SR 03-07-2017 7A
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : March 7, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director , Administration
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.12 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code Regarding Noise Regulations
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
amending certain Sections 4.12.020 and 4.12.030 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
to exempt activities undertaken on outdoor public property in land use zones not
exclusively designated as residen tial.
Executive Summary
At its April 12, 2016 meeting, Council directed staff to return with an amendment to the
noise ordinance to exempt from the City’s noise ordinance non -commercial free speech
activities within commercial zones between 7:00 am and 10 :00 p.m., with a provision to
exclude activities that create excessive noise at a permanent residence, hospital, or
school. Staff recommends the creation of a new exemption to the Noise Ordinance in
response to Council’s direction.
Background
At its Apr il 12, 2016 meeting a staff administrative item was presented to Council with
background information and a recommendation regarding the Noise Ordinance. The
staff report with attachments from this meeting is included with this report as Attachment
A and p rovides greater background information on prior Council actions. At this
meeting, Council directed staff to return with an amendment to the noise ordinance to
include language that non -commercial free speech in a commercial zone, not already
covered by sp ecific laws such as those controlling the promenade and pier, that does
not create excessive noise at a permanent residence or a hospital or a school, and that
occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., be presumed to be a legal activity.
Noise violat ions are currently enforced by both the City’s Police Department and the
2 of 4
Code Enforcement Division. Sworn police officers take the lead with events or
complaints related to larger gatherings and after -hours complaints. Code Enforcement
staff address prim arily construction -related noise complaints.
Discussion
The City’s Noise Ordinance (Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.12) currently
exempts the following activities to varying degrees:
1. Activities conducted on public or private school grounds inclu ding, but not limited
to, school athletic and school entertainment events;
2. Community events;
3. Activities conducted on public property that is generally open to the public,
including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, parkways, parks, and
beach es.
4. Any alarm or emergency device, apparatus or equipment regulated by Municipal
Code Sections 3.56.010 through 3.60.010;
5. Activities undertaken by governmental agencies to protect public health, safety or
welfare;
6. Any activity regulated by Santa Monica Mu nicipal Code Section 10.04.04.010 et
seq. (Aircraft Noise Abatement Code);
7. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or
Federal law.
The only limitation the Noise Ordinance currently places upon free -speech activities
condu cted on outdoor public property resides in SMMC Section 4.12.025, which
generally prohibits noise that would “unreasonably disturb the peace, quiet and comfort
of persons of normal sensitivity” and noise that is “so harsh or prolonged or unnatural or
unusu al in [its] use, time or place as to cause physical discomfort to any persons of
normal sensitivity….” Such general prohibitions have been adopted in other cities and
upheld by the courts. Of course, in addition to local law, state law, such as Califor nia
Penal Code Section 415, also regulates noise on public (and private) properties.
3 of 4
Given Council’s direction to enhance First Amendment protections, staff proposes to
add an additional exemption by amending the Noise Ordinance (see Attachment B) to
exem pt any non -commercial activity on outdoor public property that occurs between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., not including the Santa Monica Pier and Third Street
Promenade that does not immediately abut any exclusively residential use. The
exempti on would not apply when the non -commercial free speech creates excessive
noise at a nearby permanent residence, hospital, or school. This language is intended
to account for the fact that residential property can be constructed in virtually any land
use z one within the city and many commercial areas already include mixed uses.
Additionally, regardless of local law, Police officers would still enforce state law’s noise
regulations, including California Penal Code Section 415’s prohibition against
“dist urbing the peace”. California Penal Code Section 415 prohibits:
1. Unlawfully fighting, or challenging another person to fight, in a public space,
2. Disturbing another person by loud and unreasonable noise; if this is done willfully
and maliciously, and
3. Using offensive words in a public place, if the words are likely to provoke an
immediate violent reaction.
In conducting community outreach on the proposed change , Unite Here, whose union
organizing tactics and police response to them has generated past contro versy, has
expressed support for the recommended option. On the other hand, reaction from the
Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Santa Monica Inc. was critical of the approach.
Members expressed concern about potential unintended consequences. Similar
con cerns have surfaced from some activist members of neighborhood associations
concerned about potential spillover impacts on residential areas adjacent to commercial
strips although the recommended option is tailored specifically to allay that concern.
Alte rnatives
4 of 4
Council could make no changes to the existing noise ordinance, since existing law
would likely withstand a constitutional challenge and provides enforcement staff with the
tools necessary to enforce noise related violations.
Financial Impacts a nd Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action.
Prepared By: Salvador Valles, Assistant Director of PCD
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. April 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report
B. Ordinance
C. Written Comments
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 2:50 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Ted Wint erer; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Rick
Cole; David Martin; Andrew Hoyer; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Items 7a and 7b on city Council March 7, 2017
Sorry I am out of town on vacation.
I agree with staff report on 7a. All or most of our commercial zones are to o close to residential areas. There
should be a 2 hour limit on any permit or demonstra tion in the City. Police time is very valuable.
I think 7b is a good start. I did not no tice any mention of a timeline or fine s for a property that would be in
violation of the Property Ordi nance. For two many of the hidden LLC ow ners and developers it is just the cost
of doing business. Will this be discussed?
Thank you.
Ellen Hannan
1218 9th St #6
Santa Monica, CA
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Board Members, Cont.
Jeff Jarow
PAR Commercial Real Estate
Brokerage
Jeff Klocke
Pacific Park on the Santa
Monica Pier
Mitchell Kraus
Capital Intelligence Associates
Tim Kusserow
Ca rlthorp School
Leonard “Len” Lanzi
Los Angeles Venture
Association
Paula Larmore
Harding Larmore Kutcher &
Kozal, LLP
Jeff Lasky
Hudson Pacific Properties,
Inc.
Matt Lavin
Worthe Real Estate Group
Richard Lawrence
Commercial Bank of
California
Paul Leclerc
Le Meridien Delfina
Gary Loeb
Chezgal Merchandising
Creations
Marcel Loh
St John’s Health Center
Providence
Brian Mac Mahon
Expert Dojo
Ellis O’Connor
MSD Hospitality Fai rmont
Miramar Hotel & Bungalows
Susan Gabriel Potter
Bob Gabriel Insuranc e
Nat Trives
Coalition for Engaged
Educations
Juan Viramontes
Georgian Hotel
John Warfel
Metropolitan Pacific
Adam Weiss
Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.
Chair
Yesenia Monsour
Kaiser Permanente
Chair Elect
West Hooker
Locanda del Lago
Past C hair
Julia Ladd
Santa Monica Place
Chief Financial Officer
Dave Nelson
Tegner -Miller Insurance
Brokers
Vice Chairman
Ba rbara Bishop
BBPR, Inc.
Vice Chairman
Richard Chacker
Perry’s Café and Bike
Rentals
Vice Chairman
Justin Grant
Morley Builders
Vice Chairman
Pat McRoskey
Water Garden
Vice Chairman
Scott Schonfeld
Linwood Ventures
Board Members
Daniel Abramson
RA ND Corporation
Matthew Allnatt
Jonathan Club
Alisha Auringer
L A carGuy
Ted Braun
UCLA Health
Julia Cooksey
Frontier Communications
Kiersten Elliott
Santa Monica College
Michael Gruning
Pence Hawthorn
Colby Goff
Rustic Canyon Family
Mike Harriel
Sou thern California Gas
Company
Susan Inwood
Wells Fargo Advisors,
LLC
Ma rch 6 , 2017
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 7A – Proposed Noise Ordinance Changes
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
The Santa Mo nica Chamber of Commerce strongly
opposes the proposed changes to our Noise Ordinance .
Exempting specific areas from the important protections that
our noise ordinance provides is unfair to the residents, visitors,
employees and local businesses in these a reas. This proposed
change is completely unnecessary, and could expose the city to
significant legal challenges.
The Chamber strongly supports first amendment rights as an
essential component of a healthy and open society. Santa
Monica has a longstanding reputation for protecting the rights
of individuals and organizations to express diverse points of
view. We agree with the Staff Report from your April 16th
meeting, which clearly states that the existing noise ordinance
provides strong and sufficient fir st amendment protections,
while also protecting our community members from
uncomfortably loud noises.
If a local resident, employee, or visitor is walking down
Montana Ave or dining outdoors on Main Street, they deserve
to be protected from noises that are so “harsh or prolonged or
unnatural or unusual in their use, time, place as to cause
physical discomfort”. We see no compelling reason to remove
such a protection.
Further, we worry that, as was stated in the staff report
previously referenced, “Elimina ting noise enforcement in
commercial districts would severely undermine the Police
Department’s ability to respond to complaints.” We hope that
you will seek further input from our Police Department before
deciding on such a significant change.
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Chair
Yesenia Monsour
Kaiser Permanente
Chair Elect
West Hooker
Locanda del Lago
Past C hair
Julia Ladd
Santa Monica Place
Chief Financial Officer
Dave Nelson
Tegner -Miller Insurance
Brokers
Vice Chairman
Barbara Bishop
BBPR, Inc.
Vice Chairman
Richard Chacker
Perry’s Café and Bike
Rentals
Vice Chairman
Justin Grant
Morle y Builders
Vice Chairman
Pat McRoskey
Water Garden
Vice Chairman
Scott Schonfeld
Linwood Ventures
Board Members
Daniel Abramson
RAND Corporation
Matthew Allnatt
Jonathan Club
Alisha Auringer
L A carGuy
Ted Braun
UCLA Health
Julia Cooksey
Frontier Communications
Kiersten Elliott
Santa Monica College
Michael Gruning
Pence Hawthorn
Colby Goff
Rustic Canyon Family
Mike Harriel
Southern California Gas
Company
Susan Inwood
Wells Fargo Advisors,
LLC
Board Members, Cont.
Jeff Jarow
PAR Commercial Real Estate
Brokerage
Jeff Klocke
Pacific Park on the Santa
Monica Pier
Mitchell Kraus
Capital Intelligen ce Associates
Tim Kusserow
Carlthorp School
Leonard “Len” Lanzi
Los Angeles Venture
Association
Paula Larmore
Harding Larmore Kutcher &
Kozal, LLP
Jeff Lasky
Hudson Pacific Properties,
Inc.
Matt Lavin
Worthe Real Estate Group
Richard Lawrence
Commer cial Bank of
California
Paul Leclerc
Le Meridien Delfina
Gary Loeb
Chezgal Merchandising
Creations
Marcel Loh
St John’s Health Center
Providence
Brian Mac Mahon
Expert Dojo
Ellis O’Connor
MSD Hospitality Fai rmont
Miramar Hotel & Bungalows
Susan Gabri el Potter
Bob Gabriel Insurance
Nat Trives
Coalition for Engaged
Educations
Juan Viramontes
Georgian Hotel
John Warfel
Metropolitan Pacific
Adam Weiss
Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.
Considering all the negative impacts associated with this
proposal, the Chamber encourages you to reject the
proposed changes. Residents, visitors, employees, and local
businesses deserve to be protected from loud and abrasive
noise.
Sincerely,
Yesenia M onsour Laurel Rosen
Chair President / CEO
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:25 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Tues night mtg: Agenda Item 7.A.
Council ‐
Please see the below email regarding the noise ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Victoria Best [mailto:vectord7@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 10:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Tues night mtg: Agenda Item 7.A.
Dear Council Member and Mayor Winterer:
I am writing this evening to communicate my support for the proposed noise ordinance, which is on the
Agenda for the Council meeting on Tuesday, March 7.
I think that the exemptions (copied from the proposed ordinance and pasted below) are consistent with the
need for free speech in Santa Monica, which I consider to be very important, ESPECIALLY at this time in light of
our repressive, kleptocratic, corrupt, oligarchic, racist, sexist and exclusionary administration in Washington,
D.C.
The residents of this city and this country must be able to resist exploitation, racism, sexism, and other abuses
of power by speaking out and communicating vital information to the public. Since those with the
greatest power and money have the greatest ability to fill the airwaves and other arenas of public discourse
with disinformation and distracting "noise," those whose lives, livelihoods, health and well ‐being are put in
jeopardy by abuses of power need the protectio ns in our First Amendment to be able to make their
communications heard by as many as possible.
I am grateful that Santa Monica stands tall as one of the cities in this country that is taking principled stands
against the recently intensified overreach of power and oppression of those who are marginalized, mistreated,
and labeled "other." This ordinance is but one more tool to buttress our ability to resist, as well as to protect
each other.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Victoria Best
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
2
3111 ‐ 4th Street, #412
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:25 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Upcoming noise ordinance
Council ‐
Please see the below email regarding the noise ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Cathie Gentile [mailto:cathiegentile1953@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 2:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Upcoming noise ordinance
Dear Honorable Council Members:
As a 31-year-resident of Santa Monica, I am writin g in support of the revised noise ordinance
which will be discussed at the Tuesday, March 7 Council Meeting.
I am urging that changes are vo ted on to protect free speech in our community. Now, more than
ever, we need to be able to speak out in amplified ways against injustice and oppression.
Thank you,
Catherine M. Gentile
90405
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:28 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Noise Exemption
Council ‐
Please see the below email regarding the noise ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Joseph Miller [mailto:josephmiller5@me.com]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 5:02 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Lawrence R <larud9233@gmail.com>
Subject: Noise Exemption
Council Members,
We recently became aware of the proposed noise ordinance exemption that would render the current noise ordinance irrelevant thr oughout
many of the commercial areas of the city. The current noise ordinance already fairly supports the public’s ability to exercise their right to
free speech and many folks successfully do express themselves frequently. At the same time the current legislation is thoughtf ully crafted so
that residents and patrons of the city can be made aware of the individual or individuals exercising their rights and speaking their mind but
simultaneously others do not feel harassed or deterred from spe nding time in the public zones of the city. Exempting anyone fr om the current
noise ordinance will hurt the community unnecessarily.
We have heard comments that civil unrest should not be comfortable. We agree. We also believe the current demonstrations and free speech
exercises which frequently take place around the city are already uncomfortable. When we walk with our families and friends th rough the
commercial areas of Santa Monica we currently cross the street when there are protesters holding signs or folks shouting about their religious
beliefs. It’s an inconvenience and sometimes the language can be scary but we support the rights of those shouting about relig ion or work
environment or the dissatisfaction with the President of the Unit ed States or other topics. Ou r current law already supports t he ability for
folks interested in exercising free speech to do so and make others in the public uncomfortable in order to punctuate their poi nt. This right
shouldn’t become threatening or painful for bystanders, resident s, public, workers, businesses or tourists who experience Santa Monica every
day. A healthy balance already exists. The current balance already makes for a healthy ecosystem for all constituents but a noise ordinance
exemption would tip the balance and unnecessarily negatively impact other members of the community.
Vote the noise exemption down and send the message that our current ordinance constitutionally supports free speech just as sim ilar laws do
in other cities throughout California and around the country, and simultaneously send the message that we support our peace off icers who
have the difficult job of enforcing the current ordinance but we trust them to do so. This is common sense.
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
2
Thanks for listening and for all of the dedicated hard work you do for the City of Santa Monica.
Joe Miller
Lawrence Rudolph
Rudy & Hudson Californa Diner
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
1
Maria Dacanay
From:Elena Christopoulos <elena @elenachristopoulos.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 11:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davi s; Sue Himmelrich; Kevin McKeown Fwd;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez
Subject:Item 7-A: writing in opposi tion to the proposed changes
Importance:High
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Dear City Council,
As a downtown resident and President of the Down town Neighborhood Associati on (DNA), I am writing to
strongly oppose the proposed changes listed in Item 7-A, “Introduction an d First Reading of an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 4.12 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Regarding Noise Regulations.”
Exempting specific areas from important protections that our noise ordinance provides is unfair to my
neighbors, employees and local businesses. This proposed ch ange could also expose the city to significant legal
challenges.
The existing noise ordinance provid es sufficient first amendment prot ections, while also protecting my
neighborhood from uncomfortably loud noises. As a downt own resident, I am thankful for all of the public
space we have. This allows for runs on the beach, walking through my neighborhood and dining outside. My
neighbors and I deserve to be protected from noises that are so “harsh or prolonge d or unnatural or unusual in
their use, time, place as to cause physical discomfort”.
Thank you.
Elena Christopoulos Energy - Sustai nability - Political Consultant
Commissioner, City of Santa Monica
C 1.310.866.2922
E elena@elenachristopoulos.com
--
Follow me on Twitter: @Elenach
elenachristopoulos.com
www.facebook.com/elena.ecmc
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017
Item 7-A
03/07/2017