing between front and back of house staff who participate in the chain of service. Accordingly, some restaurants, including some in Santa Monica, do share tips between front and back of the house staff. Nevertheless, many employers continue to believe that they cannot have a mandatory tip pool that includes back of house workers.

In addition to or in lieu of a tip, businesses may impose a service charge. Using service charges is entirely voluntary. It is very common for hotels to use service charges, and more restaurants are considering introducing this business practice. The proposed ordinance provision would regulate how a business would describe service charges to customers and use service charge proceeds, if the business chooses to introduce a service charge.

A service charge is defined as a charge added to a bill of sale that a consumer is required to pay; also known as a mandatory charge. Service charges are particularly important because they appear where consumers normally pay a tip, and the word service” indicates that the charge is for the service provided, the same as a tip. There are also other charges that establishments might include on a bill as a mandatory charge, including those for utilities or health care. These surcharges are different than a service charge. To avoid confusion, the service charge definition in the ordinance addresses this aspect of service charges versus other surcharges.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 9 of 26
Unlike tips, service charges (and other mandatory charges) are the property of the employer under state law, and the employer can allocate revenue received as a service charge at his or her discretion. Introducing service charges in place of tips can provide the employer control over income previously received as tips and going directly to employees. Hotels often use service charges as a means to offset some administrative or other operational or personnel costs. Using service charges in restaurants is a relatively new practice, so there is little evidence of the impact on either restaurants or workers. However, many states and cities do regulate service charges to some extent.

The regulatory language typically focuses on (a) consumer transparency, by ensuring that restaurants or other establishments that use service charges clearly define for customers and employees how charges are used and (b) ensuring that service charge proceeds, like tips, go to the employees providing the service.

Los Angeles’ City Council plans to vote on service charge direction for non -hotel businesses before the minimum wage law takes effect in June 2016. The Los Angeles Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance regulates service charges in hotels, making their treatment similar to tips, so that they go to the employee providing the service.

Emeryville and Oakland regulate service charges in restaurants and the hospitality industry using the same language and definitions as those that apply to Los Angeles hotels.

In recent years, several local restaurants have instituted a practice of designating and applying a 3% surcharge to their customers’ bills, with the bills often claiming that the surcharge is for employee “health care” or “benefits.” There is a pending lawsuit against several of these restaurants in Santa Monica and Los Angeles challenging the use of a health care surcharge. The complaint alleges that restaurants engaged in price fixing because a group of restaurants established the same surcharge for employee health care. The outcome of this case is pending. Meanwhile, the Consumer Protection Division of the City Attorney’s Office has concerns about whether customers have proper notice of the surcharge prior to ordering and paying and want to better ensure that funds from such surcharges will actually be used for the stated purpose. Staff’s recommendation includes language on surcharges to address these issues.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 10 of 26
Stakeholder input. The Chamber of Commerce (including the Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant Coalition (SMNRC)) and SMTT provided general recommendations for service charge language. Both groups support businesses’ ability to use surcharges other than service charges, and to distribute service charge revenue to more employees and at employer discretion. This means in particular to back of house staff, and to all non-salaried employees (rather than excluding all managers and supervisors, as currently written in the LA hotel ordinance). Workers and employee advocacy groups support treating service charges like tips. This means stricter regulation, broader definition of service charges to include other types of surcharges i.e. delivery charge or health care charge), and excluding managers and supervisors from receiving service charge income. Staff received proposed ordinance language reflecting these recommendations from the SMNRC (Attachment G) and worker advocacy groups (Unite Here, ROC LA, and CLEAN Car Wash) (Attachment H).

Recommendation. Staff recommends a balanced approach to regulating service charges. Staff’s recommendation affirms businesses’ authority to institute surcharges apart from service charges, with a focus on ensuring that any additional charges are clearly described and used as stated, and provides a narrow definition of what constitutes a service charge.

Following Council direction, the recommendation ensures that service charge proceeds go to workers who participate directly or indirectly in the chain of service; accordingly, in the restaurant industry for example, the distribution would include back of house workers. It allows employees with some (but not majority) supervisory duties to receive service charge proceeds, in consideration of line staff who may have some supervisory responsibilities, but primarily act in a service capacity. It maintains current distribution for certain types of existing surcharges (banquet, porterage, and room service). The recommendation also ensures that funds received from any benefits surcharges including health care surcharges) go entirely towards benefits coverage for employees.

It also includes a provision ensuring that businesses cannot automatically include optional charges on a receipt and force the customer to remove them, and provides that

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 11 of 26
customers must affirmatively opt in to such payments; a separate definition for surcharges; and a recordkeeping requirement. In using a more specific service charge definition and affirming businesses’ ability to use other surcharges, the recommended ordinance language takes into consideration that a reasonable customer would understand certain types of charges, such as delivery or health surcharges, as distinct from a service charge that might replace the traditional tip. Finally, the recommendation provides direction on noticing requirements to customers, and transparency to employees regarding how proceeds are allocated. The recommendation follows Council direction for employee protections, and provides employers with flexibility in assessing surcharges and provides additional assurance that back-of-house staff can receive service charge proceeds. While staff agrees that regulating service charges is an appropriate and arguably necessary part of addressing a key issue of minimum wage policies, it may be one of the most challenging areas for effective and consistent enforcement.

Alternative 1. Council could approve the SMNRC recommended language (Attachment G). Major provisions are that any charge described as a “service charge” goes to the general group of employees providing the service; managers will decide on service charge distribution; all non-salaried employees can receive service charge income; and other “surcharges” may be assessed on the bill provided that they are described clearly, in a way customers might easily and reasonably understand what the charge is for and to whom it will be given. This option addresses some transparency concerns, directs income towards employees generally providing the service or to their benefits, and provides flexibility to employers. However, it does not go far enough in addressing transparency to customers, does not provide transparency to employees in service charge distribution, and the salaried versus non-salaried distinction in who can receive service charge revenue is too broad and could lead to misclassification of employees as non-salaried, when their job duties are more consistent with a salaried worker, so that the employer could make the employee eligible to receive service charge income.

Alternative 2. Council could adopt the language proposed by the Unite Here, ROC, and CLEAN Car Wash group in its entirety (Attachment H). This language, which is the

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 12 of 26
basis for staff’s recommendation, includes most of those provisions. This alternative provides strong worker protections, accounts for the way some businesses already treat service charges, and provides the ability to share service charge income with back of house staff. But, it does not address employer concerns about ability to use other types of surcharges, lack of clarity regarding who can receive service charge income and what surcharges the language applies to, and does not fully address transparency to consumers. It also contains a broad definition of service charges, including a health care surcharge. The language is also overly restrictive in who can receive service charge income, potentially not allowing staff who may have some supervisory or managerial responsibilities, but who primarily provide customer service, to receive service charge proceeds.

Seasonal Workers
Council direction. Council directed staff to do additional research on seasonal provisions in other cities or states, and to reach out to seasonal employer and employee stakeholders. Council asked staff to return with options for ordinance language that would address concerns regarding young workers’ and first -time workers’ employment opportunities, and with maintaining affordable pier activities once the minimum wage is increased.

Background. Many Santa Monica employers are affected by seasonal changes in business, including retailers who add part-time or temporary workers during the holiday season or employ students who work summer jobs. This is particularly true on the Santa Monica pier and beach, where Pacific Park and Perry’s require a larger number of staff during the summer or other peak demand seasons like the holidays, and where a large percentage of employees work for less than a full year and may only work for one summer. According to Pacific Park and Perry’s estimates, these two businesses employ many first-time workers: 30-35% of Perry’s and 50% of Pacific Park employees.

Both business owners state that they would not be able to employ the same number of peak demand workers - approximately 420 employees for Pacific Park and approximately 100-125 for Perry’s - with the implementation of the proposed minimum wage increase. An exemption for seasonal workers could help preserve these first-time

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1715 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 13 of 26
jobs. The community also values affordable activities at the beach and pier. An exemption for a portion of workers could help mitigate the impact on pier and beach price increases.

Currently, no California city has a wage exemption for seasonal employment. Instead, California State law includes a provision for “learners”, defined as someone working for the first time in an activity in which they have no previous or similar experience. 4 This provides for 85% of the minimum wage for the first 160 hours of work. Emeryville includes this same provision applied to its local minimum wage, and Los Angeles includes this provision modified to apply only to workers between ages 14 -17. Shortterm wage exemptions in other states are generally limited to specific kinds of programs with some community benefit (i.e., summer camps, internships, or government supported youth work programs).

Seasonal and first time employment often applies to young workers to a greater extent than to other workers. Young and first-time workers are often discussed in minimum wage increases, since making labor more expensive may decrease the likelihood that an employer would hire someone without experience. A November 2015 UCLA Labor Center study of Los Angeles youth workers (aged 18-29) concluded that young workers have a wide range of financial and other responsibilities, struggle with getting predictable work with the hours they want, and very often have little to no control over scheduling. On average, young workers report wanting more hours, more full time and predictable work, higher wages, better treatment, benefits and worker protections.5 Report survey data shows that fewer than 1% of young workers use wages for discretionary spending (clothes, nights out, etc.) only; over one-third contribute financially to their households; 16.5% are parents; one-third are in school, and onefourth have education debt. Over 60% do not receive health benefits, paid vacation or sick days. Approximately 72% report wanting to work more hours, and 19% work more 4 As provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage order published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
5 “ I am a #YoungWorker,” UCLA Labor Center.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 14 of 26
than one job. This information challenges the notion that young workers have less essential needs than other workers, and are seeking jobs with limited and frequently changing hours.

Stakeholder input. Pacific Park and Perry’s management strongly advocate for a seasonal exception, and the Chamber of Commerce endorses this provision. Pacific Park provided recommended ordinance language that Perry’s also supports.

Conversely, Unite Here, ROC Los Angeles, and the UCLA Labor Center recommend either no seasonal exception, or one targeted to a very specific group of employees for a short period of time, and linked to the local minimum wage. Community members expressed concern about decreasing opportunities for first-time workers.

Recommendation. Staff recommends including a learner exemption that would require employers to pay 85% of the minimum wage for 480 hours or six months, whichever is sooner, for employees in a job or activity in which they have no previous or similar related experience. This is the same as the State provision for first time workers learners), but with the time period extended to cover six months at half time (20 hours per week), or three months at full time (40 hours per week). This provision would maintain an incentive to hire first time workers, would not create a significant wage gap in future years if the State wage does not increase, would apply to all businesses, and is a reasonable amount of time for a seasonal worker.

Alternative 1. Council could approve the Pacific Park proposal, which creates a complete exemption from the minimum wage ordinance for employees working six months or less during a 12 month period, under a temporary services agreement, provided that the employer also employs 50 employees at an average 35 hours per week that are paid at least Santa Monica’s minimum wage. This could assist Pacific Park and Perry’s in maintaining current staffing, including providing first time job experience and training to many workers. To the extent that this exemption would help Pacific Park maintain prices at current levels, this addresses the City goal of keeping the pier affordable. However, staff believes that the language as written is overly broad and vague, and it would include employers like large retailers, movie theaters, and

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1717 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 15 of 26
others who do not have either the constraints of the pier amusement park, or the community benefit that more affordable pier and beach recreation provide; and that have not demonstrated benefits for first time workers to the same degree. The language could also provide a loophole that allows other employers to create seasonal jobs in order to reduce wages. And, while both businesses have expressed their aim of keeping prices low, there is nothing to prevent them from increasing prices either in response to wage or any other growing operational cost. Finally, absent any State minimum wage increase, an exemption from the local minimum wage would lead to a 50% wage gap between seasonal and full-time employees in 2020.

Alternative 2. Council could choose to offer no exemption to the minimum wage, or to simply adopt the State learner provision which requires employers to pay 85% of the minimum wage for the first 160 hours in a job in which the employee had no previous or similar related experience.

Paid time off
Council direction. Council directed staff to include a “reasonable” paid time off provision in the minimum wage ordinance.

Background. Many low-wage workers do not have paid time off to address health issues for themselves or family members. This leads to decreased health outcomes for the workers and their families, and often loss of jobs if family or personal illness prevents them from attending work. It can also be costly for the community as a whole, as it incentivizes putting off health care until conditions become serious.

Beginning July 1, 2015, California state law requires employers to provide at least 24 hours or three days of sick leave per year. Employees would begin accruing sick leave on the 90th day of employment, and could be limited to using 24 hours in a given year.

Emeryville, Oakland, and San Francisco are among other California cities that have included paid sick leave beyond the state requirement as part of their minimum wage ordinances. Oakland and San Francisco provide 72 hours (9 days) for larger business, and 40 hours (5 days) for small businesses; Emeryville provides 72 hours (9 days) for

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1718 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 16 of 26
larger business, and 48 hours (6 days) for small businesses. The Los Angeles Hotel Worker Minimum Wage includes 12 days paid leave (sick, vacation, or personal), and 10 days unpaid sick leave per year for hotel workers.

Los Angeles has not yet addressed paid leave in its minimum wage ordinance, although some reports suggest that the city is considering five days of sick leave. The LA City Council will decide on a paid leave provision before the minimum wage law’s implementation in June 2016. Santa Monica does not currently have any local requirements for paid leave.

Stakeholder input. All stakeholder groups provided input into paid leave. The Chamber of Commerce recommends five days leave; the Restaurant Opportunities Center recommended following the Oakland and San Francisco model of five days of sick leave and nine days of sick leave for larger businesses. Unite Here members and workers recommended that the City be clear about how and when employees can use leave, and include retaliation protection for employees taking paid leave. Hotels report already providing paid time off in most cases, so were less concerned about the number of days, and more about logistics, and having to change existing policies to accommodate new requirements, like different accrual rates, carryover or cash out provisions, or conditions for use. Following the December 16, 2015 information item including staff’s preliminary recommendations, Chamber of Commerce members provided additional feedback that the leave requirement should apply specifically to sick leave. This recommendation is also noted in a Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant (SMNRC) December 22, 2015 letter to Council and staff, included as Attachment I.

Recommendation. Staff recommends a paid sick leave provision similar to that of Oakland and San Francisco. Employees would earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked (same accrual rate as the State law), and would be entitled to accrue at least 40 hours (five days) for businesses with 25 or fewer employees, and 72 hours nine days) for businesses with 26 or more employees. Employees could carry balances over from year to year up to a maximum of 40 hours for small businesses and 72 hours for large businesses, but would not have the option to cash out. Employees

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 17 of 26
could be limited to using the maximum accrual amount in a given calendar year.

Employee use of sick leave is consistent with State sick leave provisions. This meets worker advocacy recommendations, and is existing policy in other cities. The accrual rate aligns with the State, making implementation simpler for employers.

This recommendation has changed from the December 16, 2015 Information Item in response to additional input from Chamber of Commerce members. Staff had initially recommended that paid leave could be used for vacation, personal, or sick leave, with the intent of providing flexibility to employers and employees. Employers already have policies in place to accommodate sick leave, so they are better able to plan for staff’s use of sick leave, and have established procedures with employees for taking sick leave. Further, vacation and personal days function more as a benefit, or perk, that employers offer to retain employees, as compared to sick leave, which is for employee and consumer protection. Staff consulted with employee advocacy groups a second time on this issue and received feedback that the sick leave provision meets employee needs. This modified recommendation also aligns more closely with San Francisco, Oakland, and Emeryville, all of which provide paid sick leave.

Alternative 1. Council could approve five days / nine days of sick leave for all non-hotel businesses; and adopt leave requirements for hotels consistent with the Los Angeles hotel minimum wage. This would mean that hotel workers would be entitled to at least 96 hours (12 days) of compensated time off per year (includes vacation, personal, or sick leave), accrued at 96/52 for each week worked. In addition, employees would have access to at least 80 additional hours of unpaid sick leave, earned at 80/52 hours each week, to be used after compensated time is exhausted. This would be consistent with the LA hotel wage and would provide generous time off for employees. However, this would present a significant increase for hotels to absorb in addition to the hotel wage increase. It would also create inconsistency within Santa Monica for paid leave policies, which could be complicated and difficult to enforce.

Alternative 2. Council could reduce the number of sick leave days recommended by staff either for small businesses, larger businesses, or all businesses (for example,

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 18 of 26
match the State’s three days for small businesses, and mandate five days for larger businesses). Another variable would be to delay the effective date for implementation of the provision to recognize the greater complexity of putting such a provision in place.

Education and enforcement
Council direction. Council directed staff to develop a comprehensive enforcement policy, using all tools available, and to consult with experts, including the UCLA Labor Center.

Background. Wage theft is common, often difficult to prosecute, and wages often go unrecovered. 6 Meaningful enforcement measures and strong retaliation protections make it more likely that employees feel comfortable bringing claims forward, and that employers comply with regulations.

Currently, employees with wage claims pursuant to state law can file their claims directly with the State Labor Commissioner’ s Office, also known as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). In adopting a local minimum wage with different provisions than the State, Santa Monica would need to have the capacity to educate the community, businesses, and workers about the new requirements; respond to inquiries; and investigate and prosecute claims.

Most cities adopting local ordinances have included a series of provisions to deter employers from committing wage violations and provide workers protection for reporting them, shown in the table below.
6 “ Los Angeles Rising: A City that Works for Everyone,” Economic Roundtable, UCLA Labor Center, UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 19 of 26
CITY Enforcement
Agency
Revoke
Licenses
Permits
Contracts
Liens Posting
Payroll
Access
Fines &
Penalties
Criminal
Penalties
Private
Right
of
Action
Retaliation
Protection
Outreach
Education
Albuquerque NM Y Y Y
Berkeley Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bernalillo Y Y
Chicago Y Y Y Y Y Y
Houston* Y Y Y Y
Oakland Y Y Y Y Y Y
Las Cruces NM Y Y
Los Angeles Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Louisville Y Y
Miami* Y Y
Montgomery County, MD Y Y Y
Mountain View Y Y Y Y Y Y
Richmond Y Y Y Y Y Y
San Diego Y Y Y Y Y
San Francisco Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
San Jose Y Y Y Y Y Y
Santa Clara County* Y Y Y Y Y
Santa Fe Y Y Y Y
Seattle Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Sunnyvale Y Y Y Y Y Y
Washington DC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No higher minimum wage, but implemented wage theft ordinances SOURCE: UCLA Labor Center / Economic Roundtable “ LA Rising: A City that Works for Everyone”, modified to include Los Angeles One important tool that is used by other municipalities that has garnered significant success is outreach and education. This includes work with community-based organizations, and a strong education campaign, to prioritize education and informal complaint resolution, and incentivize voluntary compliance. San Francisco provides the best model for this aspect of wage enforcement. It has been significantly more successful in wage violation investigation and recovery than the State average: its Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) has collected full back wages plus interest on final judgments in 90.5% of cases, compared to 17% statewide.7 The OLSE, created in 2006, has been in place the longest of any local wage enforcement office in California, and it is the model for the Los Angeles and other Bay Area city local wage ordinances. Community-based organizations build on connections with the community to identify problem areas, and to put together strong cases for workers that may not be 7 “ Los Angeles Rising, A City that Works for Everyone,” Economic Roundtable et al.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 20 of 26
comfortable approaching the city. Community organizations are well placed to communicate wage law provisions effectively and where most appropriate.

Most cities with dedicated wage enforcement offices are much larger than Santa Monica. Of the cities with local minimum wage ordinances or wage theft ordinances, Santa Monica is most similar in size to Sunnyvale and Mountain View. These cities do not have dedicated wage enforcement offices but have contracted with the City of San Jose for enforcement of their local ordinances, and the partnership has worked successfully since implementation in 2014. Each city pays San Jose’s office based on services provided, and San Jose reports to the client cities on wage related activity.

San Jose itself has had few wage claims. In approximately one year, in a city with approximately 70,000 businesses, San Jose city staff has received approximately 50 -60 emails or phone calls, of which only 25 were complaints, and many of these were not enforceable.8 Sunnyvale and Mountain View, through San Jose, have also experienced a fairly low number of claims. Contracting with another city means that the city has access to staff if more claims arise, but does not have excess staff capacity if there is little activity.

The City and County of Los Angeles are establishing wage enforcement divisions. The City of Los Angeles has requested 39 positions phased in over three years, a $1 million annual community outreach budget, and an annual $200,000 budget for advertisement, public relations, and technology. The division will be called the Office of Wage Standards, and will be housed within the Bureau of Contract Administration, which currently enforces living and prevailing wage requirements. The City of Los Angeles staffing level and outreach budget is based on the San Francisco and Seattle models, but is proportionally slightly larger, taking into account that Los Angeles has a higher percentage of low-wage workers than do Seattle or San Francisco, and that it has one of the highest rates of wage theft in the country, estimated at 30% of low wage employees receiving less than the minimum wage in any given week.9 The Office of 8 “ Increase to the Minimum Wage in Berkeley” (ref. City of San Jose data). 9 “ Los Angeles Rising, A City that Works for Everyone,” Economic Roundtable et al.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 21 of 26
Wage Standards will serve the city’s approximately 5.5 million workers. At least initially, wage enforcement will likely present a significant challenge for the City of Los Angeles because of its very large workforce, high concentration of low wage workers, and the fact that it has not previously been required to enforce wage laws.

Los Angeles County (County), which adopted a minimum wage that will reach $15 per hour by 2020, will also establish an enforcement system. The County’s Wage Enforcement Program (WEP) will be located in the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA). The enforcement program consists of 5 positions in the first year, with an opportunity, upon approval by the Board of Supervisors the following year, for additional positions to accommodate emerging workloads. The County will initially have authority over an estimated 15,000 businesses in unincorporated areas.

Approximately 67% of these businesses are in the services (39%), retail (21%), and food service (7%) categories. The DCBA’s WEP unit will focus on education, prevention, complaint investigation, and wage recovery. Its primary goal will be to educate and inform employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities in order to achieve voluntary compliance with minimum intervention. The DCBA has 40 years of experience with local, state, and Federal consumer protection laws, which it can apply to enforcing local minimum wage ordinances. The initial work plan includes comprehensive publicity and education programs, including establishing an information center, providing online resources, creating promotional materials, conducting educational trainings and workshops, and identifying and partnering with community based organizations. Like San Francisco and the City of Los Angeles, and consistent with wage enforcement expert recommendations, the County will implement proactive enforcement strategies, as well as complaint-driven and targeted enforcement of particularly vulnerable industries. The County has included in its work plan the capacity to provide contract service to incorporated cities.

Stakeholder input. Staff discussed education and enforcement with the UCLA Labor Center, ROC LA, Unite Here, and Chamber of Commerce and SMTT groups. The worker advocacy groups recommended that Santa Monica adopt the provisions included in the San Francisco and Los Angeles ordinances, with some additions to

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 22 of 26
strengthen these provisions. They strongly recommended the City partner with community based organizations for outreach and education, and work with the Los Angeles City or County enforcement agencies. Business groups supported strong enforcement of noncompliant businesses, and recommended that the City have a strong enforcement plan in place before adopting an ordinance. They supported the City conducting an extensive education campaign to make new requirements clear, and inform the community of the new requirements. Staff reached out to Los Angeles City and County enforcement divisions to discuss partnering in enforcement. The Los Angeles County group was very receptive, and staff has established that there are no legal or other barriers to pursuing a contract with them.

Recommendation. Staff recommends a very rigorous enforcement program, including provisions building from the San Francisco and Los Angeles ordinances, to ensure compliance with the minimum wage regulatory scheme. The proposed ordinance authorizes criminal penalties for violations of the ordinance. Consistent with wellestablished legal precedent in the area of criminal penalties relating to a regulatory program, many of the violations will be subject to a strict liability standard. Furthermore, consistent with Penal Code sections 800 et seq. and case law interpreting those statutory provisions, the statute of limitations to bring a prosecution under this ordinance will be tolled until three years following discovery of the offense. The proposed ordinance also authorizes civil remedies, including a private right of action, fee -shifting provisions, and treble damages for willful violations.

Staff recommends continuing discussions and negotiations with Los Angeles County for enforcement, as well as initiating an education and outreach campaign through local community organizations and marketing specialists. The City currently works with Los Angeles County on some areas of enforcement currently. The County has considerable experience investigating a diverse array of constituent complaints, and staff believes that, compared to the City of Los Angeles, the County has better capacity to oversee both workers its own workforce (the unincorporated areas of the County) and workers within the City of Santa Monica. While contracting with the City of Los Angeles provides a more seamless geographical match with the jurisdiction that surrounds Santa Monica

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 23 of 26
on three sides, Santa Monica would represent a tiny fraction of LA’s scope. Contracting with the County would be more likely to result in a collaborative partnership. The County plans to do complaint-based and targeted investigation, which is consistent with ROC LA and UCLA Labor Center recommendations for effective outreach. Upon Council approval, staff would propose a budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year and return with a request for authorization of a contract with Los Angeles County for enforcement.

As part of any agreement, staff anticipates that the City would handle any complaints that are particularly complex or that require prosecution. This could mean additional work for the City’s attorneys, hearing officers, and support staff.

Staff recommends working with community organizations, and is requesting $80,000 initially for education and outreach, based on the amount that San Francisco allocates annually. With Council approval, staff would issue a request for proposals for outreach, education, and marketing services, with the goal of beginning the outreach and education campaign in early spring 2016. Staff envisions contributing to LA County outreach and education contracts, which would expand these efforts to cover Santa Monica in a regional approach. The City and County could also collaborate in supporting community-based organization’s work to identify incidents of wage theft and other violations.

Staff would monitor the outreach and enforcement approach for effectiveness, and could adjust the contract or change the plan if necessary. Partnering with LA County would satisfy the need for dedicated staff to focus on wage enforcement, and would provide flexibility to adjust funding and resources based on activity.

With community partners, staff also recommends researching incentive programs and other ways to reward businesses that provide strong employee wages and benefits, similar to the City’s Healthy Nail Salons program and the Office of Sustainability energy efficiency awards.

Alternative. The City could establish an internal wage enforcement function. This would require additional code enforcement, public information, attorney, staff support ,

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 24 of 26
and hearing officer time. This approach could potentially provide more focused time on Santa Monica businesses, and the City would have more direct control over any investigations. Also, Code Enforcement staff already has an established system in place for tracking of enforcement actions and integration with the City Attorney’s Office for both administrative and criminal proceedings. However, there is little data to understand the potential workload and cost associated with this task, the approach would not take advantage of existing capacity at the County level, and it could be challenging to establish in the short time span.

Comparison to LA ordinance
Since the initial report to Council on September 29, 2015, staff has noted the importance of adopting an ordinance similar to that of Los Angeles to avoid regional market distortion and facilitate compliance and enforcement. From conversations with LA County and based on careful consideration, staff believes that the differences between the proposed ordinance and those adopted by the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County will not be detrimental to regional coordination. In some cases, the ways in which Santa Monica’s proposed ordinance differs from these laws will make enforcement and compliance simpler. For example, in adopting a hotel wage with no tiers, and in strengthening noticing requirements. In the case of seasonal exemption, the Santa Monica proposed ordinance provides a learner exemption that is similar to existing State. Moreover, the accrual rate proposed for paid time off matches the accrual rate under State law. In areas where the City of Los Angeles has yet to make a determination, it is possible that Santa Monica’s ordinance can serve as a model.

Wage Laws in Santa Monica
If Council adopts the proposed minimum wage and hotel wage, Santa Monica will have three wage levels in effect: (1) the living wage, applying to city contracts of $54,200 or greater ($15.37 per hour); (2) the minimum wage, applying to most business and reaching $15 per hour for all non-hotel businesses by 2021; and (3) a hotel wage, reaching $15.37 per hour in 2017 for all hotel workers. Each of these wages includes an annual inflation increase, such that without a change to any law, the City will maintain three different wage levels indefinitely. Staff recommends reviewing wage

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1727 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 25 of 26
laws periodically to assess opportunities for synchronizing them, potentially following 2021 when all will approach a similar level.

The proposed ordinance includes data reporting requirements related to the ordinance.

If the ordinance is adopted, staff would report to Council within the first 12 months of implementation of the local minimum wage law. Given this is a relatively new and untested realm of public policy and that there will also be greater national experience and research by the fall of 2017, a data-driven approach to effectively and equitably meet the law’s objectives may suggest future modifications.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Increasing the City’s minimum wage could impact the City’s expenditures and revenue in a variety of areas. In the near term, staff anticipates incurring expenses related to outreach and enforcement.

Approving the recommendation to move forward with marketing and outreach requires a one-time appropriation in the amount of $80,000. The appropriation will be included in the FY 2015-16 Midyear Budget for Council approval. Staff expects to award grants in spring 2016, and will request additional funding if necessary.

Approving the recommendation to contract with Los Angeles County will require an additional appropriation. The amount is not available at this time, and will depend on the Los Angeles County proposal and types of services requested. Staff will pursue marketing and outreach contracts, and will request additional funding if necessary.

Implementing the recommendation could also affect sales, transient occupancy, and other tax revenue related to the economic activity of the City. Staff will monitor these areas, and report to Council on any revenue changes along with its biannual financial status updates. Staff will also generally monitor implementation of the ordinance and return to Council if there is evidence of significant economic impacts.

In addition to the recommended report on the first year of implementation, staff is

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 26 of 26
committed to ongoing review of this policy and its impact on employment, businesses, and general welfare. Where appropriate, and particularly where it can be combined with other data collection (like the annual resident survey), staff will assess impact of the minimum wage and report to Council on these impacts, including recommendations for changes if required.

Prepared By: Stephanie Lazicki, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. June 9, 2015 (Web link)
B. September 29, 2015 (Web link)
C. December 16, 2015 (Web link)
D. Attachment D - Ordinance Setting a Minimum Wage in Santa Monica E. Attachment E - Alternatives to Minimum Wage Ordinance Language F. Attachment F - Outline of Minimum Wage Recommendations and Alternatives G. Attachment G - SMNRC Service Charge Language
H. Attachment H - Unite Here, ROC, CLEAN Car Wash Service Charge Language I. Attachment I - SMNRC Letter

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1729 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1730 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1731 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1734 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1739 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1740 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1741 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1742 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1743 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1744 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1745 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1746 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1747 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1748 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1749 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1750 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1751 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1752 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1753 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 Minimum Wage Ordinance – Proposed Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Alternative

1. City of Los Angeles’ Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Language

4.63.015 Wages.
a) Hotel Employers shall pay Hotel Workers a wage of no less than the hourly rates set under this section.
b) Effective July 1, 2016, the minimum wage for each Hotel Worker shall be $15.37 per hour, not including tips or gratuities, service charge distributions, or bonuses . On July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, the minimum wage will increase based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, California), which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The City shall announce the adjusted rates annually each January 1st and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1754 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 Minimum Wage Ordinance – Proposed Service Charges Alternatives

1. Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant Coalition Proposed Language

4.65.050 Service charges.
a) Service charges, if assessed and specifically labeled “Service Charge”, shall be distributed to the employee(s) or general group of employees who performed services for the customer(s) from whom the service charges were collected within a particular payroll period.
1) Any non-salaried employee may be the recipient of “service charge” fees. 2) These amounts shall be paid to the employee(s) equitably, as decided upon by the employer, and in consideration of the general services that are, or appear to be related to, the description of the amounts described by the employer to the customer(s). 3) These amounts shall be paid to the employee(s) within the next payroll cycle following the collection of the amounts from the customer(s). 4) Other “surcharges”, to be used at the discretion of the employer, may be assessed by a business on a bill of sale, provided the title of such surcharge is described in such a way that customers might easily and reasonably deduce what the charge is for, or to whom it will be given.
b) This Section does not apply to any tip, gratuity, money, or part of any tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by customers over and above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, and articles sold or served to customers.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1755 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 3 2. UNITE HERE Local 11, Restaurant Opportunity Center of Los Angeles, and CLEAN Carwash Campaign Proposed Language

4.65.010 Definitions.
h) "Service Charge" means all separately-designated amounts charged and collected by an employer from customers that are for service by employees or benefits to employees, or are described in such a way that customers might reasonably believe that the amounts are for those services or benefits, including but not limited to those charges designated on receipts, invoices, or billing statements under the term "service charge," "table charge," "delivery charge," "porterage charge," "automatic gratuity charge," “health care surcharge” or similar language.

4.65.050 Service charges.
a) Service charges shall not be retained by the employer but shall be paid in the entirety by the employer to the employee(s) who performed services for the customer from whom the service charges are collected. No part of these amounts may be paid to supervisory or managerial employees. No employer or agent thereof shall deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a service charge, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a service charge against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer.
b) Amounts collected as service charges shall be paid to employee(s) equitably and according to the services that are or appear to be related to the description of the amounts given by the employer to the customers. Non-management and nonsupervisory employees who contribute to the service for the patron for which the service

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1756 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 4 charge is collected, including those who do not provide direct service, may share in the distribution of the service charge.
c) Notwithstanding the foregoing:
1) Amounts collected for banquets or catered meetings shall be paid to the employees who actually wait on guests at the banquet or catered meeting; 2) Amounts collected for room service shall be paid to the employees who actually deliver food and beverage associated with the charge; and 3) Amounts collected for porterage service shall be paid to the employees who actually carry the baggage associated with the charge;
Provided, however, that employers which had as of November 30, 2015 an existing practice of pooling and distributing these service charges to non-management/nonsupervisory employees other than the above-listed employees may continue such practice to the same extent.
d) Each employer shall disclose in writing to each employee its plan of distribution of service charges to employees and shall report to employees on each payroll date on the amount of service charges collected and amounts distributed to employees for the pay period in question.
e) The amounts shall be paid to the employee(s) no later than the next payroll following collection of an amount from the customers, except that any service charges collected in cash shall be paid to employees at the close of business on the day the charges are collected.
f) An employer that permits patrons to pay service charges by credit card shall pay the employees the full amount of the service charge that the patron indicated on the credit

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1757 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 5 card slip, without any deductions for any credit card payment processing fees or costs that may be charged to the employer by the credit card company. g) This section does not apply to any tip, gratuity, money, or part of any tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by customers over and above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or served to the customer.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1758 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 6 Minimum Wage Ordinance – Proposed Seasonal Exemption Alternative

1. Pacific Park Proposed Language

4.62.036 Seasonal employee exemption.
a) The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to any Employee who is employed under a written temporary services agreement for a period not to exceed 6 months in any 12-month period, provided that the Employer at all times during the 12-month period also employs at least 50 Employees who work at least 35 hours per week on average and are paid at least the minimum wages established under this Chapter. b) Any Employer that seeks job applicants in accordance with this section must disclose in the job advertisement that the vacant position(s) is for seasonal employees and that the compensation is not subject to the requirements of this Chapter.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1759 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 7 Minimum Wage Ordinance – Proposed Paid Leave Alternative

1. Chapter 4.65 Minimum Wage Ordinance
General Five Days (40 Hrs) / Nine Days (72 Hrs) Paid Sick Leave

4.62.025 Paid sick leave.
a) For Employees working for an Employer on or before the operative date of this Chapter, paid sick leave shall begin to accrue as of the operative date of this Chapter.

For Employees hired by an Employer after the operative date of this Chapter, paid sick leave shall begin to accrue 90 days after the commencement of employment with the Employer.
b) An Employee shall accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

Such paid sick leave shall accrue only in hour-unit increments; there shall be no accrual of a fraction of an hour of such time off.
1) For Employers with 26 or more Employees, the Employer shall provide at least 72 hours of accrued paid sick leave. Unused accrued paid sick leave will carry over until the paid sick leave reaches a maximum of 72 hours, unless the Employer’s established policy is more generous.
2) For Employers with 25 or fewer Employees, the Employer shall provide at least 40 hours of accrued paid sick leave. Unused accrued paid sick leave will carry over until the paid sick leave reaches a maximum of 40 hours, unless the Employer’s established policy is more generous.
c) An Employee may use paid sick leave consistent with State sick leave laws. d) An Employee is eligible to use accrued paid sick leave after the first 90 days of employment or consistent with the Employer’s policies, whichever is sooner.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1760 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 8 e) An Employer is not required to provide financial or other reimbursement to an Employee upon the Employee's termination, resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment, for unused accrued paid sick leave.
f) An Employer may not require, as a condition of an Employee's taking paid sick leave, that the Employee search for or find a replacement worker to cover the hours during which the Employee is off.
g) An Employer may require Employees to give reasonable notification of an absence from work for which paid sick leave is or will be used. h) The provisions of this section provide minimum requirements pertaining to paid sick leave and shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, policy, or standard that provides for separate or greater accrual or use by Employees of sick leave, whether compensated or uncompensated, or that extends other protections to Employees. This section shall not be construed to prevent an Employer from adopting or retaining leave policies that are more generous than policies that comply with this section.

2. Hotel Workers Time Off (Based on City of Los Angeles)

4.63.025 Time off.
a) Compensated time off. A Hotel Employer shall provide at least 96 compensated hours off per year for sick leave, vacation, or personal necessity, to each full-time Hotel Worker, to be made available at the Hotel Worker’s request. 1) A full-time Hotel Worker is classified as someone who works at least 40 hours a week or in accordance with the Hotel Employer’s policies, if more generous. A full-time Hotel Worker shall accrue at least the hours equal to the quotient of 96 divided by 52, of

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1761 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 9 compensated time off each week in a calendar year that the Hotel Worker has been employed by the Hotel Employer. Compensated time off does not accrue for work in excess of 40 hours a week. Full-time Hotel Workers who work less than 40 hours a week will receive compensated time off in proportional increments. 2) A part-time Hotel Worker is classified as someone who works less than 40 hours per week or in accordance with the Hotel Employer’s policies, if more generous. A part -time Hotel Worker shall accrue compensated time off in increments proportional to that accrued by a full-time Hotel Worker.
3) A Hotel Worker must be eligible to use accrued compensated time off after the first six months of employment or consistent with the Hotel Employer’s policies, whichever is sooner.
4) Unused accrued compensated time off will carry over until the time off reaches a maximum of 192 hours, unless the Hotel Employer’s policy is more generous. 5) After a Hotel worker reaches the maximum accrued compensated time off, the Hotel Employer shall provide a cash payment once every 30 days for accrued compensated time off over the maximum. A Hotel Employer may provide the Hotel Worker with the option of cashing out any portion of, or all of, the Hotel Worker’s accrued compensated time off under the maximum, but in no event shall the Hotel Employer require the Hotel Worker to cash out any accrued compensated time off. Compensated time off cashed out shall be paid to the Hotel Worker at the wage rate that the Hotel Worker is earning at the time of cash-out.
b) Uncompensated time off. Hotel Employers shall also provide at least 80 additional hours of uncompensated time off per year to each full-time Hotel Worker, to be used for

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1762 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 10 sick leave or illness of the Hotel Worker or a member of his or her immediate family, where the Hotel Worker has exhausted his or her compensated time off for that year. 1) A full-time Hotel Worker is classified as someone who works at least 40 hours a week or in accordance with the Hotel Employer’s policies, if more generous. A full-time Hotel Worker shall accrue at least the hours equal to the quotient of 80 divided by 52, of uncompensated time off each week in a calendar year that the Hotel Worker has been employed by the Hotel Employer. Uncompensated time off does not accrue for work in excess of 40 hours a week. Full-time Hotel Workers who work less than 40 hours a week will receive uncompensated time off in proportional increments. 2) A part-time Hotel Worker is classified as someone who works less than 40 hours per week or in accordance with the Hotel Employer’s policies, if more generous. A part -time Hotel Worker shall accrue uncompensated time off in increments proportional to that accrued by a full-time Hotel Worker.
3) A Hotel Worker must be eligible to use accrued uncompensated time off after the first six months of employment or consistent with the Hotel Employer’s policies, whichever is sooner.
4) Unused accrued uncompensated time off will carry over until the time off reaches a maximum of 80 hours, unless the Hotel Employer’s policy is more generous. c) A Hotel Employer may not unreasonably deny a Hotel Worker’s request to use accrued compensated or uncompensated time off.
d) A Hotel Employer may not implement any policy to count accrued compensated or uncompensated time off taken under this Chapter as an absence that may result in discipline, suspension, discharge, or any other adverse action.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1763 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 11 e) This section provides minimum requirements pertaining to compensated time off and shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, policy, or standard that provides for greater accrual or use by Hotel Workers of time off, whether compensated or uncompensated, or that extends other protections to Hotel Workers. This Section also shall not be construed to prevent Hotel Employers from adopting or retaining leave policies that are more generous than policies that comply with this section.

ATTACHMENT E

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1764 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

MINIMUM WAGE FIRST READING OUTLINE

BASIC PROVISIONS
Recommended minimum wage ordinance conditions applying to all non-hotel employers, phased increase reaching $ 15 by July 1, 2020. Inflation increases starting July 1, 2022. Includes the following exceptions:

One- year delay ($ 15 by 2021) for businesses with 25 or fewer employees One- year delay ($ 15 by 2021) upon approved application for qualifying nonprofit organizations Exception for 18 months for employees during qualifying training programs Exception for employees participating in a valid bargaining agreement

RECOMMENDATIONS ON OUTSTANDING TOPICS
HOTEL WAGE – Recommended ordinance conditions for hotels/ motels and associated onsite businesses excludes the youth hostel)
Minimum wage reaching $ 13.25 on July 1, 2016 and $15.37 on July 1, 2017 ( matches LA process of phasing in over 2 year). Annual CPI increases starting July 1, 2018. o Will apply to any connected leased space; any contracted employees working on site One year waiver upon approval for hotels meeting certain conditions:
o Would need to cut staff by >20% to avoid bankruptcy / shut down OR o Would need to cut hours by >30% to avoid bankruptcy / shut down Alternative: $ 15.37 all hotels starting July 1, 2016. Inflation increases beginning July 1, 2017.

Pros: Matches LA sooner; provides wage increase sooner. Cons: Does not match LA’ s phase- in period; shorter ramp- up so harder for hotels to absorb; could lead to service changes or cuts; or reduction in jobs or employment hours.

SERVICE CHARGES ( applies if employers choose to use a service charge) Recommended language that draws largely from worker advocacy group proposal Service charge proceeds must go to employees who generally provide the service Employees except for those with primarily managerial or supervisory roles can receive service charge proceeds ( can include back of house)
Employers must disclose service charge distribution to all employees Other surcharges ( which could include charges related to maintenance, utilities, health care, etc.) are allowed as long as clearly described and used as stated Organizations must clearly describe any charges and their use to customers Includes protections for employees who currently receive service charge proceeds Alternative 1: Restaurant advocacy group language: less restrictive, fewer transparency regulations, eligibility to receive service charge proceeds based on salaried vs. non-salaried status.

Pros: provides flexibility for employers; ensures proceeds go to workers providing the service.

Cons: doesn’ t fully address transparency to consumers; doesn’t provide transparency to workers.

Alternative 2: Worker advocacy group language: more restrictive for employers, fewer transparency regulations, excludes managers and supervisors from eligibility for service charge proceeds, does not affirm employers’ ability to use other surcharges.

Pros: ensures proceeds go to workers providing the service. Cons: doesn’ t fully address transparency to consumers, broadens definition of service charge to include other expenses

ATTACHMENT F

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1765 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

FIRST TIME WORKERS / SEASONAL EMPLOYERS
Recommended language provides an exception for first time workers and assists businesses with seasonal needs:

Exception at 85% of minimum wage for the first 480 hours or six months, whichever is sooner, for employees working in an occupation or activity for the first time (480 hours= 6 months @ 20 hours, 3 months @ 40 hours). No age restriction ( State learner provision with extended hours).

Alternative: Pacific Park proposed language: Exemption for employees working six months or less out of any one year period under a temporary services agreement. Employers must also employ 50 or more employees working at least 35 hours per week and earning at least minimum wage Pros: Per Pacific Park, could help keep pier entertainment affordable, and preserve employment and hours at current levels, including first employment opportunity for many workers. Cons:

Language is broad enough that movie theaters / large retailers, etc. could be eligible. Absent State-level minimum wage changes, would create a 50% gap by 2020. Could hurt youth / first time workers by keeping salaries low.

PAID LEAVE
Recommended language to apply to all organizations as follows:

Accrue 1 hour for every 30 worked ( same as State). Accrual cap 72 hours ( 9 days) for businesses with 26 or more employees; 40 hours ( 5 days) for smaller businesses. ( Goes beyond state accrual cap of 48 hours / 3 days; matches SF and Oakland) o Can be used for sick, vacation, or personal leave; can carry over hours, no cash out Alternative: Hotels match LA’ s Hotel wage leave provisions; all others accrual cap 9 days for large businesses; 5 days for smaller businesses.

Hotels: 12 days paid leave; 10 days unpaid sick leave ( same as LA hotel ordinance) o Maximum 192 hours accrual; cash payout once every 30 days for time accrued over the maximum
Pros: Provides consistency with Los Angeles hotels. Cons: Inconsistent with other Santa Monica businesses. For hotels, short ramp up time to implement potentially large change.

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Outreach and education plan and budget request for community partner grants and marketing 80k based on SF grant amounts)
Direction to negotiate with City / County of LA for Enforcement ( amount unknown at this time) and return with proposed contract terms
Include common enforcement methods (those recommended by the UCLA Labor Center):

Revoke Licenses Permits Contracts, Liens, Posting & Payroll Access, Fines & Penalties, Criminal Penalties, Private Right of Action, Retaliation Protection.

Alternative: All enforcement in house.

Pros: retain internal control, potentially more responsive. Cons: More costly; time consuming; unable to respond to variation in workload volume; does not take advantage of regional opportunities and expertise.

ATTACHMENT F

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1766 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Suggested Edits to the Santa Monica Minimum Ordinance Wage

11.10.15 FROM THE ORDINANCE:

DEFINITION OF SERVICE CHARGE:
h)"Service charge" means all separately-- designated amounts charged and collected by an employer from customers that are for service byor toemployees benefits employees. or are described in such a way that customers reasonablymight believe that the amounts are for those services or benefits. including but limited thosenot t charges designated on receipts. invoices. or billing statements under termthe service charge." delivery charge." porterage charge", health care surcharge," similar or language.

SERVICE CHARGE CLAUSE:

4.65.050 Service charges.
a)Service charges shall not be retained by the employer buteinshall paid their entirety by the employer to the employee( s) who performed services thefor customers from whom the service charges are collected. part these No of amounts may betopaid supervisory or managerial employees. The amounts shall be paid the s)toemployee( equitably and according to the services that are or appear btotorelated th description of the amounts given by the employer thetocustomers. The amounts shall be paid to the employee( s) in the next payroll following collection the fromof amounts customers.
b) This section does not apply to any tip. gratuity, money, orf tip,part any gratuity, or money that has been paid or toleft given or for an employee by customers andover above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, drink. articles food, or sold or served tocustomers

ATTACHMENT G

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1767 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) FOR REFERENCE:DEFINITION OF SERVICE CHARGE FROM ORDINANCE:
h)"Service charge" means all separately-- designated amounts charged and collected by an employer from customers that are for service byor toemployees benefits employees. or are described in such a way that customers reasonably might believe that the amounts are for those services benefits. or including but not limited thoseto charges designated on receipts. invoices. or billing statements under termthe service charge." delivery charge." porterage charge", health care surcharge," similar o language.

SMNRC NOTES
But not limitedto' is scary language. What if one clearly says: Conditioning" Air fee?
Delivery charge' should be taken out. Most restaurants that use delivery online platforms like Eat24, GrubHub and LABite charge a Delivery but isCharge', it typically not retained by the restaurant. Instead this amount isstraight passed through to the delivery company. In other cases, it' s used pay thetofor packaging and maintenance of the delivery program itself. This isexample thisanwhere charge is assessed in addition providing to an opportunity for people toips. collect Similar Language’ is also too broad.

ATTACHMENT G

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1768 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

RECOMMENDED SERVICE CHARGE LANGUAGE
VERSION 1:

4.65.050 Service charges.
a)Service charges, if assessed and specifically labeled Service Charge”, shall be distributed tothe employee( s) or general group of employees performed who service( s) for the customer( s) from whom the charge( service s) were collected within a particular payroll period.

Any non--salaried employee may be the recipientof service charge” fee( s).

These amounts shall be paid to the employee( s) equitably,asupon thedecided by employer, and in consideration of thegeneralservice( s) that are, or appear beto related to the description of the amounts described byemployer theo customer( s).

These amounts shall be paid to the s)employee(within the next payrollcycle following the collection of the amounts fromcustomer( s).

Other Surcharges”, to be used at the discretion theof employer,may be assessed by a business on abill of sale provided the title of suchsurcharge is described in such a way that customers might easily andreasonablydeduce what the charge is for, toor whom it will begiven.
b) This section does not apply to any tip, gratuity, money, part anyorf tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given toor for employee left anby customers over and above the actual amount due for services or goods, rendered for food, drink. or articles sold or served customers. to

ATTACHMENT G

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1769 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 Proposed Language on Service Charges for Santa Monica Minimum Wage Ordinance a) Service charges shall not be retained by the employer but shall be paid in the entirety by the employer to the employee( s) who performed services for the customer from whom the service charges are collected. No part of these amounts may be paid to supervisory or managerial employees. No employer or agent thereof shall deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a service charge, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a service charge against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer.
b) Amounts collected as service charges shall be paid to employee(s) equitably and according to the services that are or appear to be related to the description of the amounts given by the employer to the customers. Non-management and non-supervisory employees who contribute to the service for the patron for which the service charge is collected, including those who do not provide direct service, may share in the distribution of the service charge.
c) Notwithstanding the foregoing:

1. Amounts collected for banquets or catered meetings shall be paid to the employees who actually wait on guests at the banquet or catered meeting;

2. Amounts collected for room service shall be paid to the employees who actually deliver food and beverage associated with the charge; and

3. Amounts collected for porterage service shall be paid to the employees who actually carry the baggage associated with the charge;
Provided, however, that employers which had as of November 30, 2015 an existing practice of pooling and distributing these service charges to non-management/nonsupervisory employees other than the above- listed employees may continue such practice to the same extent.
d) Each employer shall disclose in writing to each employee its plan of distribution of service charges to employees and shall report to employees on each payroll date on the amount of service charges collected and amounts distributed to employees for the pay period in question.
e) The amounts shall be paid to the employee( s) no later than the next payroll following collection of an amount from the customers, except that any service charges collected in cash shall be paid to employees at the close of business on the day the charges are collected.
f) An employer that permits patrons to pay service charges by credit card shall pay the employees the full amount of the service charge that the patron indicated on the credit card slip, without any deductions for any credit card payment processing fees or costs

ATTACHMENT H

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1770 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 that may be charged to the employer by the credit card company. g) This section does not apply to any tip, gratuity, money, or part of any tip, gratuity, or money that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by customers over and above the actual amount due for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or served to the customer.

Definitions:

Service Charge" means all separately- designated amounts charged and collected by an employer from customers that are for service by employees or benefits to employees, or are described in such a way that customers might reasonably believe that the amounts are for those services or benefits, including but not limited to those charges designated on receipts, invoices, or billing statements under the term " service charge," " table charge," " delivery charge," " porterage charge," " automatic gratuity charge," “ health care surcharge” or similar language.

ATTACHMENT H

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1771 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) To: Santa Monica City Staff, Santa Monica City Council
From: Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant Coalition
Date: 12.22.15
RE: Preliminary Staff Direction on Minimum Wage Ordinance City StaffThank you for releasing your preliminary recommendations the other day, we appreciated the opportunity to give you some more feedback before the first draft is written. We also want to thank you for taking some time to meet with us to clarify some of these outstanding issues.

To recap our thoughts: We think this is a good middle ground on most issues. We appreciate your clearly thoughtful analysis on service charges, for example.

That said, there are a couple of minor, but important points we think merit rewording.

First and foremost, it's very important and indicative of the true intention of the service charge clause to allow ‘ supervisory’, employees to continue to participate, as they currently do in tip pools. We happily acknowledge the use of the word primarily" which we believe gives a nod to the ‘51% rule’ outlined in ‘exempt vs. nonexempt’ employees in regards to overtime, etc. If this is the case, we think it's great but needs to be clarified further so there’ s no confusion.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1772 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) As we’ve explained on several occasions, many restaurants, hotels, bars and resorts have " supervisors" who are not full-fledged managers but who do have some minor level of authority, typically when dealing with computer issues, locking up at the end of the night, etc.

Primarily though, their work consists of doing the same job as hourly employeesserving customers.

It would be a mistake to exclude them from a service charge or tip pool and would not only do them a disservice, but immediately incentivize employees to eschew any form of responsibility at all for fear of being excluded in this opportunity to earn extra income.

Starbucks recently had a case in the courts addressing just that. Please reference Barenboim v. Starbucks, which concerned tip pooling under New York's state labor laws. The plaintiffs were baristas who argued that their shift supervisors should not have been allowed to participate in Starbucks' tip pool. The court, however, found that the shift supervisors spent the majority of their time performing the same duties as the baristas and primarily were responsible for serving food and beverages to customers. The court concluded that the shift supervisor' s managerial responsibilities were limited and they primarily provided personal service to customers. Thus, the supervisor' s participation in the tip pool was appropriate under New York law.

The same logic should apply in California.

Clearly, employees who are primarily managers or who spend more than 51% of their time using ‘ judgment calls’ to direct or discipline other employees should not be able to participate in that tip pool or service charge pool. That we can agree on.

Salaried employees should also be barred from participating.

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1773 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Even more important than the service charge issue though is some language we hope has been confused or misconstrued at some point in the process regarding what is now being referred to as “ Paid Time Off”.

Originally, the conversation surrounded ‘ sick leave’ and the desire for Santa Monica to perhaps go above and beyond what the state mandated on July 1 of 2015-Six days accrued/ three days used per year. The idea was that perhaps five or seven days was more appropriate.

This is not what’ s indicated in the initial language though… Instead, the net effect of this particular item ( as it’s currently written) is to basically give all employees 1 to 2 weeks of paid vacation every year that they can take any time with no notice, for whatever reason and an employer has no recourse against them for doing so.

We are assuming this was an oversight based on our discussions this week.

If this is not amended though, the uproar in the business community will be deafening. I’ve already gotten many calls and emails about it, less than 24 hours after it was released. Many questions surrounding the legality of it has naturally been called into question as well. I’m sure the City Attorneys office will weigh in on that.

Here’ s the most troublesome part: “Can be used for sick, vacation, or personal leave; can carry over hours, no cash out.”
Paid Sick Leave should not include the words " Vacation” or “Personal leave" and it should certainly not roll over from year-to-year, unless it is only referring to the accrual, not the use. I’m assuming that will be clarified? If this refers to use, not just accrual, that basically means that in three years after the ordinance takes effect, an employer could have an employee come to them and say You know what, I’m going to take a month off for ‘personal time’ or because I want

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1774 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) a vacation and there is nothing you can do about it". *After chatting with some of you, this was clarified, so thanks for that.

We believe in paid time off. We believe it's valuable for individuals and society but giving all employees 9 days of de facto vacation time is not the way to go about it.

There need to be rules employees must follow to maintain order and structure within a company and there are limits to which the government should regulate that.

If the ‘baseline’ is 9 days of paid time off for all employees, it de-incentivizes companies to provide other benefits or issue raises/ promotions simply because they would now be budgeting for this unprecedented additional cost.

It goes without saying that since council has clearly indicated its intention to approve waivers for C.B.A.’s, this is yet another item adding fuel to the fire for opponents of that.

Enough is enough. Please be reasonable and pass an ordinance we can all live with and manage productively.

FYI, “ Vacation” and “ Personal Leave” are not mentioned anywhere in the ordinances of our neighbors to the north, whom council has clearly set out to emulate. Here’s some literature for reference:

The City of Emeryville:
http://www.ci.emeryville. ca.us/1024/Minimum- Wage-Ordinance http://www.ci.emeryville. ca.us/DocumentCenter/ Home/View/8034 The City of San Francisco:
http://www.sfgov.org/olse/sites/default/ files/FileCenter/ Documents/ 13606- FAQs% 20on%20PSLO% 20and% 20CA%20PSL% 2011_ 13_15%20Final3. pdf

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1775 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/ administrative/ chapter12wsicklea ve*?f=templates$ fn=default. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal: sanfrancisco_ ca The City of Oakland:
http://www.govdocs. com/oakland- 2015-minimum- wage-paid-sick-leave-postings/ http://oaklandchamber. com/files/1675.pdf
http://www.oaklandcityattorney. org/PDFS/Guides%20and%20FAQs/ Revised% 20Meas ure%20FF% 20FAQ% 20Feb% 202015. pdf
Oakland does address the nuances of PTO and Sick Leave overlapping though:

27. Will an employer’ s Paid Time Off (PTO) or Vacation policy satisfy the requirements of Oakland’ s Paid Sick Leave? Answer: Possibly. If an employer has a paid leave policy, such as a PTO or vacation policy, that makes available to employees paid leave that may be used for the same purposes specified in the Measure ( or for any purpose) and the policy is sufficient to meet the Measure’ s requirements for paid sick leave accrual, then an employer is not required to provide additional paid sick leave.

This CLEARLY delineates between “ PTO” ( vacation) and ( Sick Leave). To lump them together would be unprecedented and unquestionably damaging to the business community, and there is little doubt that it would be challenged in the courts.

The bottom line is that employers should be the ones deciding what benefits to offer in this regard as a mechanism to attract/retain quality employees and foster a healthy work-life balance, not the City Government. Especially considering this would put Santa Monica businesses at an extreme disadvantage to our Los Angeles counter- parts.

That said, here’ s our suggestion: “ Accrue 1 hour for every 30 worked ( same as State). Accrual cap 48 hours ( 6 days) for businesses with 26 or more employees; 32 hours ( 4 days) for smaller businesses. ( Goes beyond state accrual cap of 48 hours / 3 days)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1776 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Can be used for sick, or family medical leave in accordance with state law.

See: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Paid_Sick_Leave.htm for guidelines of use.

Can roll-over hours for accrual, but limit yearly use to 48 hours ( or 6 days) for large businesses, 32 hours ( or 4 days) for smaller employers.

No cash out upon separation of employment relationship.” We feel this is more than reasonable middle- ground for all parties considered.

Please feel free to call me anytime with questions or to clarify any of these concerns.

Respectfully,
Hunter G. Hall
Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant Coalition
www.SMNRC. net
info@smnrc. net

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1777 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage January 12, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) CityCouncil
Report
City Council Meeting: April 26, 2016
Agenda Item: 7.C
To: Mayor andCityCouncil
From: GigiDecavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department AndyAgle, Director
Subject: Modifications totheMinimum WageOrdinance
RecommendedAction
Staffrecommends thattheCityCouncil:
1) Introduce forfirstreading theattached ordinance amending Chapters 4.62and

4.63oftheSantaMonica Municipal Coderequiring aminimum wagefor employees withaphased approach toreach $15perhourby2020formost businesses, andalivingwageforhotelworkers toreachparitywiththeCityof LosAngeles hotelwageonJuly1, 2017forhotels;
2) Receive initialstaffanalysis ofCalifornia SenateBillNo. 3 \[Minimum wage; inhomesupportive services; paidsickdays\] setting aminimum wageincrease for theStateofCalifornia; and
3) Authorize budget changes asoutlined intheFinancial Impacts & BudgetActions section ofthisreport.

ExecutiveSummary
Aspartofitsactions approving aminimum wageordinance onJanuary 12, 2016 Attachment A), Council authorized theCityManager toformanad-hocworking group ofbusiness, labor, andcommunity members toaddress certain issues withinthe ordinance identified byCouncil asrequiring further discussion andclarification. The Minimum WageWorking Group hascompleted itsmeetings andrecommended changes totheordinance responding tothisdirection, which staffpresented inan Information ItemonMarch 31, 2016 (Attachment B). Staffrecommends thatCouncil service charges, sickleave, enforcement, wageschedules, andhotelhardship waiver procedure.

OnApril4, 2016, Governor JerryBrown signed intolawaminimum wageincrease schedule fortheStateofCalifornia, reaching $15perhourapproximately twoyears behind theSanta Monica ordinance, onaslightly different schedule, withtheoption to pausewageincreases basedoneconomic orStatebudget conditions. Thefirst increase isscheduled forJanuary 1, 2017. Staffdoesnotanticipate material changes t
assess itsimpact forSantaMonica andothercitiesintheregionwithminimum wage laws.
1of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1778 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Background
mumwageinSanta
Monica onJanuary 12, 2016. Theordinance reflects inputandfeedback fromSanta Monica businesses, workers, advocacy groups, andthecommunity, inaddition to subject matterresearch andexpertrecommendations. Itincludes ahotel livingwage andprovisions relating toservice charges, seasonal orfirst-timeworkers, paidsick leave, andenforcement, manyofwhichareunique toSantaMonica andreflect the process ofengaging withandincorporating feedback fromstakeholders.

Testimony attheJanuary 12thmeeting affirmed community support foraSantaMonica minimum wage. Representatives ofbusinesses, workers, advocacy groups, andthe broader community alsodrewattention toelements oftheordinance thatcouldbenefit fromclarification ormodification. Tomeettheprimary goalofadopting theminimum wageandinrecognition ofstakeholder contributions totheprocess ofdeveloping the proposed ordinance, Council adopted theordinance. Toaddress outstanding concerns, andinlightofhowrecently thelawwasadopted anditspotentially significant impacton affected parties, Council authorized theCityManager toappoint anad-hocworking groupthatwouldmeetinpublicanddevelop recommendations onissues thatCouncil identified aswarranting further discussion andclarification. TheWorking Group wagelaw, which staffpresented toCouncil inanInformation ItemonMarch 31, 2016.

Discussion
Thisreport briefly reviews theWorking Group process, presents itsrecommendations, andsummarizes therelated changes intheamended ordinance (Attachment C). Italso presents Stateminimum wagelawprovisions andapreliminary discussion ofpotential implications forSantaMonica.

Working Group
Following Council direction attheJanuary 12th, 2016meeting, theCityManager established anad-hocWorking Group. Thecharge oftheWorking Groupwastoreview 2of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1779 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) issues identified byCouncil andtorecommend changes tostrengthen theordinance or makeitclearer through revised provisions. TheWorking Group included business, labor, andcommunity representatives: fivevoting andthreeex-officio members. The Working Group metthreetimesinFebruary. Inaccordance withtheBrownAct, staff minutes, shared documents, meeting recordings, andpublic correspondence ona Minimum WageWorking Group website (Attachment E), accessible through http://www.smgov.net/minimumwage. Through discussion andagive-and-takeprocess during whichbusiness andlaborrepresentatives negotiated forcommon ground, the Working Group unanimously approved recommendations toamend theminimum wage ordinance. Thediscussion belowdescribes eachissueandrecommendation ingreater minutes andaudiorecordings, which canbefound ontheMinimum WageWorking Group website.

Issues andRecommendations
AtitsJanuary 12, 2016meeting, Council identified fiveprovisions oftheordinance for theWorking Group toevaluate andconsider, including service charges, sickleave, firsttimeworker exception, education andenforcement, andthemechanics ofwagelevel alignment andthehotelhardship waiver.

Servicecharges
Provisions inadopted ordinance
Theservice charge andsurcharge provisions intheadopted ordinance include requirements foremployers tofollow, iftheyelecttouseservice charges orother surcharges attheirbusinesses. Theordinance provisions arefocused onemployee protection andtransparency toconsumers drawing largely fromlanguage proposed by UniteHereLocal11, theRestaurant Opportunities Center (ROC), andtheCLEAN Car Washcampaign. Somekeyaspects oftheseprovisions are:
3of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1780 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Service charge proceeds mustgotoemployees whogenerally provide the service
Employees areeligible toreceive service charge proceeds unless theyhavea primarily managerial orsupervisory role
Employers mustdisclose service charge distribution toallemployees Other surcharges areallowed aslongasclearly described andusedasstated; healthcare surcharges mustbeusedentirely onemployee healthcare or otherwise spentontheemployee
Businesses mustclearly describe anycharges andtheirusetocustomers Protections areputinplaceforemployees whocurrently receive service charge proceeds forbanquets andcatering services, roomservice, andporterage service
Council direction
abuses related totheuseofsurcharges, withparticular concerns forthedefinition and implementation ofhealthcare surcharges. Council alsoasked theWorking Group to reviewandconfirm transparency requirements andconsider clarifying operational differences between hotelandrestaurant service charges. Council direction included:

Consider differentiating between hotelandnon-hotel inservice charges, especially in4.62.040(2)(A)-(C) (banquets andcatering, porterage, androom service)
Consider Alternative 2 (UniteHere, ROC, CLEAN CarWashrecommendation) aspresented toCouncil intheJanuary 12, 2016staffreport
Ensure strong transparency foremployers andconsumers (makesurecustomers areaware ofanyservice charges / surcharges before purchasing meal / hotel accommodation)
Addsupervisor definition, ifnecessary
Discussion
4of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1781 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) definition, andreviewed typical employee dutiesorrolesthatdonotfallcleanly inthese categories, thecomplexity ofmanaging funds collected toprovide foremployee healthcare, andlessons fromhealthcare surcharge litigation inSanFrancisco.

Recommendations
Working Group members approved recommendations thatclarifywhichservice charge provisions apply tohotelsonly, andthatincorporate healthcare andbenefits surcharges intotheservice charge definition andprovide narrow guidelines fortheircollection and use. Changes areincluded intherecommended ordinance, andaredetailed below:

Specify thattheprovisions inSections 4.62.040(2)(A)-(C) forbanquets and catering, porterage, androomservice, apply tohotelsonly definition anduse
Remove regulations forothersurcharges
Adddirections foruseofhealthcare surcharges toSection 4.62.040(a)(1) to control
inthedescription ofhowtodistribute service charges
Comments
Working Group members agreed ontheimportance oftransparency requirements. The groupdetermined thattheordinance language requiring businesses toprovide clear andobvious notice ofanyservice charges andtheirusemeets transparency needs.

Staffactions / commitments
AstheWorking Group recommended, theCityAttorney, incoordination withWorking Group member JeremyBlasi, developed amended language forSection 4.62.040to uponrecommendations. Thislanguage isincluded
intherevised ordinance.
5of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1782 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Within thefirstyearofimplementation, staffwillsolicitfeedback onhowemployers and employees areusingsurcharges toassess needforadditional changes orclarification.

Seasonal/First-TimeWorkers
Provision inadopted ordinance
Theadopted ordinance language buildsonaStatelawprovision forfirst-timeworkers.

Itdiffersinproviding foralongertimeframe inwhichfirst-timeworkers couldbepaid lessthantheminimum wage, toaccommodate employers withfull-timesummer orparttimelongertermseasonal workers. Theexisting provision provides for:

Exception at85% ofminimum wageforthefirst480hoursorsixmonths, whichever issooner, foremployees working inanoccupation oractivity forthe firsttime (480hours=6months@20hours, 3months@40hours).

Council direction
earnthesamewageasotheremployees, andthepossibility forincreased jobturnover inyouthorfirst-timeworker positions. Council asked theWorking Group to:

Review potential impacts onyouthemployment
Review potential forincreased jobturnover
Ifnoseasonal exemption isproposed, consider impacts tothebusinesses and theCity'sgoals forPieraffordability
Discussion
Working Group members reviewed seasonal orfirst-timeworker provisions inother cities, anddiscussed youthfinancial obligations, theimportance ofyouth employment andproviding equalpayforequalwork, andpotential forgreater employee turnover due totheordinance provision. Theyalsoconsidered costsassociated withtraining firsttimeworkers, creating pathways toemployment forfirst-timeworkers, theambiguity of aMonica aligning withestablished State
lawandwiththeCityofLosAngeles ordinance ontheissue.
6of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1783 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Recommendations
Working Group members recommended modifying theadopted ordinance tomatch the Statelearner provision: 85% oftheminimum wageforthefirst160hoursofworkinan activity inwhichtheemployee hasnosimilarorrelated experience. Theexemption is narrow, matches theState andtheCityofEmeryville, andisnotagespecific.

Comments
Regarding thepotential impact onyouthemployment, jobturnover, orpieraffordability, thegroupfeltthattherewasnotsufficient datatodrawanyreliable conclusions, butthat thesewouldbeareas tomonitor goingforward.

Staffactions / commitments
Staffcommitted toworkwiththeStatetocl
research yields insufficient information, staffcouldpromulgate administrative regulations clarifying useoftheprovision. Stafffurther agreed toinclude information related tothis area, including information gathered fromtheState, asapartoffrequently asked questions orasimilar guide toaccompany theminimum wageordinance.

SickLeave
Provision inadopted ordinance
Theadopted ordinance provides forsickleaveinexcess ofStatelaw, andmatches Stateconditions foruse. Itprovides that:

Employees accrue 1hourforevery30hoursworked (same asState). Accrual capis72hours (9days) forbusinesses with26ormoreemployees; and40 hours (5days) forsmaller businesses.

Accrued timecanbeusedforsickleaveonly; employees cancarryoverhoursup totheaccrual cap; theabilitytocashoutsickleaveisnotrequired.

Council direction
7of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1784 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Council responded tobusiness ownerandworker advocacy concerns regarding the increase insickdaysandpotential issues withuse. Council asked theWorking Group to:

Review proposals forphasing indays (9days / 5daysdepending onsizeof business), orestablishing 6daysforallbusinesses
Consider logistics issues forbusinesses (i.e. useofaccrued sickleavebefore ending employment)
Ensure strong worker protections foruseofsickleave
Discussion
Thegroup discussed logistics related tosickleaveadministration andtheimpact on businesses oftheincreases required intheordinance, including potential foremployee abuse ofsickdays. Thegroupalsodiscussed howlarger andsmaller businesses differ intheirability toprovide sickleave.

Recommendations
TheWorking Group recommended phasing intherequired sickleaveovertwoyears, withaJanuary instead ofJulystartdate, toprovide businesses additional timetoadjust operations andconduct workforce planning inconsideration ofincreased sickleave amounts. Theirrecommendation wouldphase insickdaysasfollows:

January 1, 2017: 4days (smallbusinesses); 5days (largebusinesses) January 1, 2018: 5days (smallbusinesses); 9days (largebusinesses) Thegroupalsorecommended removing aprovision stating thatemployers canrequire employees toprovide reasonable notification ofanabsence (4.62.025(g)), given that Stateguidelines foruseofsickleaveaddress theissue.

Comments
Working Group members considered thelogistics issues discussed attheCouncil meeting, including thepotential thatanemployee could choose totakeuptoninesick daysupongivingnotice, whichwouldcreatesignificant difficulties foremployers. While 8of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1785 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) employers agreed thatthisandsimilarissues mayoccur, andlaboradvocates expressed willingness toworkwithemployers ontheseissues, groupconsensus was thatState laborregulations govern useofsickleave, andanyeffortsSantaMonica mightmakewouldnotsupersede theseorchange employer requirements.

Staffactions / commitments
Inaddition totheWorking Group recommendations, staffrecommends thefollowing minoradjustments toclarify theordinance provisions andalignsickleaverequirements withState law. These arethefollowing:

Modify language toshowthataccrual ofpaidsickdaysbegins uponthehiredate theprovision thatemployees cannot usesickleaveuntilthe90thdayof employment wouldbeunchanged).

Insertlanguage clarifying thatsickleavecanbecarried overtothenextcalendar orfiscalyear, asisthecaseinSanFrancisco andOakland.

Educationandenforcement
Provision inadopted ordinance
Theadopted ordinance requires businesses topostminimum wagelawrequirements andretainpayroll andotherrecords; provides forfines, administrative citations, and criminal penalties; givesemployees private rightofact
feesandcosts, andincludes retaliation protection. These provisions arecommon among other minimum wageordinances, andareamong those thattheUCLALabor Center andotherworker advocacy groups recommend.

Council direction
enforcement provisions becomprehensive; andresponded tobusiness testimony about excessive penalties. Council alsoasked thegrouptoconsider outreach andeducation Group to:

Ensure enforcement provisions forgrievances adequately protectworkers 9of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1786 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Ensure recordkeeping requirements apply toallareasoftheordinance Review thepenalty accrual provisions (e.g. daily vs. bypayperiod); andreview Suggest bestpractices foroutreach toemployees andemployers Discussion
TheWorking Group discussed reasons forandpotential unintended consequences of theordinance enforcement provisions, focusing onretaliation andpenalty guidelines.

Members balanced theneedforstrongdeterrents against retaliation, wagetheft, and otherviolations withthepotential forunfounded andcostly lawsuits incentivized byhigh penalty limits. Members alsoconsidered theinterpretation ofcompensation andnonwagebenefits inthecontext ofadjustments employers areprohibited frommaking to fundthewageincrease. Thegroupdiscussed thetypeofemployer activity thatwould reasonably constitute avalidwageclaim, andwaystodecrease thechance thatsmaller misdemeanor penalties escalate intoextreme situations thatmightforcebusinesses to close. Thegroupalsodiscussed somebestpractices foroutreach andeducation, including reference toSanFrancisco asamodel.

Recommendations
Working Groupmembers agreed onadjustments toprovide flexibility inpenalty assessments, theneedtobetterdifferentiate regular operational adjustments from unlawful compensation orotherbenefitreductions, andthealignment oftheSanta Monica ordinance withLosAngeles andSanFrancisco forlength ofrebuttable presumption period (thetimeduring whichanegative employment action ispresumed toberetaliatory). Specifically, therecommendations would:

Reduce therebuttable presumption period from180to90days (matching San Francisco andLosAngeles)
Moreclosely define unlawful practices tothosechanges madetodirectly fund required wages andbenefits
Incivilpenalt
penalties inthecaseofwillfulviolations ratherthanarequirement todoso. 10of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1787 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Staffactions / commitments
Staffwillreview theordinance inoneyear, ashasbeendoneforsomeothernewCity ordinances, toassess needforfurther adjustments. Staffcommitted tofurther researching SanFrancisco education andenforcement practices, including working with community-based organizations, andwillfollowtheserecommendations totheextent Stateandotherregional partners oneducation andenforcement where feasible and beneficial.

OtherTopics
Provisions inadopted ordinance
WageRates
Theadopted ordinance proposes twonewwagerateswhichdifferfromeachother (the minimum wageandhotel livingwage), and, because oftiming, fromtheCityofLos toce
hotelrates. Theadopted ordinance provides for:

General minimum wage at $15perhourby2020, increasing bytheconsumer priceindex starting in2022
Hotelwage at $15.37perhourby2017, increasing bytheconsumer priceindex starting in2018 (oneyearbehind LosAngeles)
ThelivingwageforCitycontractors withannual agreements greaterthan $52,400 (in Chapter 4.26ofthemunicipal code) willbe $15.87perhourinFY2016-17, and increases annually bytheconsumer priceindex (CPI).

Hotelhardship waiver provision
Theordinance provides foraone-yearwaiver uponapproval forhotels that1) would needtocutstaffbymorethan20% toavoid bankruptcy and/orshutdownOR2) would needtocuthoursbymorethan30% toavoidbankruptcy and/orshutdown. Inthis provision, theFinance Director would grantawaiver based onexpert externalreview of 11of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1788 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ppealthe
decision toahearing examiner.

Council direction
Toavoid confusion andinresponse toconcern about hotelworker paritywithLos Angeles, Councilrequested areview ofoptions forstreamlining wage rates. Council alsorequested thattheWorking Group consider waystomake thehotelhardship waiver process moretransparent. Direction wasto:

Alignvarious wagerates (general minimum wage, hotelwage, Citylivingwage, LAhotels) overtime
Discuss potential toincorporate publichearing orworkertestimony intohotel hardship process, withoutrequiring hoteltoshareprivate financial information.

Discussion
Thegroup discussed timing oftheSanta Monica hotelwageincrease andopportunities formatching LosAngeles. Theydiscussed thehardship waiverprocess, including the typeofanalysis andreview necessary tomakethedetermination required bythe ordinance.

Recommendations.

TheWorking Grouprecommended amending theordinance tomatch theLosAngeles hotelwage, whichwillbe $15.37perhourplusaninflation measure, onJuly1, 2017, 1, 2018.

Thegrouprecommended thattheordinance require ahotelapplying forawaiverto notify itsemployees
accessible toallemployees. Thiswouldafford workers theopportunity tobeheard in Staffactions / commitments
12of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1789 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Staffwillassess whenandbywhatmethod itmakes themostsense toadjust theliving wageapplied toCitycontractors based oninflation measures inthenexttwoyears.

TheWorking Group unanimously approved therecommendations above.

StateofCalifornia Minimum WageBill
Governor JerryBrown signedSenate BillNo. 3 (Minimum wage; in-homesupportive services; paidsickdays) intolawonApril4, 2016.

Majorprovisions
Thelawrequires incremental minimum wageincreases to $15perhour, andextends theStatesickleaveprovision toin-homesupportive services (IHSS) workers, following theschedule below:

Year* WageRate** SickLeave
LargeBusinesses SmallBusinesses IHSSWorkers
26ormoreemployees) ( 25orfeweremployees)
2017 $ 10.50 $ 10.00
2018 $ 11.00 $ 10.50 8hours
2019 $ 12.00 $ 11.00
2020 $ 13.00 $ 12.00 *** 16hours
2021 $ 14.00 $ 13.00
2022 $ 15.00 $ 14.00 *** 24hours
2023 $ 15.00 $ 15.00
WageratesareeffectiveJanuary1stofeachyear. SickleavehoursareeffectiveJuly1st.

Thewagerateprogressiondepends onannualassessment ofeconomic andbudgetconditions describedbelow. 13of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1790 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Sickleavethresholds beyondtheinitial8hourrequirement arelinkedtothelargebusiness wagerate thresholds ($13perhourand $15perhour) ratherthantheyear.

Following theminimum wagereaching itsfinaltargetof $15perhourintheschedule for largeandsmallbusinesses, thewagewillincrease annually bythelesserof3.5% orthe July-JuneCPIinflation measure.

Thelawprovides theGovernor anoption topause increases inthisschedule ifheor shedetermines thateithereconomic orbudget conditions demonstrate thattheState cannot support thenextscheduled increase. TheGovernor willindicate hisorher swageincrease bySeptember 1priortotheplanned
increase, andwouldmakethisdecision byproclamation. TheGovernor canpause increases amaximum oftwotimes. Thus, thelatestthattheState minimum wage wouldreach $15perhouris2025forlargeand2026forsmaller businesses.

Economic conditions
TheGovernor maychoose tosuspend thenextscheduled increase ifeitherA) orB) is metANDC) ismet.

A. Employment decrease forthreemonths fromApriltoJunepriortotheadjustment totalnonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted)
B. Employment decrease forsixmonths fromJanuary toJunepriortothe adjustment (totalnonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted) C. SalesandUsetaxreceipts showanannual decrease (July1toJune30before theincrease)
Budget condition
TheGovernor maychoose tosuspend thenextscheduled increase iftheStateGeneral Fundwouldbeinadeficitineitherthecurrent oreitherofthetwofollowing fiscalyears defined asanegative balance intheSpecial FundforEconomic Uncertainties that exceeds 1percent oftotalstateGeneral Fundrevenue andtransfers).

Implications forSantaMonica
14of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1791 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Whenoverlapping laborlawsexist, employers mustabidebythemostgenerous and erateforlargeandsmall
businesses andforhotelswillbemoregenerous thanthose required bytheState law; thusthislawdoesnotchange circumstances materially forSantaMonica businesses or workers. There isoneexemption thatwillbelessimportant foraffected organizations because ofthehigherState law:

Transitionalworkerexemption Theordinance provides forbelow minimum wagepayments foremployers thatprovide transitional jobsforthehardest to employ duringthefirst18months ofth
Thisexemption wouldstillbevalid, butwillprovide lessreliefforthetransitional employer.

SantaMonica employers should alsobeaware ofoneareawhereStateminimum wage lawrequirements aremoregenerous thanthoseprescribed inthelocal law:

IHSSsickleaverequirements Affected providers inSantaMonica mustabide bytheStatelawrequiring sickdays, although theseemployers areexempt from thelocalsickleaveandminimum wagerequirements.

Regional implications andactions
LosAngeles CityandCounty staffarereviewing theStatelawtodetermine howifatall itwillimpacttheirrespective minimum wagelaws. Staffwillcontinue tocoordinate with LosAngeles CityandCounty, andotherareacitieswithlocalminimum wage ordinances, andcommunicate anyresponse toCityCouncil.

Alternatives
resultinmoving forward withtheordinance asadopted onJanuary 12th, 2016.

Therecommended changes represent significant thought andresearch fromWorking Group members, andreflect compromises toprovide workable solutions forsome difficult andcontentious issues. Staffbelieves thattheproposed changes make the 15of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1792 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ordinance stronger andclearer, andrecommends thatCouncil adopttheordinance with therecommended amendments.

NextSteps
IfCouncil adopts theamended ordinance, thelawwouldproceed tosecond reading and gointoeffectafter30days. Staffwouldthencontinue withactivities related toits implementation.

Communication, Outreach andEducation, Enforcement
webpage athttp://www.smgov.net/minimumwage (Attachment D), andresponds to minimum wagequestions. Internally, staffhasprepared acommunications plan building onexisting business andcommunity networks andresources; communications tiononproposed amendments. Staffisalso
coordinating withLosAngeles County oncommunication andoutreach efforts, to maximize existing resources andprovide aconsistent regional message.

Staffiscontinuing discussion withtheLosAngeles County Department ofConsumer andBusiness Affairs (DCBA) WageEnforcement Program (WEP) toprovide enforcement services forSantaMonica, andwillreturntoCouncil withapartnership proposal before theendofthefiscalyear.

IntheJanuary 12, 2016report, staffproposed aninitialbudget of $80,000tofundthe BasedOrganizations (CBOs), butdidnotformally request thebudgetatthattime. Staff requests anappropriation of $80,000tofundtheseactivities, basedontheamount that SanFrancisco appropriates forCBOcontracts annually.

Reporting
AstheWorking Group requested, andasCouncil andtheCityManager suggested at theJanuary 12th, 2016adoption, staffwill
willreporttoCouncil onlessons learned.
16of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1793 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) FinancialImpactsandBudgetActions
Thereisnoimmediate financial impactorbudget action necessary asaresultofthe recommended action. Approving abudget forcommunication, outreach andeducation efforts requires thefollowing FY2015-16appropriation:
01221.555060 $ 80,000
Theamount includes one-timecostsforcommunication, outreach, andeducation efforts associated withthenewminimum wagelaw. Itislikelythatstaffwillrequire anongoing annual amount fortheservices. Staffwillrequest thebudget atalatertimewithbetter information about ongoing program needs.

PreparedBy: Stephanie Lazicki, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved ForwardedtoCouncil
Attachments:

A. January 12, 2016 (Weblink)
B. Information Item - Minimum WageWorking Group Recommendations C. Amended Minimum Wage Ordinance
D. Minimum WageWebsite
E. Minimum WageWorking Group website
F. Written comments
17of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1794 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) G. Powerpoint
18of18

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1795 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

ATTACHMENTB
Information Item
Date:March30, 2016
To: Mayor andCityCouncil
From: GigiDecavalles-Hughes, Finance Director
AndyAgle, Housing andEconomic Development Director
Subject: Minimum WageWorking Group Recommendations
Introduction
This report presents theMinimum Wage Working Group recommendations foramending onJanuary 12, 2016. Staff
willpresent Council witharevised ordinance, incorporating these recommendations, on April26, 2016.

Background
developed through eightmonths ofcommunity,
business, andlabor engagement anddiscussion. Continuing thisopenandparticipatory process, Council directed theCityManager toformanadhocMinimum Wage Working Group (Working Group) toaddress technical issues Council members identified when theyadopted theminimum wage ordinance onJanuary 12, 2016. These issues include elements oftheservice charge andsickleave provision, discussion ofthefirsttimeworker provision, approaches toeducation andenforcement, andalignment ofSanta Monica minimum wage levels. Council directed thattheWorking Group discuss theidentified issues andrecommend modifications thatwould helptostrengthen andclarify the ordinance. Thisreport shares theWorking Group recommendations toprovide the community, stakeholder groups, andCouncil withinformation regarding thepolicy direction oftherevised ordinance.
1 10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1796 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

ATTACHMENTB
Discussion
Council authorized theCityManager toestablish theWorking Group: asmall body representing Santa Monica business, labor, andcommunity members. TheCityManager appointed thefollowing individuals:

Voting Members
Hunter Hall, Santa Monica Neighborhood Restaurant Coalition Stephen Sowards, LeMéridien Delfina Santa Monica Hotel
Jeremy Blasi, UniteHere Local11
Sophia Cheng, Restaurant Opportunities Center
Frank Gruber, Santa Monica resident (Chair)
Ex-officio / Non-voting Members
JeffKlocke, Pacific Park
Paloma Nicholas, Santa Monica HighSchoolStudent
CarlHansen, Santa Monica Chamber ofCommerce
Inaccordance withtheBrownAct, staffposted Working Group agendas through theCity public correspondence onaMinimum WageWorking Group website, accessible from http://www.smgov.net/minimumwage.

TheWorking Group metonFebruary 17, February 24, andFebruary 29, 2016. Thepublic waswelcome toattend allmeetings, andeachmeeting included public testimony.

Estimated public attendance, inaddition toWorking Group members andstaff, wasas follows:

February 17: 2
February 24: 40
February 29: 25
2 10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1797 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

ATTACHMENTB
Representatives
Department, andtheFinance Department alsoattended eachWorking Group meeting.

The
Working Group members discussed theissues thatCouncil outlined forfurther discussion andresolution. Thegroup considered information thatstakeholders andWorking Group members submitted regarding Council-identified issues for consideration, resources recommended byvarious Working Group members, andinformation and clarifications requested fromstaff. Following discussion oftheissues, members Therecommendations reflect acomplete setofrecommendations bytheWorking Group members, withrepresentatives ofbusiness andlabor seeking toreach common ground through prioritization ofissues andgive-and-takenegotiations. Theissue listwith associated Working Group recommendations isincluded asAttachment A.

Staffwillpresent anamended ordinance incorporating these recommendations forfirst reading onApril26, 2016.

OnMarch 28, 2016, Governor JerryBrown announced aproposal toincrease theState minimum wage gradually to $15by2022 formost businesses, withaone-yeardelay for businesses with25orfewer employees. Thisplanreaches $15perhourtwoyears after Santa Monica, andonaslightly different wage schedule. Theproposal alsoincludes options topause wage increases based oneithereconomic orbudget challenges. This initial proposal mustgothrough State Legislature review andvote. Staffwillcontinue to monitor theprocess, andwillprovide additional information asavailable, including any implications for law, withtherevised ordinance onApril26, 2016.

PreparedBy: Stephanie Lazicki
Attachments
A. Minimum Wage Issue ListandRecommendations
3 10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1798 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

ATTACHMENTB

ATTACHMENT A
aƒ Da
wƒƒ L
CouncilDirectiona.Reviewproposals for phasingin days (9days / 5daysdepending on size ofbusiness), orestablishing 6days
forallbusinessesb.Considerlogistics issuesfor businesses (i.e. useofaccruedsickleave before endingemployment) c.Ensurestrongsick leaveuse
protection (ROC
recommendation) OrdinanceRecommendations: Phaseinsick
daysas follows: January1, 2017: 4days (small businesses); 5 days (large businesses) January1, 2018: 5days (small businesses); 9 days (largebusinesses) Clarifythataccrualofpaidsickdaysbeginsuponthehiredatebutemployees cannotuseuntilthe90th dayofemployment (Section 4.

62.025(a)) Addlanguage clarifyingthataccrualcapmaybe measured bycalendar, fiscal, or date
ofhireyear. RemoveSection 4.62.025(g) toavoidconfusionwiththeStatesickleavelaw regulations foruse ofsickleave (noteSection 4.62.025(c) provides thatemployeesmayuse paidsickleaveconsistentwithState sickleavelaws). Thisprovisionensuresstrongsickleave use protection foremployees. Additionalclarification mayberequired inthe Ordinance. L
9 9ƒ Council Directiona.Ensureenforcement provisions for grievances adequatelyprotectworkersb.Ensurerecordkeepingrequirements applyto all areasofordinance c.Review thepenalty accrualprovisions ( e.g. daily vs. bypayperiod); review
San Franciscowaiverprovisiond.Suggestbestpractices foroutreach toemployees
andemployersOrdinance Recommendations: Reducetherebuttablepresumption periodfrom 180to90days (Section

4. 62.070(a)). Section

4.62. 110(a)). Other Recommendations: Citytoreviewthe Ordinance inoneyear, similartoactionstaken for someothernewordinances, toassess
needforfurther adjustments. CitytoresearchSanFrancisco educationandenforcement practices, includingworking withcommunitybasedorganizations, andfollowtheserecommendations. City toworkwithStateandother

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1799 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

ATTACHMENTB

ATTACHMENT A
L h
CouncilDirection
a.Alignvariouswagerates (generalminimumwage, hotelwage, Citylivingwage; tietoLAhotels) overtime
b.Potentialtoincorporate publichearingorworkertestimony intohotelhardshipprocess, without requiringhoteltoshareprivatefinancialinformation
OrdinanceRecommendations:

AligntheSantaMonicahotelwagetotheLosAngeleshotelwageonJuly1, 2017. AlignSanta onJuly1, 2018.

Includeaprovisiontonotifyemployeesofanyhotelhardshipwaiverapplication, toaffordthe opportunity foremployees tobeheardintheexistingadministrative hearingprocess.

L
CouncilDirection
a.Considerdifferentiating betweenhotelandnon-hotelinservicecharges, especially in4.62.040(2)(a) banquetsandcatering)
b.ConsiderAlternative 2 (UniteHererecommendation)
c.Ensurestrongtransparency foremployers andconsumers (makesurecustomers areawareofany servicecharges / surcharges beforepurchasing meal / hotelaccommodation) d.Addsupervisor definitiontostatute
OrdinanceRecommendations:

Specifythattheprovisions in4.62.040(2)(A-C) forbanquets / catering, porterage, androom service, applytohotelsonly
nitionand
use.

Removeregulations forothersurcharges.

Adddirectionsforuseofhealthcare surcharges to4.62.040(a)(1) toensurerelatedrevenueis orothercompens
description ofhowtodistributeservicecharges (Section4.62.040(a)) OtherRecommendations:
discussed duringthemeeting,
careorbenefitsurcharge revenueistransparent totheworkerandunderhisorhercontrol, whileattemptingtoaccommodate existinghealthcareplansthatmeet TheCityAttorneywouldmeetwithJeremyBlasitoreviewlanguage andensurethatitis consistentwiththeWorkingGroupdiscussion andagreement.

Withinfirstyear, Citytosolicitfeedbackonhowemployers andemployees areusing healthcare/benefitsurcharges inordertoassesstheneedforadditional changes.

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1800 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

ATTACHMENTB

ATTACHMENT A
L C
Council
Direction a.Reviewpotential impactsonyouth
employmentb.Reviewpotentialforincreased job
turnover c.Ifnoseasonal exemption, considerimpactstothebusinessesandCity'sgoalforPier affordabilityOrdinance
Recommendations Decrease thehours intheexemption tomatchtheStatelearner provision: 85% ofthe minimumwagefor160 hours. Theexemption wouldalignwiththeStateand Emeryville, andisnot age specific (Section4.62.015(
e)). Other
RecommendationsCitytoworkwiththeState DivisionofLaborStandards Enforcementoseekaformal opinionletterinorderto clarify . Ifthisresearchyields
insufficient information, staffcouldpromulgate administrative regulations clarifyinguseofthe provision. Citytoincludeinformation relatedtothistopicnfrequentlyaskedquestionsorsimilarguide toaccompany theminimumwage
ordinance. Thereisnot
sufficiimpactonyouth employment, job turnover, orpier affordability. Theissuesshould bemonitoredgoing

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1801 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1802 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1803 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1804 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1805 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1806 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1807 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1808 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1809 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1810 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1811 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1812 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1813 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1814 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1815 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1816 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1817 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1818 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1819 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1820 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1821 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1822 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1823 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Addto7-C
04/26/2016
AnneSamartha
From: CarlHansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April26, 20165:25PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SantaMonicaChamberSupportLetter - Item7C - April26thCouncilMeeting - Modifications totheMinimum WageOrdinance
FollowUpFlag: Followup
FlagStatus: Completed
5/
hƒ
a/
a
CarlHansen Directorof Government AffairsLaurelRosen IPresident / CEO CommerceSanta MonicaChamber Santa Monica Chamberof
Street, Suite 100th of Commerce 12346
Suite100th 12346Street,
Santa

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1824 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) MinimumWageLaw
Modifications
SantaMonicaCityCouncil
April26, 2016

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1825 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Background
Jan. 12, 2016CouncilAction
MinimumWageWorkingGroup
PackageofRecommendations

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1826 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) CouncilDirection:

ServiceCharges
SickLeave
First-timeWorkerException
Enforcement
WageLevelAlignment
HotelHardship

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1827 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) ServiceCharges:

Clarifyhotel-specificservice-chargeprovisions
Includehealthcareandbenefitssurcharges
Provideguidelinesforhealthcareandbenefitssurcharges

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1828 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) SickLeave
PhaseinwithJanuarystartdate
January1, 2017: 4days / 5days
January1, 2018: 5days / 9days
Removeemployeenotification

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1829 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) First-timeWorkerException
MatchState “Learner” provision
85% minimumwageforfirst160hours
Noagerestriction

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1830 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Enforcement
Adjustperiodoftimewhereretaliationispresumed
Betterdefineunlawfulcompensationorotherbenefitreductions Provideflexibilityincivilpenaltyassessments

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1831 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) WageLevelAlignment / HotelHardship:

HotelwageparitywithLosAngelesonJuly1, 2017
AligncontractorlivingwagewithhotelwageonJuly1, 2018
Requireemployeenotificationforhotelsseekingahardshipwaiver

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1832 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) KeyDates:

July1, 2016: Minimum WageIncreaseEffective
January 1, 2017: SickLeaveIncreaseEffective
Fall2017: One-YearAssessment

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1833 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Short-TermActions
Communication:

NoticesandAds
Resources
SocialMediaCampaign
Enforcement:

LACounty
Community-BasedOrganizations

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1834 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) OngoingActions:

Monitorimplementation
Review annually
Review partners’ efforts
Evaluate potential modifications
Coordinate regionally

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1835 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage)

QUESTIONS
www.smgov.net/minimumwage

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1836 Attachment: Staff Report Minimum Wage April 26, 2016 [Revision 1] (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) (i)
1 with health benefits as provided in Section 10.37.3 of this article, the Employee shall be paid the following:

Section 1 Paragraph (i) of Section 10.37.2(a)(2) of Article 11, Division 10 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code is amended to read as follows:

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
.An ordinance amending Sections 10.37.2 and 10.37.3 of Article 11, Division 10 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code and Sections 186.02 and 186.04 of Article 6 of Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to revise wage and health benefit provisions for airport employees and hotel workers in the City of Los Angeles.

ORDINANCE NO. 188944
g. Beginning on July 1,2030, and annually thereafter on July 1, the hourly wage rate for an Employee of an Employer servicing the Airport shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The DAA shall announce the adjusted rates on February 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s CPI-W, whichever is a. Beginning on July 1,2025, the wage rate for an
Employee shall be no less than $22.50 per hour.
e. Beginning on July 1,2029, the wage rate for an
Employee shall be no less than $29.00 per hour.
d. Beginning on July 1,2028, the wage rate for an
Employee shall be no less than $28.50 per hour.
c. Beginning on July 1,2027, the wage rate for an
Employee shall be no less than $25.50 per hour.
b. Beginning on July 1, 2026, the wage rate for an
Employee shall be no less than $25.00 per hour.
f. Beginning on January 1, 2030, the wage rate for an
Employee shall be no less than $30.00 per hour.

If an Employer servicing the Airport provides an Employee

10.A.f
Packet Pg. 1837 Attachment: City of Los Angeles Ordinance 188944 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted hourly wage rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year.

Beginning on July 1, 2028, the payment amount for health benefits provided to an Employee working for an Employer servicing the Airport shall be at least a rate per hour equal to $8.35 as adjusted by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare’s Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year.

The DAA shall announce the adjusted rate on April 1st, 2028 or within two weeks of the release of the prioryear’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rate, which shall take effect on July 1,2028.

Sec. 2. Subparagraph c. of Section 10.37.2(a)(2)(H) of Article 11, Division 10 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code is amended to read as follows:

Beginning on July 1, 2029, and annually thereafter each July 1, the payment amount for health benefits provided to an Employee working for an Employer servicing the Airport shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the California Department of Managed Healthcare’s Large Group Aggregate Rates (LGAR) report, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The DAA shall announce the adjusted rates on April 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prior year’s LGAR report, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take effect on July 1st of each year. (a) Health Benefits. The health benefits required by this article shall consist of the payment by an Employer of at least $1.25 per hour to Employees towards the provision of health care benefits for an Employee and dependents. Beginning on July 1, 2025, the payment amount for health benefits provided to an Employee working for an Employer servicing the Airport shall be at least $7.65 an hour.

Sec. 3. Subsection (a) of Section 10.37.3 of Article 11, Division 10 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Beginning on July 1, 2027, the payment amount for health benefits provided to an Employee working for an Employer servicing the Airport shall be at least $8.15 an hour.
(1) Proof of the provision of such benefits must be submitted to the Awarding Authority to qualify for the wage rate in Section 10.37.2(a) for an Employee with health benefits.
c. Beginning on July 1, 2027, an Employer servicing the Airport shall pay an Employee an additional wage rate per hour equal to the health benefit payment in effect for an Employee pursuant to Section 10.37.3(a).
2 10.A.f
Packet Pg. 1838 Attachment: City of Los Angeles Ordinance 188944 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 3 Sec. 4. Subdivision 1. of Section 186.02.A. of Article 6, Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(3) If the Employer’s hourly health benefit payment is less than that required under this article, the difference shall be paid to the Employee as an additional hourly wage.
(2) Health benefits include health coverage, dental, vision, mental health, and disability income. For purposes of this article, retirement benefits, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, life insurance and other benefits that do not provide medical or health related coverage will not be credited toward the cost of providing an Employee with health benefits.
(e) Beginning on July 1,2029, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $29.00 per hour.
(a) Beginning on July 1,2025, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $22.50 per hour.
(g) Beginning on July 1,2030, and annually thereafter on July 1, the hourly wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be adjusted higher by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, as measured from January to December of the preceding year. The Division shall announce the adjusted rates on February 1st, or within two weeks of the release of the prioryear’s CPI-W, whichever is later, and publish a bulletin announcing the adjusted hourly wage rates, which shall take effect (b) Beginning on July 1,2026, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $25.00 per hour.
(c) Beginning on July 1,2027, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $25.50 per hour.
(d) Beginning on July 1,2028, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $28.50 per hour.
(f) Beginning on January 1,2030, the wage rate for a Hotel Worker shall be no less than $30.00 per hour.

1. If a Hotel Employer provides a Hotel Worker with health benefits as provided in Section 186.04 of this article, the Hotel Worker shall be paid the following:
(4) Health benefits are not required to be paid on overtime hours.

10.A.f
Packet Pg. 1839 Attachment: City of Los Angeles Ordinance 188944 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) D. Health benefits are not required to be paid on overtime hours. 4 Sec. 6. Section 186.04 of Article 6, Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Sec. 5. Subdivision 2. of Section 186.02.A. of Article 6, Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Beginning on July 1, 2026, the health benefits required by this article shall consist of the payment per hour, by a Hotel Employer towards the provision of health care benefits for a Hotel Worker, equal to $4.25.

Beginning on July 1, 2027, the health benefits required by this article shall consist of the payment per hour, by a Hotel Employer towards the provision of health care benefits for a Hotel Worker, equal to $6.00.

Beginning on July 1, 2028, and annually thereafter each July 1, the health benefits required by this article shall consist of the payment per hour, by a Hotel Employer towards the provision of health care benefits for a Hotel Worker and dependents, equal to the health benefit payment in effect for an Employee of an Employer servicing the Airport pursuant to Section 10.37.3(a) of the Los Angeles Administrative Code.

C. If the Hotel Employer’s hourly health benefit payment is less than that required under this article, the difference shall be paid to the Hotel Worker as an additional hourly wage.

A. To be exempt from having to pay a Hotel Worker with health benefits the wage rate in Section 186.02 A.2., a Hotel Employer shall keep proof of the provision of such health benefits on file at the Hotel, and such proof shall be provided to the Division upon request.

B. Health benefits include health coverage, dental, vision, mental health, and disability income. For purposes of this article, retirement benefits, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, life insurance and other benefits that do not provide medical or health related coverage will not be credited toward the cost of providing a Hotel Worker with health benefits.

2. If a Hotel Employer does not provide a Hotel Worker with health benefits as provided in Section 186.04 of this article, the Hotel Worker shall be paid the applicable wage rate in Section 186.02.A. 1, and an additional wage rate equal to the health benefit payment in effect pursuant to Section 186.04. on July 1st of each year.

10.A.f
Packet Pg. 1840 Attachment: City of Los Angeles Ordinance 188944 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney
By

CITY CLERK MAYOR
2y.
[M:\Workers' Rights DivisionORDINANCES AND REPORTS\Final Ordinances\Ordinance 5.19.26 Revise Wage amd Benefit Provisions to Hotel and Airport Workers.docx
The Clerk of the City of Los Angeles
hereby certifies that the foregoing
ordinance was passed by the Council
of the City of Los Angeles.

Zill!///

DANIA MINASSIAN
Deputy City Attorney
Sec. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public places in the City of Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records. 05/26/2026 Ordinance Passed May 26, 2026 Approved_________ Ordinance Published: 05/29/2026
Ordinance Effective Date: 06/29/2026
File No. 25-1466
Date 102(
Approved as to Form and Legality

10.A.f
Packet Pg. 1841 Attachment: City of Los Angeles Ordinance 188944 (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kamran Khosrovani <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 7:12 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Kamran Khosrovani
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1842 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 11:37 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, My friend works at the Shore Hotel. They are barely keeping afloat. There are so many challenges to running a hotel, especially in Santa Monica.

Although, short term rentals are not allowed in Santa Monica, there are four units that do two or three day rentals on my block. Why stay at a hotel and pay all the taxes when you can stay at a much cheaper Airbnb?
I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists. We do not have to guess at the consequences.

An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures.

This ordinance will make things significantly worse. Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council.

Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1843 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 3 I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda

2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote

3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica

4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal

5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1844 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 6:22 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council,

I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda. This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists. We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures.

This ordinance will make things significantly worse. Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely. I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to: 1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first. Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1845 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 6 David Yakobson
From: Lesley Bracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 8:57 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.
*** By the way — I’m really tired of what this city council is doing to our city. It is unrecognizable, and an embarrassment when I look at Santa Monica through a tourist’s eyes. The Promenade is a disgrace, a ghost town.

What was once thriving is now dead and ugly. And now you want to make hotels an empty shell? Disgraceful. **** Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1846 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 8 David Yakobson
From: Anne Dudek <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 9:27 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Anne Baxter
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1847 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 9 David Yakobson
From: Betsy Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 10:25 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Betsy Katz
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1848 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 10 David Yakobson
From: Jason Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Jason Moore
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1849 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 11 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:21 PM
To: John Alle
Subject: EMERGENCY: STOP CITY HALL'S RUSHED HOTEL ORDINANCE BEFORE IT RUINS SANTA MONICA!n my

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I just signed the petition “EMERGENCY: STOP CITY HALL'S RUSHED HOTEL ORDINANCE BEFORE IT RUINS SANTA MONICA!” and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

Our goasl is to reach 35.000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
https://c.org/cZDqxBXRM4
Thanks!
John
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY

THE SANTA MONICA COALITION / SAFE CITIES
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1850 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 12 David Yakobson
From: Jon Farzam <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 9:29 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A - Hotel Wage Ordinance - June 9 Council Meeting Attachments: Written Statement for Council v3.docx

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmembers:

My name is Jon Farzam and I am the CEO of Shore Hotel, Ocean View Hotel, and Santa Monica Hotel, businesses my family has independently owned and operated in Santa Monica for decades. We are deeply invested in this community – not as a corporate entity managing assets from a distant headquarters, but as people who grew up here, pay taxes here, and care deeply about the long-term health of this city.

I am submitting this statement to express my strong opposition to the “emergency” adoption of Agenda Item 10A and to urge the Council to remove this item from Tuesday’s agenda.

Our businesses are already operating under significant financial pressure. Like every hotel in Santa Monica, our visitor levels, remain dramatically below pre-pandemic levels. Our costs - insurance, utilities, financing, supplies – have risen sharply. Our ability to raise room rates is constrained by a market that is already at or beyond what guests will bear, particularly given that Santa Monica charges one of the highest Transient Occupancy Tax rates in the state.

Against that backdrop, the proposed ordinance would immediately impose a base wage of $25 per hour plus a mandatory health benefit contribution of $4.25 per hour for any worker not enrolled in a qualifying plan ($29.25 per hour total), with no distinction between full-time and part-time employees, and no consideration of employees who have already declined benefits because they are covered under a spouse's plan. By 2030, the total mandated compensation and health benefit will reach $38.35 per hour or more depending on CPI, with costs escalating further every year.

We do not have to speculate about what this means. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels where this same ordinance took effect in September 2025 found that within six months, 6% of hotel jobs were already eliminated or at risk, 14 hotel restaurants had closed or were expected to close, and 58% of hotels expected to be unprofitable by end of 2026.

Santa Monica's hotels are in a more fragile position than Los Angeles hotels were when that ordinance took effect.

The damage here will be worse. Unlike a large city with thousands of hotel rooms, Santa Monica cannot afford to lose its hospitality industry. Our entire economic identity depends on it.

If this ordinance passes, you will be making a decision that pushes independent Santa Monica hotels, including mine, toward insolvency. That is not hyperbole. That is the math.

I would also like to be very direct about something that is being deliberately obscured in this process.

Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1851 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 13 As you know (but most community members don’t), this ordinance applies exclusively to non-union hotels. Every hotel in Santa Monica whose workers are covered by a Unite Here Local 11 collective bargaining agreement is completely exempt. Not partially exempt. Completely. They face none of these wage mandates. None of these benefit requirements. They compete with us for the same guests, the same conventions, the same tourism dollars, but they do not carry any of this burden.

If this ordinance were genuinely about protecting hotel workers, it would protect all hotel workers equally. Every worker in every hotel, union or not, would be covered by the same standard. The fact that it is carefully and deliberately structured to fall entirely on non-union properties reveals the true motive.

This is not worker protection. This is a coordinated effort to use the force of city law to financially strangle independent, non-union hotels into submission and to make non-union operation so economically painful that we have no choice but to unionize or close. Unite Here Local 11 is using this Council as its proxy. And this Council, six of whose seven members received substantial Unite Here campaign funding, appears ready to oblige.

Many of the workers this ordinance pretends to protect will lose their jobs because of it. Their hours will be cut.

The hotels that employ them will become unviable. That is what the data from Los Angeles already shows, and this Council is about to repeat that mistake with a smaller, more fragile economy with far less room for error.

I urge you to:

1. Pull this item from the agenda. It was placed here improperly, without due process, without community engagement, and without economic justification.

2. If and when a hotel wage ordinance comes back before this Council, require that it apply equally to every Santa Monica hotel, union and non-union alike. If you are unwilling to apply this ordinance to unionized hotels, then you are admitting that this was never about worker protections. It was always about politics.

3. Every council member who received significant financial support from Unite Here Local 11 the organization behind this ordinance and stands to benefit directly from it, should disclose that relationship publicly and recuse themselves from the vote.

This Council routinely tells Santa Monica residents, business owners, and investors that it is committed to economic recovery, that it wants to attract new businesses, support existing ones, and restore the vitality that has drained from our city. These words mean nothing when your actions say the opposite. You cannot claim to support businesses while simultaneously making it impossible for them to survive.

Santa Monica hotels support this city financially and we invest in it personally. We deserve to be treated as partners in Santa Monica's future, not as targets.

I respectfully ask this Council to do the right thing on Tuesday night.

Jon Farzam
Chief Executive Officer
Shore Hotel | Santa Monica Hotel | Ocean View Hotel
D 310.656.4530
E [email protected]
A 1515 Ocean Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90401
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

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

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

Ocean View Hotel Logo
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1852 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 14 PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 2510-2521 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT THIS TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED

RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, PHOTOCOPYING OR DISTRIBUTION OF THESE CONTENTS IS UNAUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED BY LAW. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES THEREIN! Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1853 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, and Councilmembers:

My name is Jon Farzam and I am the CEO of Shore Hotel, Ocean View Hotel, and Santa Monica Hotel, businesses my family has independently owned and operated in Santa Monica for decades.

We are deeply invested in this community – not as a corporate entity managing assets from a distant headquarters, but as people who grew up here, pay taxes here, and care deeply about the long-term health of this city.

I am submitting this statement to express my strong opposition to the “emergency” adoption of Agenda Item 10A and to urge the Council to remove this item from Tuesday’s agenda.

Our businesses are already operating under significant financial pressure. Like every hotel in Santa Monica, our visitor levels, remain dramatically below pre-pandemic levels. Our costs - insurance, utilities, financing, supplies – have risen sharply. Our ability to raise room rates is constrained by a market that is already at or beyond what guests will bear, particularly given that Santa Monica charges one of the highest Transient Occupancy Tax rates in the state.

Against that backdrop, the proposed ordinance would immediately impose a base wage of $25 per hour plus a mandatory health benefit contribution of $4.25 per hour for any worker not enrolled in a qualifying plan ($29.25 per hour total), with no distinction between full-time and part-time employees, and no consideration of employees who have already declined benefits because they are covered under a spouse's plan. By 2030, the total mandated compensation and health benefit will reach $38.35 per hour or more depending on CPI, with costs escalating further every year.

We do not have to speculate about what this means. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels where this same ordinance took effect in September 2025 found that within six months, 6% of hotel jobs were already eliminated or at risk, 14 hotel restaurants had closed or were expected to close, and 58% of hotels expected to be unprofitable by end of 2026.

Santa Monica's hotels are in a more fragile position than Los Angeles hotels were when that ordinance took effect. The damage here will be worse. Unlike a large city with thousands of hotel rooms, Santa Monica cannot afford to lose its hospitality industry. Our entire economic identity depends on it.

If this ordinance passes, you will be making a decision that pushes independent Santa Monica hotels, including mine, toward insolvency. That is not hyperbole. That is the math.

I would also like to be very direct about something that is being deliberately obscured in this process.

As you know (but most community members don’t), this ordinance applies exclusively to nonunion hotels. Every hotel in Santa Monica whose workers are covered by a Unite Here Local 11 collective bargaining agreement is completely exempt. Not partially exempt. Completely. They face none of these wage mandates. None of these benefit requirements. They compete with us for the same guests, the same conventions, the same tourism dollars, but they do not carry any of this burden.

Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1854 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) If this ordinance were genuinely about protecting hotel workers, it would protect all hotel workers equally. Every worker in every hotel, union or not, would be covered by the same standard. The the fact that it is carefully and deliberately structured to fall entirely on non-union properties reveals the true motive.

This is not worker protection. This is a coordinated effort to use the force of city law to financially strangle independent, non-union hotels into submission and to make non-union operation so economically painful that we have no choice but to unionize or close. Unite Here Local 11 is using this Council as its proxy. And this Council, six of whose seven members received substantial Unite Here campaign funding, appears ready to oblige.

Many of the workers this ordinance pretends to protect will lose their jobs because of it. Their hours will be cut. The hotels that employ them will become unviable. That is what the data from Los Angeles already shows, and this Council is about to repeat that mistake with a smaller, more fragile economy with far less room for error.

I urge you to:

1. Pull this item from the agenda. It was placed here improperly, without due process, without community engagement, and without economic justification.

2. If and when a hotel wage ordinance comes back before this Council, require that it apply equally to every Santa Monica hotel, union and non-union alike. If you are unwilling to apply this ordinance to unionized hotels, then you are admitting that this was never about worker protections. It was always about politics.

3. Every council member who received significant financial support from Unite Here Local 11 the organization behind this ordinance and stands to benefit directly from it, should disclose that relationship publicly and recuse themselves from the vote.

This Council routinely tells Santa Monica residents, business owners, and investors that it is committed to economic recovery, that it wants to attract new businesses, support existing ones, and restore the vitality that has drained from our city. These words mean nothing when your actions say the opposite. You cannot claim to support businesses while simultaneously making it impossible for them to survive.

Santa Monica hotels support this city financially and we invest in it personally. We deserve to be treated as partners in Santa Monica's future, not as targets.

I respectfully ask this Council to do the right thing on Tuesday night.

Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1855 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 15 David Yakobson
From: Angela D. Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 10:14 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Hotel Worker Wages, Tourism Recovery, and Shared Prosperity

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro-Tem Zwick, City Manager Chi, and Councilmembers, I am writing as a longtime Santa Monica resident, renter, veteran, community leader, and candidate for Santa Monica City Council to share my perspective regarding the proposed hotel worker wage increase and its potential impacts on our community.

Santa Monica's hospitality workers are essential to our local economy. Housekeepers, cooks, servers, maintenance workers, front desk staff, and countless others help create the visitor experience that drives tourism, supports local businesses, and generates critical Transient Occupancy Tax revenue that funds city services. Their labor is a cornerstone of our city's success.

At the same time, many of these workers face extraordinary economic pressures. Rising housing costs, transportation expenses, groceries, healthcare, and childcare continue to place significant strain on working families. For many, the cost of living in our region has far outpaced wage growth. A person working full-time should not be forced to choose between paying rent, purchasing groceries, or maintaining reliable transportation to work.

I support the principle that workers deserve wages that reflect the realities of our local economy.

However, I also recognize concerns raised by hospitality operators regarding tourism recovery, occupancy rates, operating costs, and the long-term competitiveness of Santa Monica's visitor-serving industry.

For that reason, I encourage the Council to approach this issue through a framework of shared prosperity rather than false choices. This conversation should not be framed as workers versus businesses. Santa Monica succeeds when both succeed.

Before making long-term policy decisions, I encourage the City to examine comprehensive data, including hotel profitability, occupancy trends, executive compensation, turnover costs, workforce retention, local spending impacts, and comparative labor standards in neighboring jurisdictions.

Decisions of this magnitude should be informed by a complete understanding of both worker needs and economic realities.

I also encourage exploration of implementation strategies that support workers while minimizing unintended consequences, including phased approaches, tourism recovery initiatives, workforce housing strategies, and continued investment in the visitor economy that sustains jobs and city revenues.

Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1856 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 16 My own journey—from periods of extreme economic hardship to achieving moderate middle-income stability—has taught me that economic security is often more fragile than it appears. That lived experience is why I believe Santa Monica must remain committed to creating pathways for working people to not only survive, but thrive.

We have an opportunity to demonstrate that economic growth, worker dignity, and fiscal responsibility are not competing values. They are mutually reinforcing goals that strengthen our entire community.

Thank you for your consideration and your service to the residents of Santa Monica.

Respectfully,
Angela
Angela D. Scott (she/her), MBA/V, Certified ScrumMaster® Santa Monica Resident
Veteran, U.S. Navy
Candidate, Doctor of Education, Ed.D.

Organizational Change and Leadership
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1857 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 17 David Yakobson
From: Colby Casoria <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 9:51 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below prepandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda

2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote

3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica

4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal

5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1858 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 18 Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Colby Casoria
--
Colby Casoria
Realtor® at eXp Realty | Serving Clients in Los Angeles, New York, & supporting Agents Worldwide 긒긓(914) 804-9959 | [email protected] | Connect on LinkedIn 踰踱踲踳 Client Services: EMC Homes Team
踰踱踲踳 Agent Services: CC Coaching | RSVP to EMC Weekly Masterminds | Watch YouTube About eXp | License #: CA 02289843 | NY 10401298319
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1859 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 19 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 9:55 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda. This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists. We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025.

Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse. Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely. I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote. I urge you to: 1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first. Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Gavin Scott
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1860 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:11 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1861 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 Amani Spielman
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1862 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:14 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11-B, which would change the City Council “Rules of Order” to eliminate the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" –

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE Agenda item 11-B, which would change the City Council “Rules of Order” to eliminate the current practice of allowing
one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – Amani Spielman
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1863 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 4 David Yakobson
From: Molly Hale <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 12:32 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30- day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda 2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4.

Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote
Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Molly Elkin
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1864 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 5 Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1865 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 David Yakobson
From: Arthur Kummer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:09 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

Santa Monica is trying to attached businesses to the empty storefronts not drive them away. This sends the wrong message to all businesses. It says the City of Santa Monica is going dictate how private business should run. Unions have rights to organize workers and bargain for contract terms; like wages and benefits. Why in the world should the City of Santa Monica do the bargaining for the union.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

I urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda

2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote

3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica

4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal

5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1866 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 Arthur Kummer
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1867 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 1:01 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 10A — Hotel Wage Ordinance — June 9 Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda. This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists. We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse. Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below pre-pandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely. I am also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote. I urge you to: 1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda

2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote 3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica 4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal 5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first. Thank you for your time and your service to our city. Sincerely, danielle charney
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1868 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 1 David Yakobson
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 9:27 PM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James Subject: Immediately Remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, We are writing to urge you to immediately remove Agenda Item 10A, the proposed emergency hotel wage ordinance, from Tuesday's June 9 agenda.

This item was added with less than four days' notice, with no meaningful outreach to hotel operators, workers, small businesses, or residents. There has been no independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica's market conditions. And it is being rushed through as an "emergency" ordinance, bypassing the normal 30-day public review period, when no genuine emergency exists.

We do not have to guess at the consequences. An independent study of Los Angeles hotels found that within just six months of implementing this same ordinance: 6% of hotel jobs were eliminated or at risk; 14 hotel restaurants closed or are expected to close; 58% of LA hotels expect to be unprofitable by end of 2026; and not a single hotel investment transaction occurred in Los Angeles in all of 2025. Santa Monica is already feeling these same pressures. This ordinance will make things significantly worse.

Santa Monica's tourism economy generates $916.6 million in local economic activity and funds critical city services through Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. With visitor levels still nearly 50% below prepandemic levels, our hotels cannot absorb these additional costs without cutting jobs, reducing services, or closing entirely.

We are also deeply concerned about the conflict of interest this vote presents. Unite Here Local 11, the union that directly benefits from this ordinance, provided substantial campaign support to a majority of this council. Any council member who has received significant financial support from Unite Here, or who has had ex parte communications with union representatives about this ordinance, has an ethical obligation to fully disclose that relationship and to seriously consider recusing themselves from Tuesday's vote.

We urge you to:

1. Immediately pull Agenda Item 10A from the June 9 agenda

2. Conduct genuine outreach to all affected stakeholders before any vote

3. Commission an independent economic impact analysis specific to Santa Monica Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1869 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) 2 4. Require full disclosure of all Unite Here involvement in developing this proposal

5. Require any union-funded council member to recuse themselves from the vote Santa Monica deserves a transparent process that puts our community first.

Thank you for your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Barbanell & Jerry Bass
Santa Monica Residents since 1983
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026
Item 10-A
June 9, 2026

10.A.g
Packet Pg. 1870 Attachment: Written Comments (7747 : Hotel Worker Minimum Wage) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Approval of the City of Santa Monica 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade Float Program; Authorization to enter into Agreement with Artistic Entertainment Services for Float Design, Construction and Parade Operations; and Launch of Sponsorship and Community Engagement Campaign
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. Receive the status update regarding development of a City of Santa Monica float entry for the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade;

3. Approve the official participation of the City of Santa Monica in the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade;

4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Artistic Entertainment Services for design, construction, animation, floral decoration, logistics, and parade operations for a total amount not to exceed $650,000;

5. Approve the launch of a robust community engagement and volunteer program;

6. Approve the launch of a fundraising and sponsorship campaign to offset program costs to the greatest extent feasible; and

7. Authorize staff to pursue philanthropic, tourism, hospitality, corporate, and regional partnership opportunities associated with the float program.

Executive Summary
On January 27, 2026, the Santa Monica City Council directed staff to explore and pursue participation in the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade through development of a City-sponsored float entry. Since that direction, staff has completed the application to

11.A
Packet Pg. 1871
2 of 10
the Tournament of Roses; conducted float builder evaluations; assessed a fundraising strategy; and conducted operational planning associated with a potential float entry.

The 2027 Rose Parade carries the theme “Welcome,” celebrating belonging and community, and falls on January 1, 2027. The proposed 2027 float initiative represents a unique opportunity to showcase Santa Monica’s global identity as an iconic coastal destination recognized for creativity, sustainability, tourism, arts and culture, innovation, and community diversity. Participation in the Tournament of Roses Parade would position Santa Monica before an international television audience estimated in the tens of millions while creating opportunities for local business promotion, civic pride, educational participation, and regional partnerships.

In particular, given efforts now underway to achieve a realignment in the City, in order to drive an economic revitalization, Santa Monica participating in the Tournament of Roses Parade would help tell the story about the renaissance underway in our community to a global audience. This storytelling narrative at the Rose Parade would also occur just as Santa Moncia prepares to host the ESPN broadcast of the 2027 Super Bowl, and in advance of the 2028 Olympic games.

As part of the overall assessment process, staff engaged an assessment of the three pre-qualified float builders selected by the Tournament of Roses, and based on an evaluation of operational capabilities, creative experience, safety performance, logistical readiness, volunteer programs and sponsorship integration capacity, staff recommends selection of Artistic Entertainment Services as the City’s official float production partner, should the City Council decide to move forward with this overall initiative.

Staff additionally recommends launching a comprehensive sponsorship and community engagement initiative beginning in Summer 2026 to support fundraising, volunteer participation, educational partnerships, and citywide promotional activities leading into the January 1, 2027 parade.

Background

11.A
Packet Pg. 1872
3 of 10
The Tournament of Roses Parade is internationally recognized as one of the most high profile annual civic events in the United States. Municipal participation has historically provided cities with substantial media exposure, destination marketing value, tourism promotion opportunities, and civic engagement benefits.

On January 27, 2026, City Council directed staff to investigate feasibility and implementation requirements for a Santa Monica float entry in the 2027 Rose Parade and to report back on:
• Status update on discussions with the Tournament of Roses, • Proposed funding model and sponsorship strategy,
• Recommended donation pathways and partnership structures, and • Engagement and volunteer plan.

Since Council provided that direction, staff has coordinated outreach with the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association, interviewed experienced pre-qualified float production firms, identified a fundraising strategy, communications plan, and volunteer program.

Discussion
The proposed Rose Parade float theme, “Welcome”, directly supports the City of Santa Monica’s broader economic development and community revitalization objectives by reinforcing the City’s identity as an inclusive, accessible, and world-renowned destination for residents, visitors, and businesses. The theme aligns with the City’s strategic realignment efforts focused on economic recovery, tourism promotion, small business support, cultural activation, and strengthening community connection following

11.A
Packet Pg. 1873
4 of 10
recent economic and operational challenges. Through a highly-visible international platform such as the Rose Parade, the City has an opportunity to showcase Santa Monica’s values, coastal character, hospitality, and diverse community while promoting renewed investment, visitation, and public engagement. The float’s messaging is intended to communicate that Santa Monica remains open, vibrant, welcoming, and committed to creating positive experiences for all who live, work, and visit our City.

In addition to its promotional value, the Rose Parade float project serves as an economic development and community engagement initiative that advances several City goals related to tourism, cultural programming, business partnership development, and civic participation. The project creates opportunities to engage and promote local businesses, community organizations, hospitality partners, and sponsors through collaborative programming, fundraising activities, volunteer participation, and public events associated with the float’s development and presentation.

By leveraging the global visibility and media reach of the Rose Parade (with expansive media coverage provided on all of the major networks), the City can strengthen destination branding efforts, encourage future visitation, and highlight Santa Monica’s economic vitality and cultural identity to a broad regional, national, and international audience. The float entry and accompanying outreach efforts are intended to support the City’s long-term economic development strategy by fostering civic pride, enhancing community partnerships, and reinforcing Santa Monica’s position as a premier welcoming destination.

The float would also align with Santa Monica’s long-standing identity as an internationally recognized coastal city known for innovation, wellness, environmental stewardship, arts, entertainment, and inclusive public spaces.

The design concept would celebrate Santa Monica’s historic and contemporary identity through a dynamic coastal visual narrative featuring:

11.A
Packet Pg. 1874
5 of 10
• Iconic Santa Monica Features – e.g. Santa Monica Pier and Sign, Solar Powered Pacific Wheel;
• Pacific Ocean imagery;
• Sustainable mobility and environmental themes;
• Public art and cultural diversity;
• Native landscaping and floral integration;
• Ocean-inspired animation elements; and
• Interactive lighting and motion effects.

The proposed concept will be developed to maximize television visibility, floral creativity, animation potential, and sponsor integration opportunities while remaining consistent with Tournament of Roses design standards and also being sensitive to budget.

The conceptual design would also support extensive educational and volunteer participation opportunities through floral decoration events, youth partnerships, arts collaborations, and community build activities.

Staff recommends designating Artistic Entertainment Services as the City’s official float production partner for the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade. Artistic Entertainment Services is authorized by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association to design and construct official parade floats, ensuring full compliance with all Tournament standards and requirements.

Float Builder Evaluation Process

11.A
Packet Pg. 1875
6 of 10
The selection process for the float builder is limited to the three pre-qualified companies currently approved and authorized by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association.

Consistent with Tournament requirements and industry standards for Rose Parade participation, proposals and negotiations were confined to these approved float builders to ensure compliance with all applicable parade regulations, construction specifications, and operational timelines.

Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Qualified Firm Artistic Entertainment Services
Evaluation Criteria
Tournament of Roses experience, Creative design
capabilities, Construction schedule, Sustainability
practices, Sponsorship integration experience,
Community and volunteer engagement capacity, and
Operational logistics support.

Municipal Code SMCC 2.24.190
Staff conducted interviews with the three experienced, authorized and nationally recognized float production firms Tournament of Roses float production firms.

Artistic Entertainment Services Fiesta Productions, Inc; and Phoenix Decorating Company.

Justification to Award
Staff recommends the selection of Artistic Entertainment Services based on the firm’s demonstrated experience, qualifications, and successful history providing parade float design, construction, and operational support services for Rose Parade participants.

All vendors were evaluated on their ability to meet the City’s design objectives, project schedule, volunteer programming, compliance requirements established by the Tournament of Roses, and overall value to the City. Staff has determined that Artistic Entertainment Services is well-qualified to deliver the specialized services necessary to support the City’s participation in the Rose Parade.

Artistic Entertainment Services would implement the project with the City through a phased timeline designed to support effective planning, fundraising, community engagement, float design and construction, volunteer coordination, and final parade preparation activities. Initial phases of the project will focus on float design finalization and then immediately shift to sponsorship development, fundraising initiatives, outreach efforts, and coordination with the selected float builder and Tournament of Roses officials. Subsequent phases will include production milestones, community events, volunteer recruitment, and onsite float decorating activities leading up to parade week. Staff will continue to monitor project milestones and provide periodic updates to ensure the project remains on schedule, within budget, and aligned with the City’s participation objectives for the Rose Parade.

11.A
Packet Pg. 1876
7 of 10
Project Timeline
Date Milestone
June 9, 2026 Council Authorization
June 2026 Concept Development
July 2026 Finalize Float Design
July 23, 2026 Launch Community Engagement and Fundraising Events August-December 2026 Engineering, Fabrication, and Production September– December 31,
2026
Volunteer and Community Engagement Events
December 26-31, 2026 Decorating week for Live floral elements January 1, 2027 Rose Parade Participation
January 1-3, 2027 Floatfest (static floats available for viewing after the parade) Project Budget
The base program investment for the float entry is $350,000. However, final program costs will depend upon final design complexity, floral sourcing, animation scope, or other enhancements needed to support City programming. Therefore, staff recommends an additional $300,000 contingency to ensure sufficient resources for enhancements and programming to deliver the project within the timeline.

Funding for the Rose Parade project is recommended to be advanced from previously identified resources set aside in the $3 million Economic Development Fund as part of the City’s realignment plan budget strategy. These funds serve solely as initial cash flow support, not as the long-term funding source for the project. Staff anticipate that project costs will be offset, to the greatest extent feasible, by donations and contributions deposited into the restricted, Special Revenue Source Fund. To ensure transparency and appropriate financial oversight, all project-related revenues and expenditures will be recorded separately within the restricted account established for the Rose Parade initiative. The City’s fundraising, sponsorship, donation, and community partnership efforts are intended to offset project costs, with restricted revenues deposited and applied directly toward eligible project expenditures. Staff will continue to monitor project finances and provide budget updates to ensure accountability and alignment with the City’s fiscal management objectives

11.A
Packet Pg. 1877
8 of 10
Funding Strategy
Staff recommends a mixed public-private funding model designed to minimize direct city impacts. A comprehensive fundraising and community engagement program will be implemented to support the City’s Rose Parade project and expand opportunities for public participation. Fundraising efforts will include broad outreach to residents, community organizations, local businesses, and regional partners through coordinated campaigns, community events, and digital communications. A dedicated fundraising webpage will be established to provide project information, sponsorship opportunities, donation access, event updates, and volunteer engagement resources. All donations will be deposited into a restricted account and tracked per the City’s Donation Administrative Instruction. Sponsorship packages will be developed in accordance with applicable Tournament of Roses guidelines and City policies, including recognition opportunities and allowable advertising associated with approved promotional materials, events, and program activities. These efforts are intended to generate financial support for the project while promoting community involvement, civic pride, and strategic partnerships throughout the parade initiative.

Community Engagement Plan and Volunteer Program
The float initiative is intended to serve as a citywide civic engagement project. A key component of the Rose Parade project is the development of a robust volunteer and community engagement program designed to encourage broad participation from residents, community organizations, schools, and local businesses. The program will include volunteer opportunities associated with community outreach events, fundraising activities, and onsite float decorating activities leading up to the parade. These efforts are intended to foster civic pride, strengthen community connections, and create meaningful team-building experiences through collaborative participation in the City’s Rose Parade entry. Staff anticipates that the volunteer program and related public events will serve as a highly-visible community initiative that promotes engagement, partnership, and shared ownership of the project
Participation in the 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade presents a unique opportunity to showcase Santa Monica’s global identity, cultural vibrancy, economic strength,

11.A
Packet Pg. 1878
9 of 10
environmental leadership, and community spirit before an international audience. Staff has completed preliminary planning, evaluated qualified float production partners, developed an initial funding strategy, and identified broad community interest in the initiative. Approval of the recommended actions would authorize staff to proceed with formal implementation of the City’s 2027 Rose Parade float program and launch the next phase of sponsorship, design, fabrication, and community engagement activities.

Staff will provide progress updates, including fundraising status, community engagement activities, and final parade readiness milestones.

Environmental Review
The proposed action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Participation in the event is covered by the common sense exemption, 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 action involves participation in the Rose Parade event, and is administrative and programmatic in nature. Therefore, it can be stated with certainty that the action will not result in adverse physical environmental impacts and is consequently exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve initial funding from the General Fund to award a contract with Artistic Entertainment services for the design, float fabrication, community engagement and parade execution for the 2027 Rose Parade Float Entry.

Contract Request
FY 2026-27
Budget
Amount
Department Account # Total Contract
Amount
$650,000 01200017.553170. 99141 $650,000
Total $650,000

11.A
Packet Pg. 1879
10 of 10
The proposed authorization would establish the project budget not to exceed $650,000 subject to offsets by sponsorships, grants, donations, and in-kind contributions deposited in the Special Revenue Fund. Sponsorships, grants, or donations will be deposited in the Special Revenue Source Fund and expended as follows Contract
Revenue Expenses
10200002.416360 10200002.532510
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Levine Act Disclosure Form
B. Oaks Initiative Form
C. Written Comments
D. PowerPoint Presentation

11.A
Packet Pg. 1880

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1881 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1882 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1883 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1884 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1885 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1886 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1887 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry)

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1888 Attachment: Oaks Initiative Form (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Item 11.A, - Approval of the City of Santa Monica 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I strongly oppose Item 11.A., the approval of $650,000 for a 2027 Tournament of Roses float entry.

I find it incredulous that in a Ɵme of worsening financial crisis with the city operaƟng in a structural deficit (with future promises of balanced or surplus general fund budgets unpersuasive), to the point that direct taxaƟon of the residents via parcel taxes is viewed as an acceptable stopgap measure, the Council would be considering siphoning $650,000 it does not have out of the General Fund on, of all things, a parade float!! This is key part of the Council’s strategy to camouflage the City’s acceleraƟng decline through aggressive public relaƟons acƟviƟes rather than actually addressing the fundamental economic issues. In fact, by spending money it does not have, it is making the City’s financial issues even worse.

As a Santa Monica naƟve, I cannot recall a similar Ɵme in the City’s history where there has been such a glaring and widening disconnect between municipally-managed image and reality.

This request should be denied and the Council’s aƩenƟon squarely focused on real economic recovery.

Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 11-A
June 9, 2026
Item 11-A
June 9, 2026

11.A.c
Packet Pg. 1889 Attachment: Written Comments (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry) 1 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Item 11.A, - Approval of the City of Santa Monica 2027 Tournament of Roses Parade

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I strongly oppose Item 11.A., the approval of $650,000 for a 2027 Tournament of Roses float entry.

I find it incredulous that in a Ɵme of worsening financial crisis with the city operaƟng in a structural deficit (with future promises of balanced or surplus general fund budgets unpersuasive), to the point that direct taxaƟon of the residents via parcel taxes is viewed as an acceptable stopgap measure, the Council would be considering siphoning $650,000 it does not have out of the General Fund on, of all things, a parade float!! This is key part of the Council’s strategy to camouflage the City’s acceleraƟng decline through aggressive public relaƟons acƟviƟes rather than actually addressing the fundamental economic issues. In fact, by spending money it does not have, it is making the City’s financial issues even worse.

As a Santa Monica naƟve, I cannot recall a similar Ɵme in the City’s history where there has been such a glaring and widening disconnect between municipally-managed image and reality.

This request should be denied and the Council’s aƩenƟon squarely focused on real economic recovery.

Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 11-A
June 9, 2026
Item 11-A
June 9, 2026

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1890 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7744 : 11.A Rose Parade Float Entry) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Council Rules of Order To Implement Senate Bill 707 (2025) Amending the Ralph M. Brown Act and Making Additional Procedural Changes
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt:

1. A finding that the resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. The attached resolution amending the Council Rules of Order based on direction from the January 27, 2026 Council meeting to explore options to: to hear Closed Session; requiring increased collaboration on Councilmember Discussion items; hear general Public Input towards the end of meetings; and revise the rule to reduce speaking time for more than 25 registered speakers to per item instead of per public input section; and;

3. Additional modifications to the attached resolution regarding: general Rules of Order; the Time and Place for Regular Meetings; the Agenda; Categories and Order of Business; Public Testimony; Conduct and Safety; Voting Procedure; and Use of Technology.

Executive Summary
At the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to explore various options to improve meetings that included:

1. options to schedule Closed Session meetings on alternate Tuesdays when regular meetings are estimated to run long;

2. requiring increased collaboration amongst Councilmembers to submit Councilmember Discussion items;

3. hearing general Public Input towards the end of the meeting; and

11.B
Packet Pg. 1891
2 of 10

4. revising the rule on reducing time for more than 25 speakers registered to speak per public input section to “per agenda item”.

Council also directed staff with the following:

1. offering more public comment opportunities outside of meetings similar to last year’s Council Budget Workshop in relation to general Public Input options; and

2. provide Council compensation information from other jurisdictions that meet earlier in the day related to Closed Session options.

Senate Bill (SB) 707 updates teleconferencing and accessibility requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act, or California’s Open Meetings Law. By July 1, 2026, legislative bodies must adopt a policy addressing technology disruptions and make reasonable outreach efforts to encourage public participation.

In addition to Council’s and SB 707 modifications, staff recommends amending rules regarding:
• Council’s ability to join meetings remotely per SB 707; • the process for the City Clerk to prepare and post agendas, provide public posting locations and conduct outreach per SB 707;
• the order of hearing Travel Reports, the Mayor’s Highlight and City Manager’s Report, modifying the description of Special Agenda Items and incorporating the Resolutions Category with Staff Administrative Items;
• discontinuing the 4-minute option when registering to speak on only one item, and allowing for interpretation services and incorporating two-way telephone public comment per SB 707;
• disruptions from individuals participating in-person or telephonically as provided for by SB 707;
• service restoration procedures during a telephonic or internet service disruption per SB 707; and
• cleaning up language and procedures for Council to submit Discussion Items (16-items) and Closed Session, the process for speakers to submit electronic

11.B
Packet Pg. 1892
3 of 10
presentation materials and the voting procedure on board and commission appointments.

Most modifications would go into effect at the June 23, 2026 Council meeting, with SB 707 modifications in effect after July 1, 2026 until January 1, 2030, unless otherwise amended.

Discussion
Setting Closed Session
In reviewing the current rules, “Rule 2. Time and Place for Regular Meetings” provided the following options for Closed Sessions that was seldom exercised but is a combination of possibilities discussed at the January 27th meeting:
“However, if it is determined by the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk that a Council meeting is expected to be lengthy, and all Councilmembers are available, as may be noticed by the City Clerk, a regular Council meeting may commence earlier than 5:30 p.m. to allow for closed session and/or special agenda items to be heard then. If it is expected that Closed Session will require more than 90 minutes to complete, and if all Councilmembers are available, a separate special meeting to complete Closed Session shall be considered.”
Back in January, Council expressed concerns about scheduling meetings earlier or having daytime meetings as they would be required to make new arrangements with work or other commitments that were unexpected prior to taking office. Should Council desire to pursue this option, staff can return with Council compensation information from other agencies if needed.

Scheduling separate meetings, when there is a large volume of agendized items, require: additional time commitments from Council and staff, and advanced coordination to ensure a quorum is available and that public notice is given. The decision to schedule a special meeting on alternate Tuesdays would have to be made at least one week prior to a regular meeting to allow: staff to finalize the agenda and make arrangements for the regular meeting, and meeting participants to plan for the special meeting the following week. Note that this lead time is for preparation and not for legal requirements such as the Brown Act.

11.B
Packet Pg. 1893
4 of 10
Other options for Council are to hear Closed Session:

1. First by keeping the start time of 5:30 p.m. and then hear the open session when completed.

2. First by keeping the start time of 5:30 p.m., and set a time limit to hear the open session at a certain time (ex. Closed Session at 5:30 p.m. and open session at 7 p.m.).

3. Within the meeting, set a time limit, and continue the item prior to Adjournment if not completed (ex. After the Consent Calendar, for 90 minutes).

4. Last and prior to Adjournment.

If Council opts to hear Closed Session earlier, first or within meetings, then staff recommends providing a set start time or estimated return time for open session to inform the public of when they: can sign up to comment, will be called to speak, and can continue listening to the meeting.

Increased Collaboration on Councilmember Discussion Items In January, Council requested options to increase collaboration on Councilmember Items requiring substantive discussion. One suggestion was to consider organizations, private citizens and/or multiple Councilmembers to co-sponsor Discussion items. As these are “Councilmember” Items, staff recommends limiting submissions to Councilmembers only as external parties can still show their support through public comment. Staff also recommends exceptions for collaboration on discretionary spending items. Therefore, options for Council are to:

1. Increase the number of Councilmembers required to submit Discussion Items to no more than a majority of the Council as prohibited by the Brown Act (ex. No less than two and no more than three Councilmembers); or

2. Set a designated time each fiscal year for Councilmembers to submit proposed items to the City Manager who would collaborate with City staff and return with feedback that would allow Council to refine and prioritize proposals before formally submit Discussion items.

Amending “Rule 5. Agenda” to require collaboration shows increased support for an item to be considered and could save discussion time on items that may not receive a second to be voted on or enough votes to be approved.

11.B
Packet Pg. 1894
5 of 10
Setting a Time for Public Input on Non-Agenda Items
At the September 26, 2023 Council meeting, general Public Input was permanently set at the beginning of meetings after Council directed staff to implement a pilot program allowing remote public input back in June 2022. As the remote process required additional staff to manage teleconferencing technology and callers, it was recommended to consolidate public comment time and hear most speakers earlier in the meeting to maintain overtime budgets and manage staffing for daily operations and evening meetings. Prior to June 2022, public input on non-agenda items were heard prior to adjournment.

On January 27th, Council requested options to hear general Public Input towards the end of the meeting. Amending “Rule 6. Categories and Order of Business” to move a portion or all of general public input towards the end of meetings would: dedicate more time for public comment and Council deliberation of scheduled agenda items; and reduce the chances of continuing items that would affect subsequent meetings. Options for Council are:

1. move public input on non-agenda items prior to adjournment;

2. move public input on non-agenda items prior to adjournment, and offer additional Council meeting listening sessions (ex. quarterly) for general public input only;

3. keep general public input at the beginning of the meeting, hear a set number of speakers first regardless of the time requested (ex. first 10 speakers), and then hear the remaining speakers prior to adjournment; or

4. keep general public input at the beginning of the meeting, hear input for a set amount of time (ex. no more than 20 minutes), and then hear the remaining speakers prior to adjournment.

Concerns were expressed over speakers being unable to stay until the end of the meeting and options still available to community members are: 1) submitting Written Comments before the end of meetings to be distributed on the dais per Rule 15(h); and 2) obtaining support from either City Department(s) or a Councilmember to submit an item for consideration in an upcoming meeting which would allow more time for public comment and Council discussion per Rule 5(h). Written Comment forms are available in City Hall lobby during Council meetings. Written Communication forms from the City

11.B
Packet Pg. 1895
6 of 10
Clerk’s Office and City staff are available during business hours. Council is available by email, with some members offering appointments to meet. Regardless of the option adopted, the City Clerk will continue the process of pre-registering public input callers to manage staffing.

Managing Speaking Time for 25+ Speakers
Amending “Rule 15. Public Testimony” to reduce time from two minutes to one minute for more than 25 speakers (or 26 or more speakers) registered for a public input section to “per agenda item” will allow speakers for other agenda items to retain their requested speaking time. This rule will continue to be exempt for public hearings or quasi-judicial items. Except for the Consent Calendar when comments on multiple items are heard altogether, speakers will be asked to register for each item they wish to speak on.

Speakers would be called on by agenda item order to assist with enforcing this rule. The maximum of six minutes per speaker will still apply.

Senate Bill 707 Amending Various Sections of Government Code (GC) 54950 - 54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act establishes requirements for open meetings of legislative bodies. SB 707 updates provisions on teleconferencing, including requirements for remote participation, accessibility, and procedures for addressing disruptions to meetings. The amendment requires Council to adopt a technology disruption policy and make reasonable outreach efforts to encourage public participation in meetings, particularly among underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities. The disruption policy must be adopted by July 1, 2026.

In addition, staff recommends the following changes to clean up language, clarify rules and incorporate SB 707 requirements:
• Rule 1. Rules of Order
Amending the description to clarify that the Council’s rules also apply to Council Subcommittees and newly established Boards and Commissions that have yet to adopt Bylaws.

11.B
Packet Pg. 1896
7 of 10
• Rule 2. Time and Place for Regular Meetings
Adding Council’s ability to join meetings remotely as provided for by the Brown Act.
• Rule 5. Agenda
- As Rule 5 consists of internal procedures on submitting agenda items, and procedures on submitting Councilmember Discussion and Closed Session Items were found in both Rule 5(d) and Rule 6 (Categories and Order of Business), the procedures was merged under this rule for ease of reference. Additionally, “16- item(s)” will be replaced with its Category name of “Councilmember Discussion Item”.
- Adding the Civic Center Parking Structure provides a backup agenda posting location for the City Clerk in the event of technological issues with its primary location at City Hall’s digital wayfinding kiosk.
- As procedures for the public to submit electronic presentation materials were found in both Section (i) and Rule 15(j) under Public Testimony, Section (i) was deleted as the procedure is more appropriate under Public Testimony. - Adding: provisions for an accessible posting location for publicly translated Council agendas; reasonable efforts to encourage groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend; and annual evaluations of translation requirements in applicable language(s) to comply with SB 707. “Applicable languages” is defined as languages, according to data from the most recent American Community Survey, spoken jointly by 20% or more of Santa Monica’s population, provided that 20% or more of the population that speaks that language in this City speaks English less than “very well.” At this time, the City does not reach the 20% threshold, but the City Clerk will review requirements annually in the event of new survey data or amendments to the law. However, the City Clerk will work with: the City Manager’s Office on applying the City’s internal Language Access Policy to Council meeting agendas and public facing webpages, and the Office of Communications on outreach. • Rule 6. Categories and Order of Business
- Transfer Council Travel Reports after Levine Act Disclosures.

11.B
Packet Pg. 1897
8 of 10
- Modify the descriptions of: Special Agenda Items to include the Mayor’s Highlight and City Manager’s Report; and Staff Administrative Items to include Resolutions requiring extensive public input. Subsequent sections would be renumbered accordingly.
- Under Councilmember Discussion Items, delete procedures to submit Councilmember and Closed Session Items that was merged with Rule 5(d) as previously mentioned and replace item numbers with Category name. • Rule 15. Public Testimony
- Remove reference to deleted Rule 5(i) on electronic presentation materials as previously mentioned.
- Transfer rule regarding meetings that include special meeting items and joint meetings as one meeting to Subsection (a) Permitted for ease of reference, and adding that no general public input shall be taken on any item on a Special Meeting Agenda.
- Transfer rule regarding the order which speakers will be called and prioritizing students to Subsection (b) Registration for easer of reference. - Incorporating SB 707 requirements to provide space for interpretation devices and services, and public comment via a two-way telephonic platform.

Per SB 707, all Council meetings shall include an opportunity for the public to attend and comment via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform. Because Council already hears public comment by telephone and phones do not require internet access, staff recommends offering two-way telephonic service to attend and comment at meetings.
- Discontinue the option to request four-minutes to speak when registering to speak on only one item.

At the May 27, 2025 Council meeting, Council approved to give up to fourminutes of time to those speaking on only one item as a compromise to discontinuing time donation. However, offering a third option and only for certain situations has been difficult to inform speakers about and track with consolidated public input sections and limitations of the public speaker system. Deleting this

11.B
Packet Pg. 1898
9 of 10
option would simplify the registration process and give speakers consistent options of one or two minutes.
• Rule 16. Conduct and Safety
Adding SB 707 requirements for a disruption policy that defines “disruptions” and allows the Presiding Officer to warn, limit and remove disruptive individuals participating in-person or telephonically.
• Rule 19. Voting
Transfer Section c(12) on conducting roll call votes for only two board or commission nominees to the beginning of Section c for ease of reference. • Rule 27. Use of Technology
Adding SB 707 requirements to establish service restoration procedures during a telephonic or internet service disruption. Procedures include: calling a recess to restore services for at least one hour; documenting the nature, time of occurrence and restoration efforts of the disruption; and adopting a finding that, if services cannot be restored after efforts were made, then resuming the meeting serves the public interest than delaying it.
• Rule 28
Formatting change to transfer Rule 32 on Council Briefings to conclude with Rule 31 on Failure on Observe Rules of Order to be consistent with past Council rules.

Most modifications would go into effect at the next regular Council meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, with SB 707 modifications in effect after July 1, 2026.

Environmental Review
The resolution is not a “project” subject to CEQA. The resolution is administrative in nature for the establishment of rules, policies, and procedures. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the resolution does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the resolution is not subject to CEQA.

11.B
Packet Pg. 1899
10 of 10
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Maria Dacanay-Wisner, Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Proposed Resolution
B. Government Code, Chapter 9, Meetings (54950-54963)
C. September 26, 2023 Staff Report
D. May 27, 2025 Staff Report
E. Written Comments
F. PowerPoint Presentation

11.B
Packet Pg. 1900
1 City Council Meeting: June 9, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. ____________(CCS)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR

THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 11663 (CCS)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify and amend some procedural Rules for the preparation for and conduct of Council meetings.

WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) establishes requirements for open and public meetings of local legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to update teleconferencing and accessibility requirements, including provisions related to remote participation in public meetings, and add requirements intended to encourage participation in public meetings among communities that do not traditionally participate in meetings and non-English-speaking communities; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(A) requires eligible legislative bodies, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt at a noticed public meeting in open session, and not on the consent calendar, a policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during meetings conducted with remote participation; and WHEREAS, the required policy must address procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption and the efforts the legislative body will make to attempt to restore service, promote transparency, and continuity of public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica City Council currently uses a variety of communication methods to inform the public of meetings and opportunities to participate;

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1901 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(C) requires the Santa Monica City Council to determine and make reasonable efforts to invite groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend those meetings; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(3)(C)(ii) provides legislative bodies with broad discretion in determining appropriate reasonable efforts and clarifies that no action shall arise from failing to provide notice to any specific group.

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

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

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

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

The City Council rules, or any one thereof, may be suspended by a vote of two11.B.a Packet Pg. 1902 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 thirds of the Councilmembers present.

2. TIME AND PLACE FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 611 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Council establishes the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month as the days for holding regular meetings of the City Council. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular meeting shall commence at 5:30 p.m. However, if it is determined by the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk that a Council meeting is expected to be lengthy, and all Councilmembers are available, as may be noticed by the City Clerk, a regular Council meeting may commence earlier than 5:30 p.m. to allow for closed session and/or special agenda items to be heard then. If it is expected that closed session will requires more than 90 minutes to complete, and if all Councilmembers are available, a separate special meeting to complete Closed Session shall be consideredthen the remaining closed session items will be heard prior to adjournment. If any such Tuesday falls on any day designated by law by the City Council as a day for public feast, Thanksgiving or holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the date of the regular meeting next following said Tuesday at the hour heretofore fixed or at such other day as may be fixed. The City Council Chamber in City Hall is established as the place for holding the City Council’s regular meetings.

Councilmembers shall comply with Government Code, Chapter 9, Meetings to join meetings remotely and to the extent that the rules conflict with Chapter 9, the Government Code shall prevail.

RULE 3. QUORUM AND ACTION
In accordance with Section 614 of the Santa Monica City Charter, 4

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1903 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, or other law or these rules, action shall be taken by a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council, that is, at least 4 votes, unless a higher number is required. However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only 4 Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as at least 5 Councilmembers are participating.

Whenever any Councilmember questions the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the City Clerk to call the roll, each Councilmember shall respond when that Councilmember’s name is called, and the Clerk shall announce the result. Such proceedings shall be without debate, but no Councilmember who is speaking may be interrupted by a question as to the presence of a quorum.

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

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

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

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1904 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 No Councilmember, employee of the City, or any other person present during a Closed Session of the City Council shall disclose to any person the content or substance of any communication that took place during the Closed Session unless the City Council specifically authorizes the disclosure by majority vote or unless the disclosure is required by law.

Any required public announcements following closed session shall be made by the City Attorney, or Mayor on matters involving the City Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk, immediately upon the Council convening in open session following closed session.

Council direction to provide authority to settle a claim or lawsuit shall not be reported out until the settlement is signed and final.

RULE 5. AGENDA.

The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows:
(a) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda.
(b) Other than the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney (and/or their designees), Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem, no person shall attend an Agenda preparation meeting without invitation of the City Manager.
(c) The Agenda and all available supporting documents shall be delivered to Councilmembers on the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday City Council meeting to which it pertains or as soon thereafter as possible. For special meetings, agendas and supporting documents shall be delivered at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. (d) The City Manager may direct that any matter within the City Council’s

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1905 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. The City Manager shall be responsible for submission of real estate, labor (except for City Attorney and City Clerk evaluations), security, and emergency closed sessions items. The City Attorney may place items on the Agenda affecting the City Attorney’s Office or litigation closed session, including amicus participation items. Councilmember requests for real estate and labor closed session items shall be submitted to the City Manager. Litigation, including amicus participation, shall be submitted to the City Attorney. The City Manager and the City Attorney shall notify one another when Agenda item requests are made by Councilmembers. The City Attorney shall verify whether the requested closed session is a proper topic for closed session pursuant to the Brown Act before the item is published on an Agenda, and if not, it shall be omitted.

Any Councilmembers requesting a substantive discussion on an open session Agenda item shall do so by initiating a “16 itemCouncilmember Discussion Item” first to obtain Council direction (see Rule 6(y)). Except for discretionary spending items, no less than two and no more than three Councilmembers shall submit Councilmember Agenda items to the City Manager as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by noon on Monday, 8 days prior to the Council meeting, to ensure matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. at least 2 days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless the Councilmembers has have identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current Agenda. The City Manager will work with the requesting Councilmembers to decide if the item will be placed on the agenda or address them in other ways. No less

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1906 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 than two and no more than three Councilmembers may place a Councilmember Discussion Item on an agenda to consider a formal censure of a Councilmember for violation of the law, local ordinance, common law conflict of interest, Council rule, or resolution. Due process shall be provided, including notice of the allegations and an opportunity to oppose the accusation.

Proposed 16 ItemCouncilmember Discussion Items shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and then the language modified, if necessary, to ensure the Item requests a policy direction or action that is lawful before being placed on the Agenda, and by the City Manager, and then the language modified, if necessary, to ensure the Item requests policy direction or action that is feasible, that is, reasonably possible given available resources.

In the event there are concerns that the request is potentially unlawful or infeasible, then the City Attorney and City Manager shall work with the sponsor(s) to frame the request so that it is lawful and feasible, and still as closely as possible reflects the desired outcome of the sponsor(s).

Once a particular 16 ItemCouncilmember Discussion Item is heard and rejected the same or substantially similar item may not be placed on a subsequent Agenda for reconsideration for 12 months, unless it is sponsored by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side previously. (See also Rule 12(g) – Motion to Reconsider.) Councilmember items placed on the Agenda may be removed or amended by the sponsor(s), with the City Manager’s approval, no later than noon on Thursday, 5 days prior to the Council meeting. Staff sponsored items may be removed from the Agenda (or postponed) by the City Manager at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call. The City Attorney

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1907 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 may also remove items the City Attorney placed on the Agenda at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call.

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

Proposed alternatives, other than minor variations, to items or portions of items on the Agenda shall be submitted in writing to the City Clerk for distribution no later than noon the day prior to the Council meeting; any alternatives submitted after the deadline may be considered by the Council only by unanimous consent, provided they are Brown Act compliant; otherwise, the amendment along with the main item may be considered at a subsequent meeting pursuant to an approved motion to continue.

Unless Council specifically directs otherwise with respect to a particular item, when Council provides direction to prepare an ordinance or resolution pursuant to a Council approved 16 itemCouncilmember Discussion Item or other direction during a Council meeting, pursuant to Charter section 708(e), the City Attorney shall be responsible for preparing and bringing back for Council consideration all new or amended ordinances and resolutions; the City Attorney shall consult with City Staff, as appropriate. (e) The City Clerk shall post the Agenda as required by the Brown Act. Copies of the Agenda shall be posted on all City wayfinding kiosks, with the kiosk located in front

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1908 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 9 of City Hall at the corner of Main Street and Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, California 90401 serving as the primary posting location. Should this kiosk be out of service, the kiosk located in front of Tongva Park at Ocean Avenue and Colorado Avenue or the windows of the Santa Monica Institute (SMI) Room at 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, CA 90401, shall serve as the backup posting locations. Agenda material will be available in accessible format on the City website and in other alternative formats from the City Clerk upon request. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in the Clerk’s Office declarations establishing compliance with the posting requirements.

On an annual basis, the City Clerk shall refer to the most recent American Community Survey and United States Census, to determine if 20 percent or more of the City’s population speaks English less than “very well”. If the 20 percent threshold is reached, then the Clerk shall translate agendas in that language. The Clerk shall provide a public and physically accessible posting location for publicly translated agendas as required by the Brown Act, and make reasonable outreach efforts to media organizations serving the jurisdiction and non-English speaking communities, as well as civic, neighborhood, community-based, civil rights, and good government organizations. The City shall comply with Government Code, Chapter 9, Meetings and to the extent that the rules conflict with Chapter 9, the Government Code shall prevail. (f) No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda unless the item is added to the Agenda in the manner required by the Brown Act. (g) Matters directed to be placed on the Agenda at the direction of Councilmembers shall be listed on the Agenda in the order of receipt by the City Clerk. (h) Written requests to the City Council shall be received and opened by the

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1909 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 10 City Clerk and referred to the City Manager or the Manager’s designee and either shall be transmitted to the appropriate board, commission, or staff member, or shall be placed on the Agenda if City Council consideration is deemed appropriate by the Mayor or City Manager. Written requests being agendized shall be scheduled for City Council consideration at the earliest convenient meeting, taking into consideration the length and content of meeting Agendas. Members of the public submitting written requests shall be advised of how their request is being handled. Councilmembers shall receive copies of those written requests that are not agendized. Agendized communications shall be listed on the Agenda in order of receipt. No communication shall be placed on an Agenda if it contains material that:
(1) Is profane.
(2) Is potentially slanderous or libelous.
(3) Advocates or opposes the candidacy of any person or party for any elective office.
(4) Is primarily an advertisement or promotion or has as a substantial purpose the advancement of any cause the major benefit of which is private and not public.

Members of the public submitting written requests to the City Council are encouraged to limit their submissions to one per meeting.
(i) All electronic presentation materials intended for use at a City Council meeting, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by an overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1910 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 11 member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits.
(j) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may place an item on the Council Agenda to present a report from a board or commission that is within the board or commission’s subject matter authority that was duly approved by the board or commission. The request and the written or electronic materials to be distributed or displayed at the meeting must be provided to the City Clerk, the City Manager’s Office, and the sponsoring Department Staff Liaison by 3 p.m. Friday, 11 days before the Council meeting. When heard, the speaker for the board or commission shall be permitted up to 10 minutes to present, unless the Council by majority vote allows for a different time. The Council may question the speaker concerning the report and presentation. The speaker shall have an opportunity to respond to comments by the City Manager and Staff. The City Manager and Staff may also provide information concerning the presentation. The presentation will not be considered an action item, but the City Manager may combine it with an action item on the Agenda, and the Council may provide direction concerning the matters raised in the presentation. Action may be taken on matters raised in the presentation, subject to Brown Act compliance.
(k) Any Councilmember planning on being absent from a Council meeting or a portion of a meeting may submit written statements on a topic on the Agenda to the City Clerk at least by noon the day of the Council meeting. The City Clerk shall publish the written statement prior to the beginning of the meeting, and the City Clerk shall read the statement into the record at the meeting. This procedure shall not apply to quasi-judicial matters, wherein Councilmembers ordinarily shall not communicate about the matter prior

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1911 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 12 to conclusion of a public hearing.

RULE 6. CATEGORIES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The business of the City Council shall be conducted in the order and manner specified below. The order may be changed by a majority vote of those present. The following is the order of business:
(a) Call to Order.
(b) Salute to the Flag and Land Acknowledgement.
(c) Roll Call.
(d) Levine Act disclosures and Travel Reports.
(e) City Clerk Agenda announcements and Agenda Procedural motions. (f) General Public Input and Comment on Special Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on Special Agenda Items and matters not otherwise on the Agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction.

State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the Agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item. (g) Special Agenda Items. This item includes Mayor’s Highlight, City Manager’s Report, proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, special meetings, appointments to the City Council and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies. A Councilmember may place a proclamation or commendation on the agenda by submitting a request to the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee. No more than 2 proclamations or commendations shall be placed on any one agenda, unless an additional item is particularly time sensitive.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1912 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 13 (h) Public Comment for Consent Calendar and Closed Session Items Only. No public comment is permitted on second readings of ordinances or continued items.
(i) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions and ordinances that do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial.

Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if approved by a majority at first reading. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar. Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda. Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session.

Councilmembers shall notify the City Manager by 5 p.m. the day before the meeting that an item may be pulled for discussion or questions to Staff and request a presentation of an item on the Consent Calendar, or Staff will not be present for the item to make a

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1913 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 14 presentation or answer questions. When the Clerk calls the Consent Calendar, the Clerk shall identify those items that Councilmembers have indicated they wanted to pull (by 5 p.m. the day before) and which Councilmembers have made the requests. Only those items shall be pulled for discussion, unless a Councilmember makes an additional request following the Clerk’s announcement.
(j) Closed Session.
(k) Reports and any Additional Public Actions from Closed Session. (l) City Manager’s Report.
(m) Councilmember Travel Announcements.
(n) Mayor’s highlight.
(o) Public Comment on Remaining Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to have the opportunity to speak on items on the Agenda before or during the City Council’s Consideration of the item, except on quasi-judicial items and where a public hearing is required by law.
(p) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session, other than to give direction to prepare and return with Agenda items in the future. (q) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent Agenda as a continued item. If public comment on a continued item was concluded at the initial meeting, it shall not be repeated. Nonetheless, continued 16 ItemCouncilmember Discussion Items shall

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1914 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 15 be heard along with 16 itemCouncilmember Discussion Items for the current meeting. (r) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal.
(s) Ordinances.
(1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public comment is permitted on second readings.
(2) Introduction and First Reading.
(t) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency. This includes resolutions if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar. No resolution may be placed on an agenda regarding international affairs, except for items of support or condolences for natural disasters or similar tragedies involving Santa Monica’s sister cities. (u) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law. Public comment on a public hearing item shall be taken at the time the item is heard following the Staff presentation of the item. (v) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions that may present reports under this item and pursuant to rule 5(j) include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions, and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Santa Monica Travel and

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1915 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 16 Tourism. Note this subsection provides for the location or timing of these items if placed on the Agenda, not the authority to place items on the Agenda, which is addressed elsewhere in these rules.
(w) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar. No resolution may be placed on an agenda regarding international affairs, except for items of support or condolences for natural disasters or similar tragedies involving Santa Monica’s sister cities.
(x) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public.
(y) Councilmember Requests for Discussion (16 items) and Closed Session Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested Agenda items to provide policy direction. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the Agenda item. Councilmembers shall submit proposed Agenda items to the City Manager, who shall consult Councilmember sponsors, the City Attorney, City Clerk, and Staff as needed. No Councilmember requested resolutions or ordinances should be developed or drafted until a majority of the Council gives direction to the City Manager and/or the City Attorney. The City Manager will work with the Councilmember to decide if the item will be placed on the Agenda or address them in other ways.

Resolutions for advocacy would be an exception.

Councilmember requests for real estate and labor closed session items shall be submitted to the City Manager, and for litigation, including amicus participation, to the City

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1916 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 17 Attorney.

The City Manager and City Attorney shall notify one another when Agenda item requests are made by Councilmembers.

With the exception of appointments to boards, commissions, and other bodies, all Councilmember Discussion “16 iItems” on the Agenda shall be considered as one item, similar to the consent calendar, regardless of the number of matters and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. When the 16 itemCouncilmember Discussion Items are called, Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed for separate consideration. All remaining matters may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda.

A Councilmember may place a 16 item on an agenda to consider a formal censure of a Councilmember for violation of the law, local ordinance, common law conflict of interest, Council rule, or resolution. Due process shall be provided, including notice of the allegations and an opportunity to oppose the accusation. (z) General Public Input. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the Agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the Agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item.

RULE 7. PREPARATION OF MINUTES.

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

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1917 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 18 the City Council.

RULE 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

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

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

In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside. In the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order and a temporary Presiding Officer shall be elected by the Councilmembers present to serve until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore or until adjournment. (b) The Mayor shall be the official signatory on behalf of the Council for all Council approved ordinances, resolutions, contracts, proclamations, and letters of support or opposition, and shall promptly sign all documents presented by the City Clerk.

In the Mayor’s absence, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall sign such documents. Signing in an official capacity does not necessarily indicate personal support for the item. (c) Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. As required by Charter section 604, the Mayor shall be selected by the Council. The procedure for selection shall be as follows: Beginning in December 2022, the Council shall select the longest continuously serving Councilmember, whether initially elected or appointed, to serve as Mayor for a 1 year term. Each subsequent December the next longest continuously serving Councilmember shall be selected as Mayor for a 1 year term, then rotating each December to select the Mayor in order of the next longest serving Councilmember. If two

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1918 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 19 or more Councilmembers were elected at the same election, the Councilmember receiving the higher number of votes shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. If two or more Councilmembers were initially appointed to serve at the same time, then when they each may first become eligible to be selected as Mayor, a coin flip shall decide who shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. The Mayor Pro Tempore may be selected by simple majority vote without regard to this provision. This provision shall not be subject to a suspension of the Council Rules, and shall be implemented until duly repealed or amended by the Council.
(d) The term “Vice Mayor” shall not be used in place of the term “Mayor Pro Tempore.”
RULE 10. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) Participation. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed upon Councilmembers by these rules, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a Councilmember by reason of acting as the Presiding Officer. (b) Duties. The Presiding Officer shall:
(1) preserve order at all meetings of the City Council; (2) state (or cause to be stated) each question coming before the City Council;
(3) announce the decisions of the City Council on all subjects; (4) decide all questions of order subject to the right to appeal rulings on questions of order to the entire City Council in accordance with Rule 12(d) below;

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1919 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 20 and
(5) encourage all persons present at the meeting to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy.

RULE 11. SWORN TESTIMONY AND SUBPOENA POWER.

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

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

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

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1920 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 21 to order, that Councilmember shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined. Whenever any person is called to order while speaking, such person shall be in possession of the floor after the question of order is decided, and may proceed with the matter under the discussion within the ruling made on the question of order. (d) Points of Order. The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Councilmember to appeal to the City Council. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of order. Questions concerning procedures or other legal issues may be directed to the City Attorney for legal advice. If an appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be overruled?” The Presiding Officer's decision may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers then present. The City Attorney may also raise a point of order to provide advice to the Council should there be a concern about procedures, due process, or other legal issues.
(e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned, or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of personal privilege. (f) Privilege of Final Comment. The Councilmember moving the introduction or adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or motion, shall have the privilege of speaking last on the matter after all other Councilmembers have been given an opportunity to speak.
(g) Motion to Reconsider Legislative Actions. A motion to reconsider any

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1921 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 22 legislative action taken by the City Council may be made only by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side and may be seconded by any Councilmember.

Such motion may be made at any time and shall be debatable. A motion by a nonprevailing Councilmember or a request by a member of the public for reconsideration may be made only if one year has passed since the action was taken. (h) Calling for the Question. A question may be called by majority vote of those present. However, neither the moving party nor the party seconding any motion may call for the question, each Councilmember shall be afforded one opportunity to speak on each item before the question is called, and a question may not be called to interrupt or cut off a particular speaker.
(i) Limitation of Debate. Councilmembers shall limit their remarks to the subject under debate. Except for questions raised by another Councilmember to a Councilmember, no Councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other Councilmember desiring to do so has spoken. (j) Each Councilmember shall observe a time limit of 10 minutes each to speak on an agenda item, with exceptions for asking questions of the Councilmember(s) who introduced the item (both questioners and respondents) or staff. The 10 minutes may be used at once or apportioned across debate of an item. If the proposing Councilmember does not save a portion of their time to avail themselves of their privilege of final comment in accordance with Rule 12, Section (f), the Councilmember forfeits their privilege of final comment. Time limits in this Rule may be extended at any time by a 2/3rds vote of the Councilmembers present, and such an extension shall apply to all Councilmembers, if approved.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1922 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 23 (k) Time to speak to a Point of Personal Privilege shall be limited to 1 minute. (l) Time to speak for a Councilmember’s protest statement in opposition to an action shall be limited to 5 minutes.
(m) Time to speak to a proclamation or commendation, excluding the reading of a resolution or certificate, shall be limited to 2 minutes.

RULE 13. PROTEST AGAINST CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for the Councilmember’s opposition to any action of the City Council entered in the Minutes. Such opposition shall be made in the following manner: “I would like the Minutes to reflect that I opposed this action for the following reasons…” A written submission may be provided to the City Clerk to be included in the record.

RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS.

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

RULE 15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
(a) Permitted. Pursuant to the Brown Act, public testimony is permitted on all Agenda items, except ordinances for second reading or as otherwise provided in these rules, and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any matter that is not on the Agenda but is within the City Council’s jurisdiction. However, members of the public do not have the right to give testimony outside the scope of or unrelated to the Agenda item under consideration. Any Council meeting that includes special meeting items and/or

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1923 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 24 joint meetings with other entities shall be considered one meeting, and no general public input shall be taken on any item on a Special Meeting Agenda. Additionally, members of the public should strive to avoid unduly reiterating their own or others’ testimony. (b) Registration. Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda for public discussion shall register with City Clerk staff prior to the start of the meeting, if possible. The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf. No registrations for public input will be accepted on an item after the input period is closed.
(c) Manner of Addressing the City Council. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, members of the public addressing the City Council shall go to the podium, state their name and whom they represent, if they represent an organization or other person. Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to also state their address, neighborhood, or city of residence. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. After a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the City Council on the matter under consideration without first securing City Council approval. (d) Written Public Comment. Those wishing to provide public comment are encouraged to submit it in writing via email to be viewed online. For written comments received by noon on the day of the Council meeting, best efforts shall be made to have them posted on the Council’s online Agenda. All written comments shall be made part of the public record.
(e) Time Limits. Members of the public wishing to speak on more than one

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1924 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 25 item shall limit their remarks to a total of 6 minutes per meeting unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote. For purposes of Rule 15, any Council meeting that includes special meeting items and/or joint meetings with other entities shall be considered one meeting.

A member of the public may allocate time between items in one minute or twominute increments up to 2 minutes and those requesting to speak on only one agendized item for the meeting may speak for up to 4 minutes on that one item. Testimony given as an applicant or appellant does not count toward the 6-minute maximum.

A Board or Commission member reporting to the City Council on behalf of a Board or Commission who was duly authorized to speak for the Board or Commission shall be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes to speak.

Except for noticed public hearings or quasi-judicial items, if more than 25 speakers are registered to speak during a public input sectionon an agenda item, the amount of time shall be limited to 1 minute per speaker during that section.

The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf.

Persons speaking on another’s Written Communication and persons submitting late speaker requests, who receive permission to speak, shall be limited to 1 minute.

Speaker requests are considered late if received after the public input period has been opened. Upon opening the public input section, the City Clerk shall announce approximately how many speakers are registered to speak and the final name registered on the list. Should any other speakers sign up after the stated name and prior to the

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1925 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 26 closing of the public input period, they shall be deemed late and shall be permitted to speak for 1 minute only with a motion approved with 5 votes of the Council.

On Written Communication, those speaking on another’s item may speak only if the person raising the matter appears and testifies. If the person who raises the item does not appear and testify, the matter shall be received and filed and persons wishing to speak on the matter may give their testimony during public input. (f) Special Time Limits for Applicants and Appellants. Applicants and appellants on administrative items and public hearings shall limit their remarks to 10 minutes and may reserve some of their time for use for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public hearing. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address the City Council first and last.
(g) Special Time Limits for Special Agenda Items. Public testimony is permitted on the City Manager’s Report and Appointments to the City Council.

Proclamations, commendations, and appearances by special guests are ceremonial items. To ensure adequate time for the Council’s regular business, groups of honorees or guests, who wish to speak, should appoint one or two representatives to speak for them.

Honorees’ time to speak shall be limited to 2 minutes each. (h) Special Assistance for Those Who Cannot Wait to Speak. Members of the public, including those with special needs, who cannot wait to speak on an Agenda item may request assistance from the City Clerk, and a member of the Clerk's office will provide assistance in preparing a written statement of testimony for distribution to the City Council.

Extended Time Limits and Assistance for Speakers Who Require Interpreter.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 27 A member of the public who utilizes an interpreter to provide English language translation shall receive twice the time otherwise allotted under these rules. The City shall comply with Government Code, Chapter 9, Meetings to provide space for multiple interpreters, allow participants to use personal equipment and/or access to commercially available interpretation services and to the extent that the rules conflict with Chapter 9, the Government Code shall prevail.
(j) Electronic Presentation Materials. Any electronic presentation materials presented as attachments to written public comment submitted by email for viewing online must be submitted in accordance with the time deadline set forth in Section 15(d) above.

Electronic presentation materials will not be accepted in connection with public comment being provided by calling in to the Council meeting. For speakers who will be physically present to provide public comment at the Council meeting, all electronic presentation materials intended for use in connection with the public comment, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by the overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. All such electronic presentation materials must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office and include the City Council meeting date, Agenda item number, and name of the public speaker who, as noted above, will need to be present at the meeting. See also Rule 5(i). Any member of the public choosing to use electronic presentations during public comment does so at their own risk, and the City makes no guarantees regarding compatibility with the City’s technology equipment and system, technological functionality, audio or visual quality, etc. If a public commenter’s electronic presentation is not working

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 28 as desired after one minute, the commenter shall be given the option to restart their time and address the Council directly, or may choose to continue their time and continue with their electronic presentation.
(k) Telephone Public Comment by Two-Way Telephonic Service. Members of the public wishing to address the City Council by telephone telephonically must register at santamonica.gov/public-comment no later than 5:00 p.m. the last business day before a meeting. Electronic presentation materials are not permitted when commenting by telephone telephonically. Telephone callersTelephonic speakers will be heard after all inperson speakers are heard. (l) Requests for Accommodation. Requests for a disability accommodation to provide public testimony at a Council meeting should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s office via email at [email protected] or via telephone at (310) 458- 8211 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be used to accommodate requests received after the 72 hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the Council special meeting.

RULE 16. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY.

When the City Council is in session, all persons present, whether in person or speaking participating by phone, must preserve safety and order and should strive to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. Members of the public who are physically present at the Council meeting should sit in the audience seating area, unless addressing the City Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, should not block the aisles with personal belongings and should not bring audible equipment into the Council

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1928 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 29 Chambers including cellular telephones or pagers. Members of the public may not, except when testifying on or participating in an Agenda item, enter the well area, which is the open area directly in front of the dais and extending outward from it to a line running between the points on the Clerk's desk and the podium nearest to the audience. Applause, vocally or clapping, is prohibited, except for ceremonial items, or as may be invited by the Presiding Officer.

Any person who disrupts the meeting shall be called to order or warned by the Presiding Officer that failure to cease their behavior may result in limited participation or removal. Disruption is behavior that disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of a meeting and shall include but not be limited to: failure to comply with adopted rules, behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force; blocking the audience or camera view of the proceedings. If such conduct continues, the Presiding Officer may request the Sergeant at Arms to remove the person from Council Chambers, or the City Clerk to limit participation of or remove telephonic participants.

The Chief of Police or such member or members of the Police Department as the Chief may designate, shall be Sergeant At Arms of the City Council and shall carry out all orders given by the Presiding Officer through the City Manager for the purpose of maintaining order at City Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require the Presiding Officer to do so.

RULE 17. SEATING ORDER.

After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Councilmember seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1929 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 30 seated next to the Mayor. Changes in seating may be allowed by the Mayor, without requiring a vote, for good cause when those changing seats consent.

RULE 18. ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AND FAILURE TO VOTE.

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

RULE 19. VOTING PROCEDURE.
(a) Any vote of the City Council, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members answering “Yes” for an affirmative vote or “No” for a negative vote upon the member’s name being called by the City Clerk. Voting order shall be based on seating order with each roll call vote beginning at alternating ends of the dais and the Mayor voting last.
(b) Unless any Councilmember calls for separate votes in advance, any item on the Agenda with related sub-parts shall be treated as one Agenda item and voted on in one motion. If the item and sub-parts receive sufficient votes for approval of some, but not all sub-parts (some subparts may require 4 votes and some subparts 5), at the immediate request of any Councilmember, the first vote shall be nullified and Council shall then immediately, without discussion, vote on each item separately. (c) When the Council is making appointments to any committee, board, commission, or equivalent, the Council shall use ranked choice voting. If there are only two nominees for one open seat, the Clerk shall call upon each Councilmember to state their choice between those two nominees to make the selection. Ranked choice voting process shall be as follows:

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1930 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 31 (1) The ranked choice voting application to be used shall be . Should this application become unavailable for any reason, another application may be selected as determined by the City Clerk.
(2) The Clerk shall ask the Council for nominations from among the qualified applicants, and upon collecting all nominations, shall present the Council with the slate of nominees.
(3) Each Councilmember shall then indicate their first choice from among the slate of nominees; they each may indicate only 1 first choice; (4) Each Councilmember shall also indicate their second choice from among the nominees; they may indicate only 1 second choice; (5) Proceed to do the same for up to the total number of nominees; (6) Each Councilmember may rank as many or as few nominees as they may choose; each may not give the same rank to more than 1 nominee; each may not rank the same nominee more than once;
(7) As per rankedchoices.com, votes shall be counted using the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM). The number of Councilmembers who chose a nominee as their first choice is added to the number of Councilmembers who chose the nominee as their second, third, etc. choice, with each count given approximately 2/3 of the weight given to the previous count. Then all the votes are added together to arrive at a tiebreaker value for each nominee. (8) After all Councilmembers cast their ballots, ranking their preferred nominees for election, the tabulation of votes takes the rankings into account. The process may take multiple rounds of counting.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1931 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 32 (9) The threshold (quota) needed to win an election is calculated by the application. The first-ranked nominees on all ballots are counted to determine which candidates meet the threshold (quota). Any nominee who has so few votes that they cannot mathematically meet the threshold at any point shall be eliminated.
(10) Any nominee who meets the threshold is a winner, and if the number of winners equals the number of seats to be elected, the vote is closed. If not, the winners’ ballots are evaluated, this time by the second-ranked nominees on the ballots, and the votes are transferred to candidates who are not yet winners and who haven’t been eliminated, but only to the extent that the winners had more than enough votes to win. For example, if Winner A received 20% over the threshold, the votes transferred to the second-ranked nominees are only 20% of a whole vote. (11) The process repeats through as many rounds of counting as necessary until the number of winners equals the number of seats to be filled. (12) If there are only two nominees for one open seat, the Clerk shall call upon each Councilmember to state their choice between those two nominees to make the selection.

RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1932 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 33 for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter.

RULE 21. TYPES OF MOTIONS.
(a) Only Councilmembers, or duly appointed members of boards sitting with the Council, may make Motions. The Mayor/Presiding Officer shall read them back when requested, and shall confirm that the language as read back is accurate with the maker of the motion. Upon request, the City Attorney shall assist in the formation of motions. A Councilmember must have the floor to make a motion.
(b) Any motion that does not receive a second shall not move forward, and then another motion may be made.
(c) For noticed public hearings and quasi-judicial matters, a main motion shall not be made until public comment on the item is complete. (d) There are three motions that are most common and are usually subject to debate:
(1) The main motion. This motion puts forward a substantive decision, most frequently an Agenda item, for Council consideration. A main motion may include changes to the item as stated on the Agenda or supplemental materials.

Only one main motion may be on the floor at one time.
(2) The motion to amend. This motion seeks to modify the main motion before the Council. A motion to amend cannot be made until there is a main motion on the floor. A motion to substitute a main motion with another motion shall be treated as a motion to amend. Only one motion to amend may be on the floor at one time. All motions to amend shall be resolved prior to voting on the main motion. (3) The procedural motion. This motion is to address a rule of

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1933 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 34 procedure, postpone, or take some other action. Procedural motions take priority over main motions and motions to amend. Only one procedural motion may be on the floor at one time. A “point of order” may be raised at any time, interrupting a speaker when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to make a procedural motion.

Procedural motions are debatable but not subject to public comment. (e) The following common procedural motions shall be handled as follows:
(1) Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote. It is the highest priority motion. (2) Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately recess. The Presiding Officer determines the length of the recess. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(3) Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to adjourn the meeting at a specific time set in the motion. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(4) Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires the discussion of the Agenda item to be halted and the Agenda item placed on hold. The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to Council. If the motion does not contain a specific time for the return of the item, a motion to take the item off the table will have to be taken at a future meeting to bring it back to the Council.

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

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1934 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 35 certain time and/or date, or to a time later in that meeting, as stated in the motion.

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

RULE 22. CHANGING VOTE.

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

RULE 23. AGENDA MANAGEMENT.

At any time after roll call, the Presiding Officer may call for a motion for Agenda management to reorder or combine Agenda items or to determine when public comment may be taken on one or more items. However, public comment may be taken later, but not earlier, than the time or position shown on the Agenda. Noticed public hearings scheduled for a time certain may be heard later, but not earlier, than the time scheduled.

Such a motion shall require the votes of a majority of the Councilmembers present to pass. If such a motion is passed, the City Clerk shall call Agenda items or comment opportunity in accordance with the Agenda as modified by the motion.

RULE 24. PROCEDURE ON AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING A MOTION.

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1935 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 36 The following procedure shall be followed in connection with any Agenda item requiring a motion:
(a) City Clerk reads the title.
(b) Presiding Officer calls for a staff report.
(c) Councilmembers question City staff.
(d) City Council conducts Public hearing.
(e) City Council deliberates.
(f) A Councilmember makes a motion, another Councilmember seconds the motion, and the Council debates it, with the maker of the motion having the opportunity to speak last.
(g) The Presiding Officer restates the motion.
(h) The City Council votes on the motion.
(i) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces result.

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

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

RULE 26. RECORD OF MEETINGS.

All public meetings of the City Council shall be recorded. The recording shall be made by City TV and retained in accordance with the City’s record retention schedule.

The use of other recording or television equipment is permitted so long as it is not disruptive of the meeting.

RULE 27. USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO COMMUNICATE DURING MEETINGS

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1936 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 37 (a) During City Council meetings, Councilmembers shall not use electronic communications of any type, including texts and emails, to communicate among themselves.
(b) The City shall comply with Government Code 54953.4 in Exhibit A and to the extent that the rules conflict with GC 54953.4, the Government Code shall prevail.

Procedures in the Event of a Telephonic or Internet Service Disruption “Disruption” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via two-way telephonic access. If the Presiding Officer or Clerk becomes aware of a disruption to the agency’s remote access services that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely:

1. The Presiding Officer or Clerk shall immediately announce the disruption to the public.

2. The Presiding Officer may then call for a recess of the open session or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act.

3. Staff shall begin efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.

4. The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing.
i. Efforts to Restore Service. The agency shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1937 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 38 troubleshooting software; resetting or replacing equipment; attempting alternative connection methods; contacting support staff or service providers; and switching to back-up equipment or platforms. The City Clerk shall document the restoration efforts undertaken.
ii. Reconvening the Open Session. The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.

1. If Service Is Restored. If two-way telephonic access service is restored before or at the time the meeting
reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal.

2. If Service Is Not Restored. If service has not been
restored after one hour, the Council may reconvene and:
adjourn the meeting; or continue the meeting in open
session by adopting the following by roll call vote:
“The City of Santa Monica made good faith efforts to
restore telephonic or internet service in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public
access.”
Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may
continue the open session despite the fact that remote

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1938 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 39 access services have not been restored. The Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes,
including the following: nature and time of the disruption; restoration efforts undertaken; the time the meeting was reconvened (if applicable); and finding adopted by
Council.

RULE 28. [Repealed] COUNCIL BRIEFINGS; REPRESENTATION AT MEETINGS, FUNCTIONS AND EVENTS.

The City Manager and/or City Attorney may meet with Councilmembers to provide briefings. Briefings shall be conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. No person shall attend these meetings other than the Councilmembers invited without invitation of the City Manager and/or City Attorney. No Councilmember shall authorize or permit any person who is not a City of Santa Monica employee or duly appointed agent of the City (for example, outside counsel, contractor, or consultant) acting within the scope of that person’s job duties, to represent them as a Councilmember, or represent the Council, or the City, at any meeting, function, or event.

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

RULE 30. INTERPRETATION AND MODIFICATION OF THESE RULES.

These rules shall be interpreted liberally to provide for the optimum in the free interchange of information and public debate without an unnecessary waste of time or

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1939 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 40 duplication of effort. These rules may be amended by resolution.

RULE 31. FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES OF ORDER.

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

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

RULE 32. COUNCIL BRIEFINGS.

The City Manager and/or City Attorney may meet with Councilmembers to provide briefings. Briefings shall be conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. No person shall attend these meetings other than the Councilmembers invited without invitation of the City Manager and/or City Attorney. No Councilmember shall authorize or permit any person who is not a City of Santa Monica employee or duly appointed agent of the City (for example, outside counsel, contractor, or consultant) acting within the scope of that person’s job duties, to represent them as a Councilmember, or represent the Council, or the City, at any meeting, function, or event.

SECTION 2. Resolution Number 11663 (CCS) and all other resolutions adopting, amending, or relating to City Council Rules of Order, are hereby repealed in their entirety.

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.B.a
Packet Pg. 1940 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 11] (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:22 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Add to Item 11.B: Remote Comment and Meeting Options for Advisory Boards

EXTERNAL
City Council and City Clerk,
As a city commissioner (albeit one not eligible for this particular option) and a resident of Santa Monica, writing only for myself, I wish to bring to your attention that Senate Bill 707 (2025) allows for advisory bodies to meet virtually or in a hybrid fashion. I hope your discussion on Agenda Item #11.B will touch on this, along with the agendized changes to City Council operations.

Allowing for remote or hybrid advisory board participation can expand the pool of people able to serve and can open meetings up to a wider audience. And while virtual public comment is always an option open to a board, even if the members themselves meet in person, holding virtual or hybrid meetings for the board is also a good occasion to figure out the procedures for and to implement virtual public comment for advisory bodies as well (required for virtual/hybrid meetings).

Even if a board plans to mostly continue to meet in person, having a virtual option provides flexibility. For instance, a board could regularly schedule every other meeting virtual and in person. Or a board could generally meet in person but use the virtual option to hold a meeting that would otherwise be canceled for lack of quorum when certain board members are unavailable to come in person. Or a board could always meet in person—with a social (or bylawsmandated) expectation of in-person board attendance—but allow hybrid participation for members to occasionally participate remotely when they can't make it (without having to worry about the strictures of other, more limited hybrid meetings options under state law).

The rules for this include the following:
 City Council must first approve each body's use of these provisions. Then the body itself must approve, in person, before meeting thereafter remotely.
 City Council must renew each body's use of these provisions every six months.  Cameras must remain on if possible at all times.
 A physical location must still be selected by vote of the body to be open for public viewing and comment. A staff person must be there.

These are the types of bodies that are eligible:
"For purposes of this section, 'eligible subsidiary body' means a legislative body that meets all of the following:
 ...Serves exclusively in an advisory capacity.
 Is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or any other entitlements, grants, or allocations of funds.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1941 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2  Does not have primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by the charter, an ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals.

An eligible subsidiary body may include members who are elected officials, members who are not elected officials, or any combination thereof."
I believe this applies to the following bodies: Airport; Arts; Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment; Disabilities; Housing; Human Services; Recreation and Parks; Audit; Transit Security; Urban Forest; Community Gardens; Virginia Avenue Park; Field Sports; Santa Monica Aquatics By my read, the following bodies are not eligible for the following reasons: Architectural Review (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Building and Fire-Life Safety (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Landmarks (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Library (may set policy on book availability and not purely advisory—can accept money); Personnel (quasijudicial/not purely advisory); Planning (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Public Safety Reform and Oversight (addresses police oversight among primary subject matter); Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight (addresses taxes as primary subject matter); Housing Authority (not purely advisory); Measure GS Resident Oversight (addresses taxes as primary subject matter); Transient Occupancy Tax (addresses taxes as primary subject matter) Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1942 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Magdalia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Agenda item 11-B - June 9 2026

EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Santa Monica and appreciate the role of city council members. While at times, tough conversations need to be had, that needs to be continued and to eliminate the ability for any one voice to speak up is not acceptable. Therefore city council should NOT pass this agenda item.

Regards,
Magdalia Armstrong
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1943 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: ITEM 11-B OPPOSE

EXTERNAL

STOP GAGGING EVERYONE - RESIDENTS AND LANA- YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYING POWER

GAMES WITH THIS SINCE YOU GOT IN- JUST STOP IT
The first is Agenda item 11-B, which would change the City Council “Rules of Order” to eliminate the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item” because it is among the last items on the Council Agenda.

Currently any one of the seven individual council members can place a “16 item” on the Agenda.

Council will vote tomorrow (Agenda item 11-B) on whether to end this long standing practice. If 11-B passes on Tuesday, more than one Councilmember will be required to agendize a 16 item.

While the proposed change is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete. Negrete is frequently a lone voice to bring forward issues of concern to residents. Negrete is urging residents to fight for the preservation of the current practice.

Even when such items fail to gain Council support, she says, "the 16 items are an important means of fostering open and transparent governance."
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1944 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: Shari Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I ask that you keep 11-B in place. There would be no logical reason to remove it unless you have an ulterior motive.

Let’s keep transparency and fairness a part of the council’s meetings.

Thank you,
Shari Phillips
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1945 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Subject: 11-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
This move is truly anti-democratic. We must not have a city council that censors minority views and that is what 11 B does.

Each council member was voted in by the residents. Limiting the ability of one council member to place an item of
interest to the residents on the agenda is negating all those residents’ votes for that council member.

It may in fact be a violation of the first amendment. I’m not a lawyer but if this passes, I am sure it will be challenged
in court. Further, if you support 11B, Santa Monica residents will certainly let you know how we feel at the ballot box. And
we will not support you. Do you really want to be known for supporting censorship? No you don’t.

While the proposed change is not, on its face, about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete (or any council member in the minority on the council in the future) and squashing a council member's right to place an item of interest to residents on the agenda. Former Mayor Lana Negrete is frequently the lone voice raising issues of concern for residents. She has every right to continue doing so. As each of you has every right to raise whatever issue you want to raise.

This is a sad and ugly day in Santa Monica when City Council considers violating our first amendment on the Dais.

Do the right thing. Vote against 11-B.

Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1946 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B -

EXTERNAL
I am writing today to demand preservation of the current 16 item. The 16 items are an important means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Thank you,
Kelli Urode
SM Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1947 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall Subject: Agenda Item 11B

EXTERNAL
RE: Opposition to Agenda Item 11B – Proposed Amendments to City Council Agenda Procedures Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of residents of the Virginia Avenue Apartments to express our opposition to the proposed changes contained in Item 11B, specifically the requirement that no fewer than two and no more than three Councilmembers sponsor a Councilmember Discussion Item before it can be placed on a Council agenda.

As residents who have spent the last several years advocating for transparency, accountability, and public oversight regarding the rehabilitation of our homes, we are deeply concerned that this proposal would create unnecessary barriers between residents and their elected representatives.

The purpose of electing Councilmembers is to ensure that residents have multiple avenues through which their concerns can be heard and brought forward for public discussion. Requiring a Councilmember to obtain the support of additional Councilmembers before an issue can even be discussed weakens that relationship and limits the ability of individual Councilmembers to independently represent the constituents who elected them.

Our concern is not theoretical. At the start of the Virginia Avenue Apartments rehabilitation project, residents had reached out to Councilmembers individually seeking assistance, oversight, and advocacy.

Those requests were met with silence or no action. In those circumstances, residents relied on finding a single Councilmember willing to listen and help elevate our concerns. Under the proposed rule, even that pathway could be blocked if additional Councilmembers declined to support placing the matter on an agenda.

This proposal risks creating a gatekeeping process that makes it more difficult for residents to have important issues discussed in a public forum. Matters that affect public safety, housing, transparency, accountability, neighborhood concerns, or emerging community issues should not require multiple Councilmembers’ approval before they can be publicly considered. A single elected representative should retain the ability to bring forward issues raised by constituents and allow the full Council to determine their merits during an open meeting.

We are also concerned that requiring multiple sponsors could discourage independent voices on the Council and reduce opportunities for public discourse. Healthy democratic governance depends on the free exchange of ideas, differing viewpoints, and the ability of elected officials to raise issues on behalf of their constituents—even when those issues may not initially have broad political support.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1948 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 The residents of Virginia Avenue Apartments strongly oppose any policy that effectively censors or limits the ability of individual Councilmembers to bring constituent concerns before the public. Rather than restricting access to the agenda-setting process, the City should be strengthening pathways for resident engagement and ensuring that every member of the community has meaningful access to their elected representatives.

We respectfully urge the City Council to reject this portion of Item 11B and preserve the ability of individual Councilmembers to place discussion items on the agenda without requiring the approval of additional Councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to the residents of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Brittany de Guzman, Diana Flores, Kiana Achoy, and Soledad Jimenez Virginia Avenue Apartments
@generations_of_virginia_ave
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1949 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: John Redfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Deer Council,
As a many years Santa Monica resident who who follows local politics, I’d urge you all to retain item 16, to maintain the ability for individual council members to keep an open dialogue to the benefit of Santa Monica residents and general public John Redfield Business owner
1501 Colorado Av.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1950 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 9 David Yakobson
From: Mara Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11B

EXTERNAL
Leave the “16 Item” rule alone. It is critical to allow council minority members a voice to raise issues in a public matter.

Mara Thompson
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1951 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 10 David Yakobson
From: Brice Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please vote No on 11-b

EXTERNAL
Council,
Please vote now on item 11 – B.
11 – B allows minorities in their opinion in your council to raise valid concerns of citizens that may not share view points with an overwhelming majority of your council members.

By preserving 11 – B you are preserving what is a positive effect of responsible governance. In today’s’ current political climate, I think we can all agree that silencing those who simply don’t agree with you has rather dangerous implications. You can do better.

Thank you.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1952 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 11 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:21 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B - OPPOSE Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11 - B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Council Member Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Tricia Crane, Chair with Unanimous Support of the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 12 David Yakobson
From: Kiana Achoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:29 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Opposition to Item 11B - 9JUNE26

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I respectfully oppose the portion of Item 11B that would require multiple Councilmembers to sponsor an agenda item before it can be discussed.

Residents elect Councilmembers to represent their concerns and bring issues forward. Requiring additional Councilmember support before an item can even reach the agenda creates an unnecessary barrier to public participation and limits transparency.

One Councilmember should be able to place an item on the agenda when residents raise concerns that deserve public discussion. Open government depends on allowing issues to be heard, debated, and considered in a public forum.

Please reject this proposed change and preserve direct access between residents and their elected representatives.

Sincerely,
Kiana Achoy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 13 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO on Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Hello, the current “rule of order” must not be changed.

The the right ethical thing & bite NO on 11-B.
50 year resident of Santa Monica. Lou Steiner
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 14 David Yakobson
From: jzhawk13 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FROM Jill Hawkins 11-B preserve current practice.

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council, Regarding. 11B, Please preserve the current practice. Don't be one of those people who vote to silence others.

Sincerely.... Do the right thing.

Jill Hawkins
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 15 David Yakobson
From: KAREN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not pass 11-B !!!!

EXTERNAL
Please keep the Rules of Order as is and allow the 16th-item discussion to be introduced by one council member.

Thank you,
Karen Harris
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 16 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi
Cc: Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Susan Cline; Denise Anderson-Warren Subject: June 9, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 11-B. - Councilmember 16. Items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi, and Councilmembers -
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

I believe all Councilmembers will appreciate the opportunity to act from time to time as a single voice on the Council raising issues of concern to constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Thank you!
Sincerely, Ann Bowman, Resident 29+ years
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 17 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:08 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: Nicola Scott
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: Gavin and Nicola Scott, 1801 Marine Street, Santa Monica CA 90405 We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 18 David Yakobson
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: Ferris Gluck
I stand with the Board of Northeast Neighbors regarding the following letter submitted by them on June 9, 2026::

We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

You have been methodically chipping away at the democratic processes in Santa Monica - taking away time for citizens to speak at city council meetings, removing funding for neighborhood associations if they don't comply with new anti-democratic rules, reneging on ballot measures passed Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 19 to preserve our airport as parkland, and on and on. Where will this end? Stop destroying our beloved Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 20 David Yakobson
From: Isaac Yerushalmi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:07 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Item 11-B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I oppose Agenda Item 11-B. Allowing a single elected Councilmember to place a Councilmember Item on the agenda helps ensure transparency and gives residents a voice, even when that voice is in the minority. Requiring two Councilmembers to do so would make it harder for individual representatives to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents and would diminish open public discussion.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Isaac Yerushalmi
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1962 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tom Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item

EXTERNAL
11-B should not be allowed to pass on Tuesday.

A Resident against this
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1963 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Neil Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 Item

EXTERNAL
Please do not remove 16 item.

Thank you,
Neil Kaplan
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1964 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request that you NOT pass 11b. Keep present policy in place. Thank you

EXTERNAL
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1965 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Helen Landon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B and the 16 item

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I just learned about the vote to take place tonight to remove the "16 item".

Over the years many important issues have been brought forward by a council member using this process.

Please do not get rid of it. It's a way that residents are heard and can feel like they truly matter and have a say.

A few years ago when one of my daughters was in high school, she wrote to the council multiple times about the Big Blue Bus no longer taking cash payment. She found this discriminatory. Eventually the item was brought forward. She ultimately had a meeting with the head of the Big Blue Bus leadership and cash payment was brought back!
This is only a personal example of something important that was brought forward through this process, but there are many more...

Please do not end this important process.

Helen Zielinski Landon, PhD
resident and business owner Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1966 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Priestley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 Council Meeting Vote

EXTERNAL
Hello
I am a long time resident of Santa Monica and want to express my concern that the council plans a vote to change the long standing rule that any one council person can bring a topic up for discussion as an “item 16”. We as residents deserve to be represented by all council members and have a transparent and open discussion of all items of concern.

Sincerely
Elizabeth Priestley
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1967 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Yingling <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to demand preservation of the current system which allows any one of the seven individual council members to place a “16-item” on the Agenda. This is an important means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Attempting to require two council members instead of one will result in the silencing of any council member in the minority and will hinder their right to place an item of interest to residents on the agenda.

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Santa Monica praises itself as a city that welcomes a diversity of voices yet this is in direct opposition to that ideal.

I’m disappointed this is even being considered — please do better for your constituents.

Jessica Yingling
220 San Vicente Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-991-8495
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1968 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Esther Hickman; Molly; Roni Crichton; Lenny Hom; Karen M. Fisher Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Whenever you think you have heard it all, it just gets worse, My entire family is against 11-B. You are trying again to silence the minority and not let contrary opinions have a voice. This measure would prevent a single council person from bring forward a measure. How dare you attempt to silence Lana who sometimes singlehandedly brings forth agenda items. We, your residents deserve to hear all points of view and to have all matters that the minority wants to put in front of the citizens and council. You are getting more trumpish each day.

Just like Torosis preventing people from having time to speak. You prepare for 2 or 4 minutes and get 30 seconds. You are destroying the democracy in Santa Monica.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
310 749 5343
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1969 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Council members to post a Council member Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1970 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 2 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:20 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I respectfully oppose the proposal requiring two Councilmembers to sponsor a Councilmember Agenda Item before it can be placed on the agenda.

Good governance depends on the free exchange of ideas, especially ideas that challenge the status quo. Many of the most important discussions begin with a single elected official raising a concern, asking a difficult question, or bringing forward an issue that others may have overlooked. Requiring a second sponsor creates a gatekeeping mechanism that allows majority viewpoints to suppress minority viewpoints before the public even has an opportunity to hear them.

Santa Monica has approximately 90,000 residents and only seven Councilmembers. Each Councilmember represents thousands of residents. When a single Councilmember is prevented from agendizing an item, it is not merely that Councilmember's voice being limited, it is the voice of a significant portion of the community.

The purpose of a Councilmember Agenda Item is not to guarantee adoption of a proposal. It is simply to allow public discussion and consideration by the full Council. If an idea lacks merit, the Council can vote it down. There is no compelling reason to prevent the discussion from occurring in the first place.

I am particularly troubled because this proposal comes on the heels of other actions that have reduced opportunities for public participation. Public comment is already reduced to one minute per speaker when more than twenty residents wish to speak. While efficiency has its place, the cumulative effect of limiting public comment and now limiting the ability of individual Councilmembers to place items on the agenda moves us further away from open government and robust civic engagement.

Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, not merely to vote on items selected by others. Requiring a Councilmember to obtain permission from another Councilmember before raising an issue risks silencing independent voices and discouraging thoughtful dissent. A healthy democracy is strengthened, not weakened, by hearing perspectives that differ from others.

I urge the Council to preserve the longstanding practice that allows a single Councilmember to agendize an item.

Transparency, accountability, and public trust are best served when ideas are debated openly rather than filtered out before the discussion can even begin.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1971 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 3 David Yakobson
From: David Abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: vote no on 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Please vote NO on item 11-B. To retain credibility and public trust, you must not silence council members who are doing their jobs and serving constituents by raising, alone, a "16 item" on an agenda.

Regards,
David Abrams
1632 5th St.

Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1972 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 4 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:22 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/9/26 - Item 11-B - Wilmont Board comments on proposed changes to council rules

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
With Item 11.B the City Council is doing more than implement SB 707; it is changing local city council procedural rules. The Board of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) provides its comments on the options it opposes as well as the options it supports.

Wilmont Board opposes these options:
 Increase the number of council members required to submit Discussions Items to no more than a majority of the council as prohibited by the Brown Act (ex. No less than two and no more than three councilmembers
o While this option has high efficiency it does not have high quality. On a seven-member city council EVERY VOICE counts. What makes a healthy community is not that everyone agrees. It is that people are willing to thoughtfully raise concerns, ask difficult questions and ensure decisions are fully examined before they permanently affect the city. The movie 12 Angry Men reminds us that progress does not always begin with unanimous support. Sometimes it begins with a single person willing to say, "This deserves a closer look". This is not obstruction. This is civic responsibility. Strong communities depend on city council members and residents who are willing to engage, speak thoughtfully and advocate for outcomes that they believe better serve the long-term well-being of residents. We support the city in allowing a single city council member to place a future agenda item forward without having a second to present that item as a 16 item (soon to be called a Council member Discussion Item) without a second. In a seven member council, that ensures even one elected representative - 14.285 % of the council and the residents they represent can raise issues of public importance for discussion. Who knows, maybe that city council member will be similar to juror 8 and help an innocent man be freed or a poor policy/decision be improved or rectified.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1973 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 5  Rule 15. Public Testimony - Oppose "that no general public input shall be taken on any item on a Special Meeting Agenda and Oppose that four minutes to speak when registering to speak on only one item is being deleted
o We continue to see the reduction and degradation of public comment, and specifically resident public comment. This continues an abysmal trend by this city council. You kept the fourminutes of time as a compromise to discontinuing time donation. And now, conveniently you are getting rid of the four minutes. Again, how efficient but lacking in a look to quality. We have no understanding of why there should be no public input on a Special Meeting but would be willing to understand the city council’s logic.
 We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least two council members.  Current Practice - We oppose the current practice of giving public input before the staff report and clarifying questions and request that public input comes AFTER the staff report and clarifying questions.

Wilmont Board supports these options:
 Setting Closed Session - Support Option - First by keeping the start time of 5:30 pm, and set a time limit to hear the open session at a certain time (ex. Closed Session at 5:30 pm and open session at 7 pm)
o We agree with the staff report regarding this option so a set start time or estimated return for open session to inform the public of when they: can sign up for comment, will be called to speak, and can continue listening to the meeting.
 Setting a Time for Public Input on Non-Agenda Items - Support Option - Move public input on non-agenda items prior to adjournment
o The city council develops an agenda. It has been unclear how they determine what goes on the agenda but we assume it is important. Why are we giving away our earlier times to any issue that anyone wants addressed? It seems generous that the city council gives time to provide public input on non-agenda items at all.
 Managing Speaking Time for 25+ Speakers - Support Option - At whatever threshold of people (see recommendation below) we agree with reduction from two minutes to one minute "per agenda item" with all speakers for other agenda items to retain their requested speaking time o In a survey of public agencies, the standard of 30 people to reduce the amount of public input time is a standard. We would appreciate consideration to expanding that number from 25 to 30 people.

Many thanks,
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1974 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 6 David Yakobson
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: NO on Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
As a longtime Santa Monica resident, I strongly oppose Agenda Item 11-B. This would make it more difficult for individual Councilmembers to represent their constituents. It is obvious that the purpose of 11-B is a blatant attempt to muzzle Councilmember Negrete. We don’t need Trump tactics in Santa Monica from our very own leaders! Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1975 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:24 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
I vigorously OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Once again this Council seeks to silence those who support residents. This proposal negates the right of the people to hear all sides. It is prior censorship and unacceptable.

Each and every councilperson has a right and duty to express an opinion on topics concerning Santa Monica. DO NOT REQUIRE TWO TO MAKE A STATEMENT. If you oppose an idea, vote against it when it comes to a vote. DO NOT SILENCE IN ADVANCE an elected councilmember because you do not agree with her views.

Harriet P Epstein
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1976 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 8 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Ravel Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve. Additionally, if ever the council ends up having to move to a district representation model, the ability to speak for a particular area of the city would be increasingly important.

The proposed changes in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on. Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent discussion and governance.

Thank you,
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1977 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 9 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:29 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE ITEM 11-B. CHANGES TO RULES OF ORDER

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
STOP THE GAMES WITH FREE SPEECH - WITH LANA AND THE RESIDENTS.. STOP YOUR

AUTHORITARIAN GAMES -
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1978 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 10 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I oppose the proposed change to the “Rules of Order” that eliminates the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place a "Councilmember Discussion Item" on the public meeting agenda.

Please preserve the current system.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1979 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 11 David Yakobson
From: stephen youngerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
Stephen Youngerman Santa Monica resident
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Stephen Youngerman
310-478-3780
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse the typos.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1980 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 12 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:

Dear City Council members,
I am writing to preserve the “Rules of Order” and current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item.” Any council member should have the option of adding pertinent city discussion topics to the agenda should a subject arise that they feel needs immediate resolve.

Best,
Elizabeth Chang

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1981 Attachment: Written Comments (7627 : Amend Council Rules) 13 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:51 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda iten 11-B