SR 07-27-2021 7B
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: July 27, 2021
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: George Cardona, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Municipal Law
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending SMMC Chapter on
Noise
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance,
which would amend SMMC Chapter 4.12, Noise Ordinance, and SMMC Section
4.08.790, Distance Restriction for Targeted Residential Protests, to better protect the
community’s health and welfare in compliance with First Amendment requirements.
Summary
In fall 2020, a series of recurring protests were targeted at the Santa Monica residence
of County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. These protests, which went on for several weeks,
involved nightly, hours-long uses of amplified sound in a residential neighborhood that
generated multiple complaints from residents. On December 15, 2020, Council directed
staff to review options and return with proposed amendments to the City’s Noise
Ordinance, or other City ordinances, to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in
residential neighborhoods while still upholding First Amendment rights.
Staff now returns with a proposed ordinance that would amend City laws governing
noise and targeted residential protests that seeks to balance the First Amendment rights
of those who wish to engage in expressive activity through public events and
assemblies with the City’s significant interest in protecting residential privacy and
tranquility. The proposed amendments implement content neutral time, place, and
manner restrictions that are narrowly tailored to serve this City interest while maintaining
ample alternatives for communication. In particular, the proposed ordinance:
(a) Amends certain provisions of the City’s Noise Ordinance (SMMC
Chapter 4.12) to update the definitions of Noise Zones to match the
7.B
Packet Pg. 304
2 of 10
current Zoning Ordinance and implement limitations on the use of
sound amplifying equipment in certain public places in residential
districts during specified evening hours. Also repeals and deletes
out-of-date and superseded provisions in Chapter 4.08 regulating
sound trucks and sound amplifying equipment (SMMC Sections
4.08.620 to 4.08.690).
(b) Amends SMMC Section 4.08.790 to impose distance (not within 50
feet of the property line of the targeted dwelling) and time (not
between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays or 8:00 am on weekends)
restrictions on targeted residential protests (current SMMC Section
4.08.790 imposes only a distance restriction).
Background
Over the years, the City has received many complaints about excessive noise. Some
reflect that Santa Monica is very densely populated and that commercial uses on the
City's major boulevards and commercial streets are adjacent to or are across alleys
from residences. Others reflect that Santa Monica’s public spaces, including its streets,
sidewalks, and parks are often used as the sites of events, including protests, that occur
in close proximity to residences and include amplified sound.
Protections against excessive noise have been included in the Municipal Code for
decades. The code has contained general noise regulations since at least 1987. The
current general noise ordinance, SMMC Chapter 4.12, was adopted February 24, 2004,
and reflected an update and substantial revision of the previous noise regulations. It
divided the City into three Noise Zones and established decibel limits applicable to
each. It did not, however, contain any general prohibition against excessive/disruptive
noise because, at the time the ordinance was adopted, it was not clear that such a
general prohibition would withstand constitutional challenge.
On February 12, 2008, the City Council adopted an ordinance adding SMMC Section
4.08.790, which imposes a 50-foot distance restriction from a dwelling that is the subject
of a targeted residential protest. The distance requirement was adopted in response to
7.B
Packet Pg. 305
3 of 10
targeted residential protests in which demonstrators stood in groups outside a targeted
home, yelling and chanting at the target and often making threats, and was intended to
reduce the risk that targeted residents would become captives in their own homes,
forced to endure the threats of a hostile group in a space where they should be able to
enjoy tranquility, while also ensuring that protestors could remain close enough to
communicate their views to their intended audience.
In the years since 2004, courts have issued decisions that have clarified municipal
authority to regulate noise. In accordance with those decisions, a substantial
amendment to the noise ordinance was adopted on February 24, 2015. The
amendment added a general prohibition against excessive noise (SMMC Section
4.12.025) that applied throughout the City to prohibit noise that would “unreasonably
disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of persons of normal sensitivity” or was “so harsh
or prolonged or unnatural or unusual in [its] use, time or place as to cause physical
discomfort to any persons of normal sensitivity.” The amendment retained the decibel
limits applicable in the three Noise Zones but modified the exemptions from their
application so that the decibel limits would not apply to activities on public property,
including streets and parks. This was done to eliminate the issue of whether the decibel
limits unlawfully interfered with the exercise of First Amendment rights in public forums.
On December 15, 2015, Council directed staff to review how the recently amended
noise ordinance was being enforced in commercial areas and consider how it might be
refined to avoid having it interfere with activities protected by the First Amendment. On
April 12, 2016, staff returned with a recommendation that the City Council make no
changes to the existing noise ordinance, since existing law would likely withstand a
constitutional challenge and provided enforcement staff with the tools necessary to
enforce noise related violations. Council, however, directed staff to return with an
amendment to the ordinance to include language that non-commercial free speech in a
commercial zone, not already covered by specific 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
7.B
Packet Pg. 306
4 of 10
to be a legal activity. Staff returned with the recommended amendment on March 7,
2017, and it was adopted on March 28, 2017.
As a result of these various amendments, SMMC Section 4.12.030 provides for certain
exemptions from application of all or portions of the Noise Ordinance. In particular,
Section 4.12.030(a)(3) exempts from "the provisions of this Chapter, except for Section
4.12.025 or unless otherwise expressly identified in any section of this Chapter" any
"activities conducted on public property that is generally open to the public, including,
but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, parkways, parks, and beaches." And,
Section 4.12.030(b)(5) exempts from "the provisions of this Chapter, unless otherwise
expressly identified in any section of this Chapter" any "non-commercial activity
conducted outdoors" "between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m." "on public
property that is generally open to the public, including, but not limited to, streets,
sidewalks, alleys, parkways, parks, and beaches" "not on the Santa Monica Pier or the
Third Street Promenade" "not immediately abutting any exclusively residential use" and
"not violating Section 4.12.025 of this Code with respect to any residential, hospital or
school use."
The net result of these exemptions to the Noise Ordinance is the following: (1) activity
(commercial or non-commercial) not conducted outdoors on public property generally
open to the public is subject to both the specific exterior noise standards set out in
Section 4.12.060 (the decibel limits) and the general excessive noise prohibition in
Section 4.12.025; (2) activity (commercial or non-commercial) conducted outdoors on
public property generally open to the public is not subject to the specific exterior noise
standards set out in Section 4.12.060 (the decibel limits); (3) non-commercial activity
conducted outdoors on public property generally open to the public between the hours
of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm remains subject to Section 4.12.025 only if it immediately abuts
an exclusive residential use or violates Section 4.12.025 with respect to a residential,
hospital, or school use; and (4) activity (commercial or non-commercial) conducted
between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, even if outdoors on public property, remains subject to
Section 4.12.025.
7.B
Packet Pg. 307
5 of 10
In addition to the general excessive noise prohibition in Section 4.12.025, Section
4.12.100 imposes a more specific prohibition on noise in parks, beaches, and
recreational facilities that is applicable only after 10:00 pm and before 8:00 am,
providing that, absent a community event permit from the City, during these times and in
these places, no person "shall play any audio or electronic device, including but not
limited to, any radio, tape player, compact disc, electronic keyboard or any other
musical instrument" unless "this device is only audible through headphones or
earphones."
On December 15, 2020, Council voted unanimously to direct staff to return with a
proposed amendment to the City’s Noise Ordinance, or other City ordinances, to reduce
prolonged noise from protest activities in residential neighborhoods while still upholding
First Amendment rights.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description Attachment
2/10/2004 and
2/24/2004
Adoption of Noise Ordinance, SMMC
Chapter 4.12
2/10/2004 Staff Report
(Attachment A)
1/22/2008 and
2/12/2008
Adoption of targeted residential protest
ordinance, SMMC Section 4.08.790
1/22/2008 Staff Report
(Attachment B)
2/10/2015 and
2/24/2015
Amendments to SMMC Chapter 4.12 to
adopt general prohibition against excessive
noise.
2/10/2015 Staff Report
(Attachment C)
12/15/2015 Direction from Council to review
enforcement of noise ordinance in
commercial areas
12/15/2015 Minutes
(Attachment D)
4/12/2016 Direction from Council to return with
amendment including language regarding
non-commercial free speech in a
commercial zone
4/12/2016 Staff Report
(Attachment E)
4/12/2016 Minutes
(Attachment F)
3/7/2017 and
3/28/2017
Amendments to SMMC Chapter 4.12
regarding non-commercial free speech in a
commercial zone
3/7/2017 Staff Report
(Attachment G)
12/15/2020 Direction from Council to return with
proposed amendments to reduce prolonged
noise from protest activities in residential
12/15/2020 Minutes
(Attachment H)
7.B
Packet Pg. 308
6 of 10
neighborhoods
Discussion
In accordance with the direction from City Council, staff has reviewed the Noise
Ordinance, SMMC Chapter 4.12, and the code provision addressing targeted
residential protests, SMMC Section 4.08.790, and recommends the following changes
as set forth in the proposed ordinance (Attachment I).
1. Amendments to Noise Ordinance
The proposed ordinance amends the Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12) to
implement limitations on the use of sound amplifying equipment in certain public
places in residential districts occurring during specified evening hours and to
update the designated Noise Zones to match the current Zoning Ordinance.
As proposed, Section 4.12.020 would be amended to add a definition of sound
amplifying equipment to mean any machine or device used to amplify music, the
human voice, or any other sound, and exempt vehicle radios/stereos heard only by
the vehicle’s occupants or personal use machines or devices heard only by the
person using it, i.e., through headphones. New Section 4.12.105 would prohibit
using or operating sound amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley,
or parkway located in a residential district after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. on
weekdays or 8 a.m. on weekends. Between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.,
Section 4.12.105 would only allow a person to use or operate sound amplifying
equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway in a residential district if
they are stationary, i.e., staying in a fixed location for 5 minutes or more – this will
enable more effective monitoring to determine whether the sound violates the
general excessive noise prohibition in Section 4.12.025. Section 4.12.105 would
also impose additional restrictions on those who use or operate sound amplifying
equipment between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. at the same location or within 500 feet of
that location multiple times in a 7-day period. Section 4.12.100—the provision
banning the use of sound amplifying equipment in any public park, beach, or City
7.B
Packet Pg. 309
7 of 10
owned or maintained recreational facility—would be amended so that its
restrictions are consistent with the new proposed Section 4.12.105.
Municipalities have the authority to regulate sound amplifying equipment; however,
the Ninth Circuit has cautioned that municipalities must “ensure that even a well-
intentioned restriction does not give way to suppression of speech.” Cuviello v.
City of Vallejo, 944 F.3d 816, 825. Accordingly, time, place, and manner
limitations on the use of amplified sound must be content neutral; narrowly tailored
to serve a significant government interest, such as a City’s interests in its
residents’ peace and tranquility, maintenance of public safety, and protecting
individuals from unwanted speech; and leave open ample alternative channels for
communication of information. See Klein v. Laguna Beach, 381 Fed. Appx. 723,
725-27 (9th Cir. 2010).
The proposed ordinance strikes that balance because it: (1) is content neutral in
that any type of sound amplifying equipment is prohibited or restricted during
certain times, regardless of the message relayed; (2) is focused on residential
districts where the government interest in protecting its citizens from unwelcome
noise “is at its zenith” because “citizens have substantial privacy interests,”
Cuviello, 944 F.3d at 828; (3) prohibits the use of sound amplifying equipment in
certain public places during night time hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekdays
and 8:00 a.m. on weekends), consistent with the time frames of exterior noise
standards set forth in Section 4.12.060 and with the recognition that citizens’
interests in peace and tranquility are greatest during these hours; (4) allows the
use of sound amplifying equipment between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. only if the person
is stationary, as noise level measurements can be more readily taken if the sound
is coming from a fixed location and noises emanating from such a stationary use
of sound amplifying equipment that unreasonably disturb the peace, quiet, and
comfort of person or are harsh or prolonged can be addressed through
enforcement of Section 4.12.025 or other provisions of the Noise Ordinance; and
(5) further restricts the use of sound amplifying equipment between 8 p.m. and 10
p.m. only for repeated users or operators of such equipment in the same location
7.B
Packet Pg. 310
8 of 10
or within 500 feet in order to address concerns with prolonged noise posed by
those repeatedly frequenting the same location while also balancing the right to
engage in expressive activity in public spaces.
The proposed ordinance also repeals SMMC Sections 4.08.620 to 4.08.690
regulating sound trucks and sound amplifying equipment. Among other things,
Section 4.08.650’s prohibition on operating a sound truck for noncommercial
purposes without filing a registration statement with the City would likely be viewed
by a court as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. In addition, Section
4.08.690’s restrictions on sound trucks used for commercial purposes is
superseded by the City’s Sign Code, which regulates vehicle signs, including signs
that emit sounds.
Finally, the proposed ordinance also revises the designated Noise Zones to
comport with the districts set forth in the current Zoning Ordinance. The districts
described in the current Section 4.12.050 are out of date and leaving those
references in the Noise Ordinance may create ambiguity.
2. Amendments of SMMC Section 4.08.790
In 2008, the City Council added SMMC Section 4.08.790, which imposes a 50-foot
distance restriction from a dwelling that is the subject of a targeted residential
protest. Following staff’s review of this provision, staff recommends the
amendments reflected in the proposed ordinance, to preserve residential privacy
and tranquility while allowing peaceful expression of free speech.
As proposed, the amendments to Section 4.08.790 would retain the 50-foot
distance restriction and add a time restriction that targeted residential protests may
not occur after 8:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or 8:00 a.m. on
weekends. The time, place, and manner restrictions proposed in the amended
Section 4.08.790 are constitutional because the restrictions balance “the right of
residents not to be captive audiences to unwanted speech and the right of
picketers to convey their message.” Klein v. San Diego County, 463 F.3d 1029,
1035 (9th Cir. 2006). As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, the “government has an
7.B
Packet Pg. 311
9 of 10
interest in protecting residential tranquility,” “[b]ut the right to residential privacy
does not encompass a right to remain blissfully unaware of the presence of
picketers.” Id. at 1034-35. In the proposed amended Section 4.08.790, the
distance and time limitations balance the need for residential privacy and
tranquility, particularly during nighttime hours, while also providing a place and
time period in the daytime and evening hours when targeted residential protests
may occur and protestors may reach their intended audience. The proposed
amendment also makes clear that it does not prohibit community events or public
assemblies that are not targeted residential protests.
The proposed amendment also adds a provision requiring, when feasible (and
excluding exigent circumstances), that a warning be given before enforcement
commences. The proposed amendment also adds a provision allowing interested
parties, which here would include neighbors, to seek an injunction or other relief to
prevent or remedy violations of the targeted residential protest restrictions.
Fiscal Impacts
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action.
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. AttA-20040210.StaffReport
B. AttB-20080122.StaffReport
C. AttC-20150210.StaffReport
D. AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes
7.B
Packet Pg. 312
10 of 10
E. AttE-20160412.StaffReport
F. AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes
G. AttG-20170307.StaffReport
H. AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes
I. AttI-ProposedOrdinance
J. Written Comments
K. PowerPoint Presentation
7.B
Packet Pg. 313
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 1/10
February 10, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica
Municipal Code Chapter 4.12 Regarding Noise Regulations, Adoption of
Resolutions Establishing and Adding Fines for Violations of the City’s
Noise Ordinance to the Administrative Citation Schedule and Revised
Fees for Processing After-Hours Permits, and Consideration of
Professional Services to Conduct Additional Noise Measurements.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.12 regarding noise regulations,
adopt resolutions establishing fines for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance to the
Administrative Citation Schedule, and revise fees for After-Hours Construction
Permits. Additionally, this report provides information, as requested, concerning the
cost and time associated with additional noise measurements.
DISCUSSION
At the November 25, 2003 meeting, the City Council accepted public testimony and
considered proposed revisions to the City’s Noise Ordinance. The City Council
expressed concern about two provisions of the proposed ordinance and continued the
hearing to provide staff an opportunity to amend the ordinance consistent with Council
direction. The changes can be viewed in strike-out and underline format at Sections
4.12.030 and 4.12.050(d) of the proposed ordinance, which is located in Attachment
A. Staff is also proposing two related resolutions for the City Council’s consideration.
The first creates administrative fines for noise ordinance violations, and the second
adjusts the fees for processing after-hours permits to reflect staff costs. An after-
hours permit is referenced in the Noise Ordinance at Section 4.12.120(e).
Proposed Revisions
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 2/10
The first modification eliminated the proposed change in measurement methodology.
The proposed ordinance recommended a methodology that compared the measured
decibel level to the allowed decibel level for the noise zone in which the sound is
received. This methodology is consistent with many other Southern California
communities. Pursuant to Council direction, noise measurements will continue to be
measured by applying the allowable decibel levels for the noise zone in which the
sound is generated irrespective of where the sound is received. For example, noise
generated in an industrial zone but heard in a residential zone would be measured by
the industrial standard. Depending on the time of day, these standards could vary by
20 decibels.
Second, the City Council expressed concern about the creation of a transition zone.
The attached ordinance has been amended to delete this provision. The transition
zone would have averaged the allowable decibels along the boundary of different
noise zones for a distance of 100-feet into the lower noise zone. This provision
recognized that noise levels tend to be louder in transition areas, due to the mix of
uses, than at the center of noise zones.
Additionally, the City Council directed staff to clarify the restrictions in public parks,
beaches or recreational facilities relative to the use of audio or electronic devices. As
proposed, the ordinance provides that such devices are allowed between 8 a. m. and
10 p. m. when used in conjunction with headphones or earphones. At the Council’s
direction, the proposed language has been altered to make the City’s intent clear. The
proposed text now requires that these devices only be audible only through
headphones or earphones.
Staff also received a request from the City’s Fire Department to exempt the
maintenance, periodic testing, and repair of emergency back-up power generators.
Since this equipment is paramount to the continued operation of the City’s essential
public safety facilities during power failures, staff has added an exemption addressing
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 3/10
this request at both Fire and Police Department facilities citywide. This exemption is
located at Section 4.12.030(g) of the proposed noise ordinance.
No modification is proposed to the exemption section concerning the installation,
maintenance, repair or replacement of public utilities or public infrastructure. The City
Council may recall that the Planning Commission expressed concern that non-
emergency infrastructure and utility construction in the public right-of-way, whether
performed by City contractors or public serving utilities, should occur during the
normal construction hours (8 a.m. start); only work by City employees could begin at
seven a.m. The proposed ordinance reflects the Planning Commission’s input.
However, this is a policy decision and the City Council may want to consider whether
improved productivity and consequent cost savings to the City and utility companies
warrant uniform start time of 7 a.m. only for the purposes of their work in the right of
way. While an earlier start time may be preferable, staff believes it appropriate to
prohibit non-emergency infrastructure and utility construction after 6 p. m. as currently
proposed. This creates consistent construction hours for the utility companies and the
City, and facilitates enforcement. Should the City or utility company need to work past
6 p. m., an after-hours construction permit may be requested.
Additionally, the City Council expressed concern about how food-serving businesses
would adjust to the provision restricting trash removal between the hours of 11 p. m.
and 6 a. m. This provision of the noise ordinance is recommended to address
concerns raised by nearby residents about loud noises generated when trash is
removed late at night and in early morning hours. Frequently, glass bottles will break
when the trash bags are thrown into dumpsters resulting in a higher-pitched noise that
is disturbing to nearby residents. The proposed business support operation standards
take effect six months after the effective date of the ordinance. During this time, staff
will undertake an educational program to inform local businesses of the new
requirements and ways that business can comply with the standards. Depending on
available room within a business, implementation of the standard may require little or
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 4/10
no alteration of the establishment or its operations in order to comply. Other
businesses may need to alter the floor plan to create an overnight holding area.
Staff recognizes that some businesses may not be able to comply with the business
support operations standards. The proposed Noise Ordinance allows modifications to
these standards subject to the Noise Adjustment procedures. The Noise Adjustment
is reviewed by the Community Noise Officer who will evaluate the unique
circumstances associated with a particular business against the community’s desire to
maintain reasonable noise levels. Decisions to grant or deny this application would be
based on findings of fact related to unreasonable hardship, exceptional
circumstances, detrimental effects to surrounding people and property, and that noise
impacts have been reduced to greatest feasible extent.
Noise Readings
While directing modifications to the proposed ordinance, the City Council expressed
an interest in conducting additional measurements of the City’s existing noise
environment and then comparing the results to the standards of the existing and
proposed ordinance. Several councilmembers indicated that this additional
information would be helpful in determining the impacts of the proposed ordinance,
including the requested modifications.
There is an inherent appeal to taking additional noise measurements. The
measurements would provide data to use as a means of comparing existing noise
levels throughout the City against the proposed and existing ordinance to illustrate the
proposed ordinance’s benefits and show how the source of certain noise complaints
could be reduced or removed. While attractive for this reason, staff believes that the
conclusions drawn from these additional measurements should be approached with
great caution.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 5/10
Noise levels are fluid and constantly fluctuate depending on factors such as time of
day, day of week, season of the year, and type of activity in progress. For example,
the measured noise levels at 1 a. m. on a Saturday in January could be vastly
different than those measured at 1 a. m. on a Saturday in July. Staff has reservations
about the value added to the noise ordinance discussion by measurements that might
be taken during months when the temperature tends to be cooler and/or when tourism
is more moderate. Santa Monica has established itself as a regionally prominent city
that draws many people into the community for business, shopping, dining,
entertainment, and recreational activities. As a result, the noise levels tend to rise and
fall commensurate with the range of activities occurring at a given time.
In preparing for Council review of the Noise Ordinance, noise levels were measured
for one moment in time at 15 different locations across the City. These locations
ranged from residential areas, to commercial enterprises, and to transition
neighborhoods. This information is useful for the immediate place and time that the
measurement occurred. During the consideration of the text amendment Council
members felt that additional measurements would increase understanding of the
range of conditions associated with the community’s noise problem.
Staff has since evaluated alternatives for Council to consider regarding additional
community-wide measurements. The table below shows four alternatives based on
the time of year the measurements would be taken and options to select 15, 25, or 50
measurement sites with three or six actual measurements at each site. In each
alternative, measurements are taken at the same location, hour, and day of week, and
enable the results to be compared over time. By taking more measurements, a
clearer picture of how noise levels change over the course of a particular day is
revealed. For example, three noise measurements may occur at 6 a.m., 2 p.m., and
10 p.m. However, with six measurements, readings may occur at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2
p.m., 6 p.m., 10 p.m., and 2 a.m. These alternatives are provided to illustrate time
and costs associated with additional measurements. The alternatives are general
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 6/10
estimates to guide the City Council’s discussion. The number of sites and the number
of measurements at each site is subject to the City Council’s decision.
Measurement Alternatives and Estimated Costs
Alternative 1
(Winter)
Alternative 2
(Summer)
Alternative 3
(Winter &
Summer)
Alternative 4
(Year Round)
15
Sites
3
Measurements
per Site
$12,880
45 total
measurements
$12,880
45 total
measurements
$18,880
90 total
measurements
$30,880
180 total
measurements
6Measurements
per Site
$18,28090 total
measurements
$18,28090 total
measurements
$29,680180 total
measurements
$52,480360 total
measurements
25Sites
3
Measurements
per Site
$19,320
75 total
measurements
$19,320
75 total
measurements
$28,920
150 total
measurements
$48,120
300 total
measurements6
Measurements
per Site
$28,320
150 total
measurements
$28,320
150 total
measurements
$46,920
300 total
measurements
$84,120*
600 total
measurements
50
Sites
3
Measurementsper Site
$31,160*
150 totalmeasurements
$31,160
150 totalmeasurements
$49,760*
300 totalmeasurements
$86,960*
600 totalmeasurements
6
Measurements
per Site
$49,160*
300 total
measurements
$49,160
300 total
measurements
$85,760*
600 total
measurements
$158,960*
1,200 total
measurements
* Due to staffing implications, these measurements would not occur until Winter 2005.
Each alternative will measure noise at determined locations and will include a
summary report prepared by the consultant evaluating the noise at the time of
measurement to the existing and previously proposed ordinance. Depending on how
many sites and measurements are selected, Alternative 1 could be completed in the
shortest period of time with the data presented to the City Council in a few months.
However, cooler weather during this time of the year results in lower levels of street
activity and use of outdoor restaurants, measurements taken now may not reflect the
experience of those who communicate with staff and Council about noise issues.
Alternative 2 involves taking measurements during the summer season. The appeal
of this alternative is that measurements would reflect the City’s noise environment
during the time of year when the City sees a significant increase in activity. It is more
likely that windows or doors of both residences and businesses would be open at this
time due to the warmer weather. Further, outdoor areas of restaurants are more likely
to be used and people are more likely to congregate outdoors during warmer periods.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 7/10
The results of this alternative would not be available until the fall season this year or
later depending on the number of sites and measurements selected.
Alternative 3 involves taking measurements during both the winter and summer
seasons. This alternative would capture the extremes of noise level activity in the
community. Like Alternative 2, measurement results would not be available until the
summer season has passed or later depending on the number of sites and
measurements selected.
Alternative 4 involves taking measurements throughout the year. The appeal of this
alternative is that it identifies the fluctuations in noise levels all year long and can be
designed to measure noise levels during specific events that may not occur during the
measurement period of the other alternatives. More than a year would pass before
the measurement data is available for review.
With Council direction on frequency and seasonality, Mestre-Greve Associates would
be engaged to conduct the measurements. The costs associated with the additional
testing would include a technician time to conduct the measurements. For every eight-
hour shift in a 24-hour period a different technician would be used. For instance, if the
City Council requested measurements at 6:00AM, 3:00PM and 2:00AM during a 24-
hour period, three technicians would be required. The estimated costs included in the
table account for this schedule. Mestre-Greve would analyze the data and prepare a
report.
The issue of noise measurement methodology is not solely related to the location and
decibel level of different noise sources. It involves a decision on where a disturbance
should be measured from - a complainant’s property, as is done in other cities, or the
noise source as is currently the case in Santa Monica. Additional noise
measurements will provide data for noise occurring only at the particular place and
time where the measurement occurs. For example, measurements taken on Tuesday
should not be used as a basis for estimating noise at the same location on Saturday.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 8/10
Therefore, staff does not believe the additional noise measurements and the
associated time and costs are necessary to make an informed policy decision on
which location (receptor or originator) should be the site of enforcement
measurements. Staff suggests that this decision be based on the City’s objective to
reasonably regulate the community’s noise levels.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
As noted in November, the addition of one Code Compliance Officer would be
necessary to enforce the provisions of the Noise Ordinance. If the Council chooses to
conduct additional noise measurements cost impacts are as noted in the preceeding
table. No funding action is required by the City Council, should the City Council
authorize the code compliance position. The costs identified for this position will be
addressed at year-end budget review. Funding is currently available in non-
departmental accounts 01274.555060, and 01274.544390 for policy studies and
Council contingency to fund the range of costs presented in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached
ordinance amending Section 4.12 of the Municipal Code relative to noise, adopt the
resolutions adding fines for noise violations and after hours permit fees, and authorize
the addition of one Code Compliance Officer for enforcement purposes.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Acting Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Revised Proposed Noise Ordinance
B. Resolution Establishing and Adding Fines for Violations of the City’s Noise
Ordinance to the Administrative Citation Schedule
C. Resolution Revising the Fee for Processing After-Hours Permits
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 9/10
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7/6/2021 CP:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f\plan\share\pc\strpt\03\PC Noise Rpt Supplemental
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2004/20040210/s2004021007-A.htm 10/10
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: AttA-20040210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
January 22, 2008
City Council Meeting: January 8, 2008
Agenda Item: 7-C
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Tim Jackman, Police Chief
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Restricting the Location of Targeted
Residential Protests and Demonstrators’ Use Of Potentially
Dangerous Sign Poles
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve on first reading the proposed
ordinance which would:
1. require persons participating in a targeted residential protest
maintain a distance of 50 feet from the targeted dwelling; and
2. limit the thickness of sign poles used by participants in all
demonstrations to ensure that the poles are not used to cause
serious injury in the event of physical conflict.
Executive Summary
In recent years, an increasing number of protests targeted at particular homes
have occurred in residential neighborhoods in the region and in the City. These
protests have had very adverse impacts on the targeted residents. Many
jurisdictions have adopted local laws which establish buffer zones to protect the
well-being of residents in their homes and also respect the First Amendment
rights of demonstrators. The proposed ordinance would require that persons
participating in a targeted residential protest maintain a distance of 50 feet from
the targeted dwelling. Additionally, the proposed ordinance would address the
risk that, in the event of violent confrontation, sign poles carried by protestors
may be used as weapons. This risk applies in all types of demonstrations and
has been clearly demonstrated in Los Angeles and other cities where sign poles
have been used to strike others. To address this risk and preserve the First
Amendment rights of demonstrators, the proposed ordinance would prohibit
sign poles larger than a specified width.
Background
Targeted residential protests have occurred in several of the City’s residential
neighborhoods. Demonstrators usually stand in groups outside the targeted home,
yelling and chanting at the target and often making threats. The impact upon the targeted
residents has been extremely adverse and particularly devastating in the case of
residents who were elderly and infirm. In response to this form of demonstration, many
7.B.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: AttB-20080122.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, have adopted laws requiring that protestors maintain
a specified distance from the targeted residence. Such requirements reduce the risk that
targeted residents will become captives in their own homes, forced to endure the threats
of a hostile group in a space where they should be able to enjoy tranquility. A number of
such local laws have been challenged in court, and those decisions provide the guidance
necessary to formulate a local policy which protects both residents’ and protestors’ rights.
At the same time, concerns have arisen about the use, by demonstrators, of sign poles
which can readily be used as weapons in the event of physical conflict. Los
Angeles adopted an ordinance regulating the width of demonstrators’ sign poles after
such poles were used to strike police officers. The courts have upheld such restrictions
so long as they preserved the ability of demonstrators to use signs.
Discussion
The proposed ordinance would address these two concerns, without limiting the content
of speech or unreasonably restricting expressive activity. The proposed buffer zone of
50 feet for targeted protests would ensure a reasonable distance between protesters and
the targeted dwelling. And, it would also ensure that protestors would be close enough
to communicate their views to their intended audience. Thus, their First Amendment
rights would not be unreasonably limited. In most cases, this distance requirement would
mean that the protest would occur on the sidewalk across the street from the residence.
The limitation on the width of sign poles would not affect demonstrators’ First Amendment
rights. They would still be able to carry signs and hold them high enough to reach their
intended audience. However, the limitation on width would ensure that the sign pole
could not be used to seriously injure a police officer or other person.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Approval and adoption of this ordinance would have no budgetary or financial
impact.
Attached: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Tim Jackman
Police Department
P. Lamont Ewell
City Manager
7.B.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: AttB-20080122.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2/21/2021 City of Santa Monica - Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150210/s2015021007-A.htm 1/6
City Council Meeting: February 10, 2015
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached
ordinance which would amend the City's noise regulations to better protect the
community's health and welfare and to insulate the regulations against a legal
challenge.
Executive Summary
The City has received various comments and suggestions about the content of its
noise ordinance. The public input includes questions about enforcement, noise
generated by Community Events, and banning amplification, among other things.
Staff plans to undertake a full scale review of the noise ordinance after the zoning
code update is completed. Meanwhile, one commentator on the noise ordinance, the
local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has threatened to sue the City if the
noise ordinance is not amended to address the organization's constitutional claims.
The City believes that the noise ordinance is constitutional in its present form.
Nonetheless, the ACLU's claims have been evaluated, and staff is recommending a
few amendments to improve the ordinance and respond to the ACLU's concerns.
Among other things, the amendments would add a new general prohibition against
noise that is unreasonably disruptive to persons of normal sensitivity. And, it would
clarify that the general prohibition, but not the specific decibel limits, would apply to
activities in or on public streets, parks, and other public property.
Additionally, in response to inquiries from the public, this report provides legal
information relating to the scope of the City's authority to regulate noise, including
amplified sound.
Background
Over the years, the City has received many complaints about excessive noise. Some
reflect the facts that Santa Monica is very dense and that commercial uses on the
City's major boulevards and commercial streets are adjacent to or are across alleys
from residences. Other noise complaints arise because the City offers both residents
7.B.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: AttC-20150210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2/21/2021 City of Santa Monica - Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150210/s2015021007-A.htm 2/6
and the entire region many entertainments and events, which occur in venues near
residences and which often include amplified sound. And, over the years, the City
has responded by improving its capacity for noise enforcement. However, complaints
continue.
Protections against excessive noise have been included in the Municipal Code for
decades. The code has contained general noise regulations since at least 1987. The
current general noise ordinance, Municipal Code Section 4.12, was updated and
substantially revised in 2004. It divides the City into three Noise Zones and
establishes decibel limits applicable to each. However, it contains no general
prohibition against excessive/disruptive noise because, at the time the ordinance was
last updated, it was not clear that such general, and arguably vague, prohibitions
would withstand constitutional challenges.
In the years since 2004, the courts have issued decisions that clarify municipal
authority to regulate noise. Those decisions and their import are summarized in the
Discussion Section of this report. And, they are the basis for the recommendation
presented by this report.
Last year, a protestor at a local hotel was warned and then cited for violating the
operative decibel limit. In response to this enforcement, the ACLU wrote to the City
Attorney, threatening litigation if the noise ordinance was not amended. Specifically,
the ACLU's letter asserts that the noise ordinance is unconstitutional because the
decibel limits are unreasonably low relative to ambient noise levels, the exemption
from decibel limits for Community Events is unjustified, and the ordinance gives
enforcement personnel too much discretion. In response to that complaint, legal staff
reviewed the current case law on municipal noise limits.
Discussion
The proposed modifications to the City's noise ordinance are based on legal staff's
review of the current ordinance and the law. Though staff does not agree with the
ACLU's contentions, current law allows for improvements to the law that would both
benefit the community and address the ACLU's concerns.
The proposed ordinance would improve the noise ordinance by adding a general
prohibition against excessive noise, which would apply throughout the City.
7.B.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: AttC-20150210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2/21/2021 City of Santa Monica - Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150210/s2015021007-A.htm 3/6
Specifically, this provision would prohibit 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 unusual 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. See, e.g. Rosenbaum v. San
Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.2007). And, the City made such a prohibition
applicable to the Third Street Promenade in 2007 in conjunction with an update of
laws governing street performance.
The proposed ordinance would retain the current decibel limits. It may be that the
City should consider modifying them, particularly if a study were to show that there
have been changes in ambient sound levels since the decibel limits have been
adopted. And, such a study might well be undertaken in conjunction with the
Planning Department’s anticipated work on the noise ordinance. However, that is a
much larger project; and the work is unnecessary for the currently proposed
improvements to the ordinance.
While the decibel limits would be retained, the proposed ordinance would alter the
exemptions. They would be modified so that the decibel limits would not apply to
activities on public property, including streets and parks. This would eliminate the
issue of whether the decibel limits unlawfully interfere with the exercise of First
Amendment rights in public forums. Instead, noise would be limited in public spaces
by the new, general prohibition on excessive noise. Likewise, the proposed
modifications would address the contention that the exemption from decibel limits for
Community Events is unjustified because Community Events, which only occur on
public property, would not be subject to the decibel limits, but would be subject to the
general prohibition against excessive noise just as any other activity occurring on
public property. And, finally, staff believes that subjecting Community Events and
other activities on public property to the proposed general prohibition against
excessive noise would not confer too much discretion on law enforcement personnel
because the courts have approved such limitations and provided guidance on the
how to enforce them. See, e.g., Hampsmire v. Santa Cruz, 899 F. Supp.2d 922
(N.D.Cal.2012)[explaining that whether noise violates such prohibitions depends on
the circumstances, including, among other things: the activities and noise level typical
of the area, the distance from which the noise can be heard, the disruption caused by
7.B.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: AttC-20150210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2/21/2021 City of Santa Monica - Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150210/s2015021007-A.htm 4/6
the noise]. The proposed ordinance incorporates this judicial guidance in order to
provide additional direction to law enforcement personnel.
The proposal also includes minor modifications to the remedies provision of the noise
ordinance. One modification is to prohibit any person from interfering with or resisting
efforts by law enforcement personnel to enforce the City’s noise laws, such as the
taking of noise readings. Additionally, the proposed ordinance would allow violations
to be handled as either infractions or misdemeanors. This judgment would be made
by enforcement personnel in coordination with City Prosecutors, based on the
circumstances, as is the case with many other Municipal Code violations.
Staff is not recommending any changes to the noise ordinance that would specifically
address amplification. Many community members have requested amplification bans,
but First Amendment case law narrowly limits the City's authority in this area. See,
e.g., Maldonado v. Monterey County, 330 F.Supp. 1282 (N.D. Cal. 1971) (finding
unconstitutional the County of Monterey’s prohibition against use of amplification on
streets, sidewalks, and hiking trails); Reeves v. McConn, 631 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1980)
(rejecting a City ordinance which prohibited amplified sound 1) City wide between
7:00 pm and 10:00 am; 2) within 100 yards of hospitals, schools, or courthouses, or
within 50 yards of any residence including hotels or motels). The courts have
supported only the narrowest of amplification restrictions.
Laguna Beach's amplification litigation provides the most recent example. An anti-
abortion activist challenged that city's ordinance, which was a narrow amplification
ban. It merely prohibited the use of sound-amplification equipment: (a) within 100
yards of a school and within 30 minutes of dismissal; (b) within 100 yards of City Hall;
and (c) city-wide between the hours of 5:00 pm and 9:00 am.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the ban on amplified sound close to schools within half an
hour of dismissal based on the evidentiary showing that there were academic
activities ongoing after school that would be disrupted by amplified sound. Otherwise,
the bans were found to be unconstitutional. The court struck down the ban on
amplified sound near City Hall for several reasons, including City Hall is the place
where citizens are expected to express their views and the level of amplification in
question was only minimally disruptive. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit struck down the
7.B.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: AttC-20150210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2/21/2021 City of Santa Monica - Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150210/s2015021007-A.htm 5/6
city-wide ban on amplification after 5:00 pm as impermissible content-based
regulation because other speakers, including private organizers of community events
were allowed to use amplification after 5:00 pm. Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 381
Fed.Appx.723 (9th Cir. 2010); see also, Klein v. Laguna Beach, 983 F. Supp.2d 1162
(C.D.Cal. 2013)[summarizing the history of the case and ruling on fee and cost claim
for over $2 million].
Alternatives
Council could defer any revision to the noise ordinance until the Planning Department
proposes updates. However, given the department's current workload, that could
take some time. And, the threatened lawsuit may be filed if the City attempts to
enforce the current ordinance.
Next Steps
Following adoption of the proposed ordinance, legal staff would work with
enforcement personnel on protocols for enforcing the new general noise limitation,
and enforcement would begin.
Planning staff anticipates proposing new noise standards after adoption of the new
zoning code. They estimate that would occur next year, at the earliest.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Yibin Shen, Deputy City Attorney
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Marsha Jones Moutrie
City Attorney
Elaine Polachek
Interim City Manager
7.B.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: AttC-20150210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2/21/2021 City of Santa Monica - Proposed Amendment to Noise Ordinance
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2015/20150210/s2015021007-A.htm 6/6
Attachments: Proposed Noise Ordinance
7.B.c
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: AttC-20150210.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.d
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: AttD-20151215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2016
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning and
Community Development
Subject: Review of City Noise Ordinance and Related Enforcement Policies and
Practices
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. 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;
2. Direct staff to compile Administrative Instructions which would provide further
guidance for law enforcement officers in the field.
Executive Summary
At its December 15, 2015 meeting, Council directed staff to review how the recently
amended noise ordinance is being enforced in commercial areas and to consider how it
might be further refined to avoid having it interfere with activities protected by the First
Amendment. Broadly, staff believes that the existing ordinance is sufficient to enforce
noise, considering constitutional constraints. Eliminating noise enforcement in
commercial districts would severely undermine the Police Department’s ability to
respond to complaints. Therefore, staff recommends that Council direct staff to compile
Administrative Instructions to provide greater guidance to law enforcement officers in
the field.
Background
At its December 15, 2015 meeting, Council directed staff to review how the recently
amended noise ordinance is being enforced in commercial areas and to consider how it
might be further refined to avoid having it interfere with activities protected by the First
Amendment, particularly demonstrations/protests.
At its February 24, 2015 meeting (Attachment A), Council adopted an ordinance
amending Chapter 4.12 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) to add general
7.B.e
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: AttE-20160412.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2 of 6
prohibitions against noise that is unreasonably disruptive to persons of normal
sensitivity and to clarify that the general prohibition, but not the specific decibel limits,
would apply to activities in or on public streets, parks, and other public property. Prior to
these modifications, the noise ordinance only contained decibel limitations which were
applied to three different Noise Zones, including public streets and sidewalks.
Although the amendments retained the decibel levels that had previously existed, the
code amendments altered the exemptions so that the decibel limits would not apply to
activities on public property, including streets and parks. This was intended to eliminate
the issue of whether the decibel limits unlawfully interfere with the exercise of First
Amendment rights in public forums.
Instead, local law now only regulates noise in public spaces by the general prohibition
on excessive noise, which 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 unusual 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 California Penal Code Section 415, also regulates noise on public
(and private) properties.
The local law changes discussed above also incorporated guidance from the courts
cautioning against conferring too much unguided discretion on law enforcement
personnel, by providing objective criteria for enforcement considerations, such as: the
volume, intensity and duration of the noise, the distance from which the noise can be
heard, and time of day or night the noise occurs. The changes also provided for a new
prohibition on any person from interfering with or resisting efforts by law enforcement
personnel to enforce the City’s noise laws, and allows for the handling of violations of
the noise ordinance by either infraction or misdemeanor, in addition to an administrative
citation by non-sworn officers such as Code Enforcement personnel.
7.B.e
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: AttE-20160412.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
3 of 6
At its February 24, 2004 meeting (Attachment B) Council updated and substantially
revised the noise ordinance, with a particular focus on residential neighborhoods and
affording greater protections to residents living in proximity to industrial and commercial
uses.
Discussion
Political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a
very high level of First Amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech
are generally unconstitutional. However, the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution allows reasonable regulations on sound amplification and other loud noise,
such as:
Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible
if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government
interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur.
Speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to
unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.
The First Amendment, in some instances, permits the government to impose a permit
requirement for those wishing to engage in expressive activities that are content-neutral
on public property, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. Any such permit scheme
controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must not be based on the content of
the message, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and
must leave open ample alternatives for communication. The City currently imposes such
a permit on street performers in very limited areas of the City, where congestion is most
acute. The City’s community events law also imposes permitting requirements for
larger events. However, small free speech gatherings, such as demonstrations or
protests involving less than 75 persons, are generally not subject to local permitting
requirements.
Courts have also upheld governmental regulations and actions that limit unreasonable
7.B.e
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: AttE-20160412.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
4 of 6
noise based on the government's broad powers to protect citizens from extremely
disruptive conduct. Additionally courts are particularly likely to uphold governmental
actions which protect individuals against extremely disruptive and unwelcomed noise
and are unable to easily escape from such noise (e.g., extremely loud demonstrations
in residential areas late in the evening).
However, governmental free-speech regulations of traditional public forums, such as
streets, sidewalks or parks, must generally be content and speaker neutral. In other
words, the government may not single out particular subjects or speakers for favored or
disfavored treatment. The Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment as
creating a "...profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues
should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open..."1
Noise violations are enforced by both the City’s Police Department and the Code
Enforcement Division; however, sworn police officers take the lead on incidents that
involve larger public safety concerns, such as protests/demonstrations. Based on
Council’s direction, this staff report focuses primarily on the enforcement of noise
related to protests.
Police officers face difficult constitutional and operational issues when tasked with the
dual responsibility of maintaining public order and protecting the First Amendment rights
of protestors and marchers. The Santa Monica Police Department is charged with
safeguarding the public during a demonstration which extends to individuals who are
exercising their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. Eliminating noise enforcement in commercial districts would severely
undermine the Police Department’s ability to respond to complaints considering most
protests occur in commercial districts.
The Police Department responded to 44 calls for service in 2015 regarding disturbances
involving a protest. All of the calls for service have occurred in areas deemed
1 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
7.B.e
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: AttE-20160412.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
5 of 6
commercial. These include hospitals, business districts, hotel properties and places of
worship. In all but two of these calls, no law enforcement action was taken. As long as
the demonstrator(s) observe reasonable time, place and manner restrictions Santa
Monica police personnel will not intervene unless there is a clear and present danger of
civil unrest, immediate threat to public safety, unreasonable disturbance or the
acceptance of a lawful citizen’s arrest.
Due to the considerable challenges in balancing the rights of both the protesters and
other members of the public, it is crucial for police officers to be able to assess the
specific circumstances of each protest and make decisions accordingly. The Police
Department’s Planning and Intelligence Unit has enjoyed great success in collaborating
with protest group organizers, contacting them prior to the event to ensure the group is
able to safely exercise its right to protest without imposing on the safety or rights of
others. This proactive communication practice has resulted in the successful completion
of several highly volatile protest topics where public safety and the safety of the
protestors was a primary concern. In a recent incident where protesters were detained
temporarily, the circumstances resulting in the temporary detention of protesters was
triggered by the physical conduct of the protesters, not just the noise that was being
generated (no individual was formally booked or jailed). Santa Monica Police
Department and Code Enforcement staff will be available at the City Council meeting to
discuss enforcement.
Staff recommends making 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. Local law authorizes the City’s
Community Noise Officer to adopt regulations to guide the enforcement and
implementation of the Noise Ordinance. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to
compile such regulations which would provide further guidance for law enforcement
officers in the field.
7.B.e
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: AttE-20160412.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
6 of 6
Alternatives
Council could direct staff to modify the noise ordinance to exempt “predominantly
commercial” districts from all local noise regulations. In such a case, staff seeks further
input and direction from Council on defining “predominantly commercial” districts.
Commercial districts within the City are often mixed with residential units. Additionally,
commercial districts often contain many noise sensitive uses, such as day care centers,
elderly care facilities, hotels and hospitals.
Financial Impacts and 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. February 24, 2015 Council Action
B. February 24, 2004 Council Action
C. Written comments
7.B.e
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: AttE-20160412.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7.B.f
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: AttF-20160412.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
City 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 residential.
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 April 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 provides 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 specific 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 violations are currently enforced by both the City’s Police Department and the
7.B.g
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: AttG-20170307.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
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 primarily 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 including, 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
beaches.
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 Municipal 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
conducted 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
unusual 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 California
Penal Code Section 415, also regulates noise on public (and private) properties.
7.B.g
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: AttG-20170307.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
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
exempt 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
exemption 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 zone 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
“disturbing 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 controversy, 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
concerns 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.
Alternatives
7.B.g
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: AttG-20170307.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
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 and 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
7.B.g
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: AttG-20170307.StaffReport (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1 December 15, 2020
CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 15, 2020
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 4:31 p.m., on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, via teleconference pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 at https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/xhttakyv
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock Councilmember Gleam Davis Councilmember Oscar de la Torre Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: Interim City Manager Lane Dilg Interim City Attorney George Cardona City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 4:31 p.m., with all members present. CLOSED SESSIONS
Members of the public Maria Espinoza, Theodore Hernandez, Hugo
Romero, Lupe Stevenson, and David Whatley commented on closed sessions. On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 4:44 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 6:52 p.m., with all members present, to
report the following: 1.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Komsitskaya v. City of Santa Monica, Case No.
19STCV17163. The Interim City Attorney advised in this matter, the Plaintiff, an 80-year-old Big Blue Bus passenger, alleges a fractured hand and back injuries resulting from an unnecessary sudden stop while she was preparing to exit
the bus on August 20, 2018. The City does not admit the allegations, but to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation, the City Attorney’s Office recommended Settlement No. 11114 (CCS) in the amount of $85,000. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2 December 15, 2020
CORRECTION TO
SETTELMENT AMOUNT
McCowan, to approve Settlement No. 11114 (CCS), in the amount of
$85,000. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember De la Torre The Interim City Attorney made a correction on the amount of the Settlement Agreement No. 11114 (CCS). The correct amount is $43,000,
not $85,000 as originally reported out.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to approve Settlement Agreement No. 11114 (CCS), in the amount of $43,000. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None
1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Jason Walker v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. 18STCV02899. The Interim City Attorney advised in this matter, the Plaintiff, a former Santa Monica Fire Department employee, alleges that his May 18, 2018 demotion from probationary Captain back to Fire Engineer was illegally based on a disability and the City’s failure to accommodate this disability.
The City does not admit the allegations, but to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation, the City Attorney’s Office recommended Settlement No. 11115 (CCS) in the amount of $100,000. Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to
approve Settlement Agreement No. 11115 (CCS), in the amount of $100,000. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember De la Torre 1.C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
3 December 15, 2020
Councilmember De la Torre joined at 6:57 p.m.
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Eric Gomez v. City of Santa Monica, Teniel Lavalas, LASC, Case 19STCV17121. The Interim City Attorney advised in this matter, the Plaintiff alleges
injuries to his shoulder that required surgery and to his knee that may
require future surgery resulting from his car being rear-ended by a Big Blue Bus on May 16, 2018 at or about 5113 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, California. The City does not admit the allegations, but to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation, the City Attorney’s Office
recommended Settlement No. 11116 (CCS) in the amount of $85,000.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember McKeown, to approve Settlement Agreement No. 11116 (CCS), in the amount of $85,000. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None
1.D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCP03106 The Interim City Attorney advised that Items 1.D and 1.E. were heard together. 1.E. Conference with Real Estate Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: 9 parcels located at 4th & 5th Streets and Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica; City Negotiators: David Martin, Director, Community Development Department, and Kathe Head, Managing Principal, Keyser Marston Associates; Owner of Record: City of Santa Monica and Successor Agency; Persons to be negotiated with: Clarett West Development, LLC and DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners, LLC; Under negotiation: Ground Lease Terms The Interim City Attorney advised for both Items 1.D and 1.E. were heard
together, and after consideration of this matter, Council is directing staff to cease negotiations with Clarett West Development, LLC and DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners, LLC, and to set for open session an administrative item for Council to provide direction on how to proceed with respect to the property.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
4 December 15, 2020
approve the recommendation from the City Attorney’s Office, and cease
negotiations. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, Parra, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: Councilmembers Davis, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis, stated for the record that her NO vote reflects her belief that the city could get a very good project out of the current developer, and that by continuing the exclusive negotiating agreement, we
would be able to ask them to produce a project that not only be
economically positive for the city, but also meet the concerns of residents. And that by ending the exclusive negotiating agreement arrangement, that we are postponing the project for an indefinite period, into an indefinite future, which will cause us to have significant delays in terms of
developing both revenue generating portions of the project, open space, as
well as potential housing, and that’s why she voted NO. 1.F. Conference with Labor Negotiators: Government Code Section 54957.6 – Agency Designated Representatives: Chief People Officer
Lori Gentles and Human Resources Manager Shawn Weiske. Bargaining Unit: International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division Local 1785 (SMART TD).
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was not heard. 1.G. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Request to enter into a lawsuit as an amicus curiae, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: R.V. v. Mnuchin, United States District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 8:20-cv-1148. The Interim City Attorney advised in this matter, Plaintiffs in this case allege that the provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act that excludes U.S. citizen children with one or
more undocumented immigrant parents from stimulus payments intended to offset the hardships caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic violates the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against U.S. citizen children based solely on their parents’ alienage without any substantial relationship to an important government interest. The County of Los Angeles is preparing an amicus
brief to be filed on behalf of cities, counties, and municipalities in support of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Given the City’s interest in ensuring that children facing heightened risks of food insecurity and educational setbacks are provided with all available aid, we recommend joining in this amicus brief.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
5 December 15, 2020
to join the amicus brief. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None
ABSENT: None REPORT ON MEETING COMPENSATION Pursuant to State law, City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren announced that Council will receive no compensation for meeting as the Redevelopment Successor Agency.
CONSENT CALENDAR: There being a Consent Calendar for Council and the Redevelopment Successor Agency, the Mayor, with the consensus of the Councilmembers, convened to a joint meeting at 7:05 p.m., and the two Consent Calendars were heard concurrently, with all Agency/Councilmembers present.
All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. Member of the public David Whatley commented on various Consent
Calendar items.
At the request of Councilmember Davis, Item 3.J., Councilmember De la Torre, Item 3.I, and Councilmember Brock, Item 3.N. were removed from the Consent Calendar.
Motion by Agency/Councilmember Brock, seconded by Agency/ Councilmember De la Torre, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Items 3.I, 3.J. and 3.N., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Agency/Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Chair/Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Chair/Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None
ABSENT: None WATER MAIN EXPANSION PROJECT 3.A. Award Construction Contract No. 11117 (CCS) to Colich and Sons L.P. for Non-Potable Water Main Expansion Project, was approved.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award Bid #2563 to Colich and Sons. L.P. to provide construction services for the Non-Potable Water Main Expansion Project for the
Public Works Department; 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
6 December 15, 2020
11117 (CCS) with Colich and Sons. L.P. in an amount not to exceed
$1,803,341 (including $170,001 for contingency); 3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority; and
4. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and
Budget Actions section of this report. WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
3.B. Award Construction Contract Nos. 11118 (CCS) and 11119 (CCS) for SP2614 to Colich and Sons L.P. and Berg and Associates
Inc. for Annual Water Main Replacement Project, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award Bid #2614 to Colich and Sons L.P., to provide construction
services for the Annual Water Main Replacement Project for the
Public Works Department; 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 11118 (CCS) with Colich and Sons L.P. in an amount not to exceed $5,035,884 (including a 15% contingency);
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary
change orders to complete additional work within contract authority; 4. Award RFP #2614 to Berg and Associates Inc. for construction observation services for the Annual Water Main Replacement Project; and
5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11119 (CCS) with Berg and Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $330,000. ANNENBERG COMMUNITY BEACH HOUSE
3.C. Approval of Contractual Services Agreement No. 11120 (CCS) with A.G Coast Inc. dba California Panther Security for Security Services at the Annenberg Community Beach House, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4399 to A.G Coast Inc. dba California Panther Security for security services at the Annenberg Community Beach House; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11120 (CCS) with A.G Coast Inc. dba California Panther Security in
an amount not to exceed $193,868 for one year, with four additional years with a three percent annual increase, on the same terms and conditions for a total amount not to exceed $1,029,268 over a five-year period, with future-year funding contingent on Council budget approval. MEASURE W FUNDS 3.D. Adoption of Resolution No. 11310 (CCS) entitled “A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7 December 15, 2020
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA TO RECEIVE THE ANNUAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR THE SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (MEASURE W)”, was adopted.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11310 (CCS) to accept the regional fund transfer of Safe, Clean Water (Measure W) funds from the
County of Los Angeles Flood Control District;
2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute agreements to receive the funds; and 3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.
PAYROLL MONITORING 3.E. Approval of Third Modification to Gafcon Contract to Provide Citywide State and Federal Labor Compliance and Payroll Monitoring, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute a third modification to agreement #10435 with Gafcon, Inc. that would extend the contract by two years and add $600,000 to provide citywide State and Federal labor compliance and certified
payroll monitoring on an as-needed basis. This will result in a seven-year agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $1,500,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SERVICES
3.F. Approval of Second Modification to Agreement with TCS Risk Management Services, LLC for Workers’ Compensation Data Analysis and Reporting Services, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10234 in the amount of $171,100 with TCS Risk Management Services, LLC, a California-based company, for workers’ compensation data analysis and consulting services for the Finance Department. This will result in a seven-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $497,400,
with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.G. Award RFP to Walid Ghurabi, D.O., FACEP for Fire Department Medical Director Services, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
8 December 15, 2020
1. Award RFP#269 to Walid Ghurabi, D.O., FACEP, to provide
Medical Director Services for the Fire Department; 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute professional service Agreement No. 11121 (CCS) with Dr. Walid Ghurabi, in an amount not to exceed $162,000 for three years, with two additional
one-year renewal options in the total amount of $108,000 for both
option years, on the same terms and conditions for a total amount not to exceed $270,000 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.H. Accept 2019 State Homeland Security Grant and award RFP to provide professional services to assist Los Angeles Area Fire Chief’s Association Regional Training Group Fire Service Training Officer hosted by Santa Monica Fire, was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to accept a grant awarded in the amount of $936,711 from the 2019 State Homeland Security Grant Program; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to
accept the grant and all grant renewals;
3. Award RFP#270 for professional services to Fire Resources LLC, to assist Los Angeles Area Fire Chief’s Association Regional Training Group hosted by Santa Monica Fire Department; 4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute professional
service Agreement 11122 (CCS) with Fire Resources LLC, in an amount not to exceed $370,000 for a twenty-four-month period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval and state homeland security grant funding; and 5. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions section of this report. BENEFITS 3.K. Approval of Professional Services Agreement No. 11123 (CCS) with Nationwide Retirement solutions, Inc. for Deferred Compensation Plan Administrator Services, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a no-cost first modification to the agreement with Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc.
(Nationwide), for deferred compensation plan administrator services, to extend the agreement for a period of two years with one additional one-year renewal option, on the same terms and conditions, for a total ten-year contract period (including the optional renewal). EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION - 3.L. Adoption of Resolution No. 11311 (CCS) entitled “AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
9 December 15, 2020
COVID-19 OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROCLAMATIONS THERETO”, was adopted.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the city of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.
REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING OF REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY HOUSING 3.M. Authorization to Post on City's Website the Annual Report on
the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Receive the Annual Report on the Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Asset Fund for Fiscal Year 2019-20 and authorize staff to
post the report on the City's website by December 31, 2020; and 2. Direct staff to present the independent audit of the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund to the Council upon completion of the independent audit of the City’s Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and authorize staff to post the results of the audit on the City's website after presentation to City Council. RECESS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
On order of the Chair/Mayor, the special joint meeting with the
Redevelopment Successor Agency was recessed at 7:40 p.m., and the regular meeting of the City Council was reconvened, with all members present TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
3.O. First Modification to Agreement No. 11124 (CCS) with BOA Architecture for Tenant Improvement Design Services, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to Agreement No. 11124 (CCS)
in the amount of $18,700 with BOA Architecture Corporation (BOA) for the design of tenant improvement projects at the Santa Monica Airport for the Public Works Department. This will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $106,700, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. MINUTES 3.P. Minutes of the City Council - Regular Meeting - November 24,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
10 December 15, 2020
2020 5:30 PM, were approved. MINUTES 3.Q. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - December 8, 2020 5:30 PM, were approved.
WATER TREATMENT 3.I. Approval of First Modification to Agreement 10567 with Grace Environmental Services, was presented. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #10567 in the
amount of $280,000 with Grace Environmental Services, LLC to provide primary operating, maintenance, and management services for both the Charnock Treatment Plant and City Hall East (formerly referred to as the City Services Building) water treatment system through October 2022. This
will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to
exceed $2,280,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. This item was pulled by Councilmember De la Torre to ask questions of
staff.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: is this a one-time expense or is it on-going; is it sustainable financially; is this an annual cost; do we have the capacity to do it in-house, or is it cheaper to just outsource; and,
can the training be developed in-house, so the city doesn’t have to outsource. Motion by Councilmember De la Torre, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the
following vote: AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan Mayor Himmelrich NOES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, Parra
ABSENT: None POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.J. Approval of Purchase Order with Axon Enterprises, Inc. for Purchase of Taser for Police Department, was presented. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with Axon Enterprises, Inc. for the purchase of Model 7 Tasers for the Police Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant
to Section 2.24.250(b-c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $862,391 over five years with future year funding contingent on Council budget
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
11 December 15, 2020
approval.
This item was pulled by Councilmember Davis, to ask questions of staff. Questions asked and answered of staff included: Does the city have any
unused devices that could be used for another year, in order to delay this
expenditure, and do those have to be replaced once they’re out of warranty; do they have to be replaced now, can we delay this replacement; is it true that this system will automatically activate body cameras, and with this new capability, will the city make this operational; what is the number
being purchased under this contract, versus how many personnel require
them; how long will this equipment last; how often are tasers used; does PD provide training, and how will PD ensure the community that a mistake of use will not be used; and, is this device considered safe or more safe than other devices on the market.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None SANTA MONICA PUBLIC LIBRARY 3.N. Award Contract No. 11125 (CCS) to SirsiDynix, Inc. for Integrated Library System for the Santa Monica Public Library, was presented. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11125 (CCS) with SirsiDynix, Inc. for annual software maintenance and support of the SirsiDynix Symphony Integrated Library System for the Library Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant
to Section 2.24.250 (c) and is for a total amount not to exceed $646,862 (including a 20% contingency) for five years, with two additional one-year renewal options, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
This item was pulled by Councilmember Brock to ask questions of staff. Questions asked and answered of staff included: can this expense be postponed for a year, until after the COVID crisis and use this funding in a different way that could reach residents quicker; what does this system do;
and, any plans to integrate K-12.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
12 December 15, 2020
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to
approve the recommended action. AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None STUDY SESSION: HOUSING 4.A. Review of Housing Element, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss an update on current work efforts related to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Members of the public Shawn Landres, Elisa Paster, Tricia Crane, Ken
Kutcher, Lee Kaplan, Mark Vergo, Michael Soloff, Conner Finney, Denise
Barton, Elizabeth Lehrer, Ann Greenspun, Mario Fonda-Bernardi, Ann Thanawalla, Carl Hansen, Matt Stoffer, Leonora Camner, Elana Christopoulos, David Whatley, Zina Josephs, and, Wendy Dembo spoke to the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: Is it correct that if the city would have appealed during the appeal period, the city could have given a higher Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number; is it correct that Santa Monica, and recently Huntington Beach were sued by the state
for not having an adequate Housing Element, and were forced to concede some local control to the state in order to settle that law suit; how does the vacancy rate affect the Housing Element; on a per 1,000 basis, was Santa Monica comparable to Culver City, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills in the allocation; once the filtering of all of the analysis, is there an
expectation that there will be suitable sites available; what has staff found in reviewing some of the referenced reports; has there been any discussion with the state to find out how the housing is supposed to be built, without any funding; is the city able to zone land just for affordable housing to meet the mandate, and then wait for the state to fund it; will Santa Monica join
other cities in SCAG, put pressure on Sacramento, and challenge the RHNA numbers, while still creating a Housing Element in order to meet the mandate; what impact will the required 8,800 units have on our NetZero and water neutrality goals; and, what is the penalty for non-compliance.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: it’s unrealistic for the state to mandate housing without providing any funding; look at other Southern California cities who are fighting the RHNA numbers; in order to get the RHNA numbers, come up with a pilot program to present to the state, and have the state provide the funding; make
affordable housing a priority; have to prioritize addressing system racism, creating more diversity in both affordable housing as well as overall
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
13 December 15, 2020
housing, such as how to bring back displaced people by; create more deed
restricted housing in R1 areas, specifically with ADUs; it seems premature to put these things in place, when the city hasn’t seen the full effect of COVID on housing; we can be on parallel tracks to lobby the state for more funding for affordable housing, while following the mandate of RHNA;
this is not a challenge to the city’s infrastructure, because the zoning is
NetZeo and water neutral; building affordable housing, embrace the RHNA numbers, protect displaced families; the RHNA numbers are unrealistic for Santa Monica; while working with other surrounding cities, go to SCAG and join the fight to have the RHNA numbers re-evaluated in order to
protect those who already live here; challenge the RHNA numbers for a
reassessment; we need more affordable housing, not market-rate housing; prepare the Housing Element, even though it may be a futile document, because it is unrealistic to meet what is being asked of the city; RHNA only addresses new housing, it doesn’t address former vacant buildings that can
be converted to affordable housing; everything the city builds should have
building incentives; and, bring back the Housing Commission to address, discuss and make recommendations to the Housing Element. ORDINANCES:
HOUSEKEEPING TRAINING
7.A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2660 (CCS)
entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.67.060 RELATING TO PUBLIC HOUSEKEEPING TRAINING”, was presented. Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading
thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None
ABSENT: None
THIRD STREET PROMENADE 7.B. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.10.040 to Prohibit Certain Fast Food Restaurants in Establishments with Frontage on the Third Street Promenade, was presented. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
14 December 15, 2020
ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.10.040 to
prohibit certain fast food restaurants in establishments with frontage on the Third Street Promenade. Members of the public Kathleen Rawson and Shawn Landres spoke to the
recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: why is the threshold changing from 100 to 150 restaurant chains; is the ordinance to control fast food, or the restaurants; provide examples of the difference between a
national chain that has 100 versus 150 locations; and, has Downtown Santa
Monica received complaints about not having affordable food options; and, is there a way to make sure that any of the larger chains don’t create smaller restaurants to meet the 150 limitation.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
McCowan, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, presented a friendly amendment to direct staff
to instruct the Planning Commission to do a new resolution of intention to
work on diversity issues. The motion was considered friendly by the maker. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSION ITEMS: PERSONNEL BOARD
13.A. Recommendation to accept Joy Abbott's resignation from the Personnel Board and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was presented.
There were no members of the public present to speak on this item. Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to accept the resignation with regret.
The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
15 December 15, 2020
AUDIT SUBCOMMITTEE 13.B. Appointment to two Councilmember vacancies on the Audit Subcommittee for a term ending June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2023, was presented. There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember De la Torre, to appoint Councilmember Davis for a term ending June 30, 2021 and Councilmember Parra for a term ending June 30, 2023 to the Audit Subcommittee. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None
COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUND 13.C. Request of Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan and Councilmember De la Torre that the Council allocate $10,000 from their Discretionary fund in recognition of Santa Monica’s front-line workers and their dedicated service to our community in 2020 in the
face of challenging demands from the global COVID-19 pandemic. The funds will be directed to the We Are Santa Monica fund to provide assistance to families experiencing food insecurity in our community through the Virginia Avenue Park Food Pantry, was presented.
There were no members of the public present to speak on this item. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the recommendation.
Councilmember McKeown, proposed a friendly amendment to add a matching to the fund. The motion was considered friendly by the maker and seconder of the motion. The Interim City Attorney asked for clarification of the timeline.
Councilmember McKeown, restated his amendment to give the original $10,000 upfront, with the matching grant of $10,000, up until the end of December.
The motion was restated to allocate $10,000 of discretionary fund immediately be given through the We Are Santa Monica fund to provide assistance to families, with an additional $10,000 to be given as donations are provided by other sources through December 31, 2020, up to the amount of those matching donations.
The motion, with amendments was approved by the following vote:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
16 December 15, 2020
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None
AMERICA SUPPORTING AMERICANS PROGRAM 13.D. Request of Councilmembers Brock and Davis that the City of Santa Monica, as part of the America Supporting Americans ("ASA") program, adopt Resolution No. 11311 (CCS) in accordance with the attached sample resolution whereby the City of Santa Monica would
adopt the Headquarters and Headquarters Company of 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment (No Slack) of the 101st Airborne Division (Screaming Eagles) of the US Army. ASA began in 1968 when Linda Patterson learned from her brother, who was deployed to Vietnam, that certain Soldiers did not receive mail from home. Linda began to
organize in her hometown of San Mateo, CA to write letters to Soldiers stationed in Vietnam. Linda’s brother was killed in Vietnam, but his legacy lived on in her commitment to build support for Americans in the military. Linda’s brother was a member of the 101st Airborne Division, and more specifically the 1st Brigade Combat Team, known
as Bastogne. The 2nd Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company which we are proposing be adopted by Santa Monica is part of that 1st Brigade. Today, units from multiple service branches are sponsored by cities all around the country. There is no financial commitment required of the City and participation in the ASA program does not support any military action, policy, or operation. It is designed to support individual service members who are serving their country. If the City were to adopt the resolution, it would be to encourage local organizations such as The Santa Monica Elks Lodge 906 and local Girl Scout Troops 16135 and 415 Holly Hills (all of whom have expressed interest in supporting US soldiers) to participate in activities that support No Slack soldiers stationed at home and abroad, was presented. There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to approve the recommendation, with authorization for staff to fill in the blanks on the resolution, using our standard form, and appoint Councilmember Davis to serve as the primary liaison.
The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
17 December 15, 2020
WEST SIDE CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
13.E. Request of Councilmember Kevin McKeown that the Mayor appoint up to three Councilmembers to, along with Councilmember McKeown, the City's representative to and Chair of the West Side Cities Council of Governments (“WSCCOG”), and Councilmember Gleam Davis, the City's alternate representative to the WSCCOG,
attend the December 17, 2020 virtual meeting of the WSCCOG and vote to elect a WSCCOG representative to the Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG”) Regional Council District #41. The agenda for the WSCCOG virtual meeting at which the election will be conducted, scheduled for December 17, 2020 at 12:00 noon, is
attached. Under the SCAG Regional Council Rules, up to five councilmembers from each voting-eligible City may vote to elect the WSCCOG representative, but must attend the meeting to do so, was presented.
There were no members of the public present to speak on this item.
The Mayor appointed Councilmembers McKeown, Davis, De la Torre, Brock, and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan to represent Santa Monica at the WSCCPG meeting on December 17, 2020.
INVOCATION 13.F. Request of Councilmembers Brock and Parra that Council direct the City Attorney to return by no later than March 23, 2021 with a proposal for adoption of an invocation policy under which: (a) In order to celebrate the great diversity of religious institutions in the City of Santa Monica and that of the chaplains of the Police and Fire Departments, these would be provided an opportunity to, prior to the pledge of allegiance, offer words of inspiration and wisdom, commonly known as an invocation prior to the opening of City Council meetings; (b) the invocation will not be listed or recognized on the public agenda and will be voluntarily delivered by an eligible member of the clergy or religious leader with an established presence in the City of Santa Monica; and (c) the City Clerk will compile a database of religious institutions with an established presence in Santa Monica, shall solicit those religious institutions to generate a list of those wishing to provide an invocation during any particular calendar year, and shall once a year conduct a lottery of those who positively respond to the solicitation to select those clergy or religious leaders to provide the invocation at Council meetings conducted during that year, was pulled at the request of the requestors. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 13.G. Request of Councilmembers Brock and Parra that Council direct staff to return to Council no later than January 26, 2021 with a proposal to authorize the City Manager to take all steps necessary to request authorization from the California Department of Parks & Recreation, the California Coastal Commission, and any other appropriate body to implement a one-year trial closure of the Santa
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
18 December 15, 2020
Monica state beaches from midnight to 6:00 am nightly, was pulled by
the requestors, and continued to January 28, 2021. NOISE ORDINANCE 13.H. Request by Councilmembers Brock and Parra that Council direct staff to review options and return with a proposed amendment
to the City’s Noise Ordinance, or other City ordinances, to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in residential neighborhoods while still upholding First Amendment rights, was presented. Members of the public Ellis Raskin and Josh Levy, spoke to the
recommended action.
Questions of staff included, is the ordinance only going to be focused on noise, or would broader activities be included as well, but not limit citizens first amendment rights to protest, and, are there any restrictions on citizens
first amendment rights to protest around or near elected officials homes.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 13.I. Request of Councilmembers Brock and Parra that: (a) all Santa Monica Boards and Commissions not currently permitted to meet under the Executive Order may hold a quarterly meeting beginning in January or February of 2021, with such meetings to be conducted remotely and focused on issues within the jurisdiction of the relevant board or commission that are scheduled to come before the City Council before June 2021, (b) in light of staff reductions and in order to minimize disruption to core and pandemic-related services, the City Clerk and City Manager or designees shall work with Board and Commission Chairs to facilitate the scheduling of these quarterly video meetings, with board and commission members taking responsibility for preparing agendas, ensuring compliance with the Brown Act, preparing letters with recommendations to Council (if any), and ensuring that video recordings of the proceedings are made available to the City Clerk; and (c) the City Council will honor all Commissioners and Board Members who have left their positions, whether as the result of being termed out, not being reappointed, or by voluntary departure, during the period from September 2020 to the present, by a reading of their names in a January 2021 City Council meeting and the issuance of an appropriate commendation for their valuable volunteer service on behalf of the City’s residents, was
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
19 December 15, 2020
presented.
Members of the public Michael Soloff and Ellis Raskin, spoke to the recommended action.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to
approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers De la Torre, Brock, McKeown, Davis, Parra,
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None ABSENT: None HOMELESSNESS 13.J. Request of Councilmembers Parra & Brock that staff return
with a report outlining the City departments and their respective divisions that have a role in providing outreach and services to homeless community; any information on bi-annual and annual reporting of metrics from non-profit homeless service providers that the City supports through bonds, grant agreements, etc; and as
Municipal code section 2.69.020 requires that once every twelve months, City Council conducts an annual review of funding for homeless services, Councilmembers Parra & Brock are requesting to see a copy of the last 3 years of reports, was presented.
Member of the public Denise Barton, spoke on the recommended action. Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Parra, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, McKeown, Brock, De la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:11 a.m. in memory of Robert Holbrook.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
20 December 15, 2020
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 04329DE7-838A-4028-BB0D-067F88917C66
7.B.h
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: AttH-20201215.City Council - Full Minutes (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
City Council Meeting: July 27, 2021 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 4 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO NOISE AND TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PROTESTS TO
PROMOTE THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE
WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful of the legal principles relating to
regulation of activity in public forums such as sidewalks, streets, and public parks and
does not intend to unconstitutionally suppress or infringe expressive activities protected
by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Liberty of Speech
Clause of the California Constitution, but instead is enacting reasonable content-neutral
time, place, and manner regulations that address the need to promote the safety and
welfare of the public and preserve residential privacy and tranquility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports peaceful protests, demonstrations, and
events, but some individuals have used prolonged, amplified noise in connection with
recurring protests and other public assembly events to unreasonably harass and disturb
the privacy and tranquility of residents in their homes during evening hours; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council in issuing this Ordinance to ensure
that protests and other public assembly events are conducted in ways that permit those
assembling to engage in expressive activities intended to convey their message to the
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
public while at the same time ensuring that the protests and other public assembly events
do not unreasonably harass and disturb the privacy and tranquility of residents in their
homes; and
WHEREAS, public protests, demonstrations, and rallies occurring in 2020 in the
Cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica in connection with
protests and counter-protests relating to mask and social distancing requirements put in
place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were conducted in residential
neighborhoods, on repeated evenings over an extended period of time, in a way and with
prolonged noise levels, including the use of megaphones, drums, and amplified music,
that appeared intended to, and did, unreasonably harass and disturb the privacy and
tranquility of residents in their homes during evening hours; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City Council directed City staff to review
options and return with proposed amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, or other
City ordinances, to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in residential
neighborhoods while still upholding First Amendment rights; and
WHEREAS, in issuing this Ordinance, the City Council takes notice of the
principles and decisions regarding the regulation of public assemblies, including but not
limited to the following:
1. Public streets, sidewalks, and parks are the archetypes of a traditional public
forum where the government cannot favor one speaker over another based on the
viewpoint of the speaker. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480-81 (1988); see
also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 828
(1995). The government may regulate First Amendment activities in traditional
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
3
public fora, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks when such restrictions are
reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that are: content neutral; narrowly
tailored to serve a significant government interest; and leave open ample
alternative channels of communication. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 799-800 (1985); see also Klein v. San Diego
County, 463 F.3d 1029, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006); Bay Area Peace Navy v. United
States, 914 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1990).
2. The City has a substantial interest in protecting residential privacy and
tranquility. See Frisby, 487 U.S. at 483-84; Klein v. San Diego County, 463 F.3d
1029, 1034 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Cuviello v. City of Vallejo, 944 F.3d 816, 828
(9th Cir. 2019) (government interest in protecting its citizens from unwelcome noise
“is at its zenith in residential areas, where citizens have substantial privacy
interests”). While the right to residential privacy and tranquility does not
encompass a right to remain blissfully unaware of the presence of protestors, it
does support a significant government interest in preventing protesting that
renders the targeted resident a captive audience to the protestors’ message; thus
residential protest ordinances must carefully balance two valid and competing
interests, the right of residents not to be captive audiences to unwanted speech
and the right of protestors to convey their message. Frisby, 486 U.S. at 487; Klein,
463 F.3d at 1035.
3. Time, place, and manner limitations on the use of amplified sound must be
content neutral; narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest such
as a City’s interests in peace and tranquility, maintenance of public safety, and
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
4
protecting individuals from unwanted speech; and leave open ample alternative
channels for communication of information. See Klein v. Laguna Beach, 381 Fed.
Appx. 723, 725-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (“there was no evidence to support the district
court’s finding that a blanket prohibition on amplified sound after 5 p.m. is narrowly
tailored to a significant government interest in public tranquility, particularly in light
of the significant protections for speech in a public forum”); see also
Cuviello, 944 F.3d at 825 (recognizing that sound-amplifying devices “can produce
noise that is unpleasant” and that municipalities can regulate use of such devices
but “must ensure that even a well-intentioned restriction does not give way to
suppression of speech”).
WHEREAS, this Ordinance provides a narrowly tailored content-neutral
mechanism to permit protests and other public assembly events to be conducted in ways
that permit those assembling to engage in expressive activities intended to convey their
message to the public while at the same time ensuring that the protests and other public
assembly events do not result in prolonged noise at levels that will unreasonably harass
and disturb the privacy and tranquility of residents in their homes; and
WHEREAS, providing a narrowly tailored content-neutral mechanism to address
the purposes set forth above requires that certain outdated and superseded provisions of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code be deleted or substantially modified;
///
///
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
5
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.020, Definitions, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
4.12.020 Definitions.
The following words and phrases as used in this Chapter shall have the following
meanings:
(a) Ambient Noise Level. The all-encompassing noise level associated with a
given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the
alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a
comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.
(b) A-Weighted Sound Level. The level in decibels of sound as measured with
a sound level meter with a reference pressure of twenty micro-Pascals using the
A-weighted network (scale) at a slow response. The unit of measurement shall
be designated as dBA.
(c) Community Event. Any event that has obtained a Community Event Permit
pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.68.
(d) Community Noise Officer. The person designated by the City Manager to
administer the provisions of this Chapter.
(e) Construction Activity. Shall mean the following:
(1) The operation of any tool, machine or equipment including, but not
limited to, vehicles and helicopters being used by the City, public utilities,
contractors or subcontractors and their employees to carry out any work
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
6
for which a building permit is required, including, but not limited to,
demolition, grading, excavating, or construction;
(2) Performing any construction, maintenance, or repair on buildings,
structures, or utilities or any work preparing the site for construction or
repair including, but not limited to, staging, grading, excavation, and
demolition;
(3) Any painting using motorized equipment or any painting that is part of
the construction activity for which a building permit has been issued;
(4) The loading or unloading of construction equipment, materials, or
supplies from vehicles at or near the site of the construction activity;
(5) The staging or idling, at or near the site of construction activity, of any
construction vehicle or any vehicles bringing construction equipment,
materials or supplies to the site of the construction;
(6) The staging or idling, at or near the site of construction activity, of any
food services vehicle providing food services to persons working at a site
of construction activity or the use of a horn or other device by a food
services vehicle to alert customers that the vehicle has arrived.
(f) Decibel (dB). A unit whichthat denotes the ratio between two quantities
whichthat are proportional to power: the number of decibels corresponding to the
ratio of two amounts of power is ten times the logarithm to the base ten of this
ratio.
(g) Emergency Machinery, Vehicle, Work or Alarm. Any machinery, vehicle,
work or alarm used, employed, performed or operated in an effort to protect,
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
7
provide or restore safety conditions in the community or for the citizenry, or work
by private or public utilities when restoring utility service or work repairing public
infrastructure.
(h) Equivalent Noise Level (Leq). The equivalent noise level as measured
using the A-weighted sound level decibel scale. The measurement of equivalent
noise level shall be in accordance with International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) International Standard 61672 (Part 1), “Electroacoustics—Sound Level
Meters,” Section 3.9, “Equivalent Continuous Sound Level,” or most recent
revision thereof.
(i) Fixed Noise Source. A stationary device whichthat creates sounds while
fixed or motionless, including, but not limited to, residential, agricultural, industrial
or commercial machinery, equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air
conditioners, construction, or refrigeration equipment.
(j) Grading. Any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination
thereof conducted at a site to prepare said site for construction or other
improvements thereon.
(k) Hertz (Hz). The unit that describes the frequency of a function periodic in
time, which is the reciprocal of the period.
(l) Health Care Institution. Any hospital, convalescent home or other similar
facility, excluding residential care facilities whichthat provide health care, medical
treatment, room, board or other services for the ill, retarded or convalescent.
(m) Impulsive Noise. A noise of short duration usually less than one second
and of high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
8
(n) Intruding Noise Level. The total sound level, expressed in the A-weighted
sound level decibel scale, created, caused, maintained or originating from an
alleged offensive source at a specified location while the alleged offensive source
is in operation.
(o) Maximum Instantaneous A-weighted, Slow Sound Pressure Level. The
highest level that was observed during the measurement using the A-weighting
and slow response settings on the sound level meter.
(p) Mechanical Equipment. Equipment such as pool pumps, spa pumps, air
conditioners and accessory equipment such as generators, ducts and vents.
(q) Mobile Noise Source. Any noise source other than a fixed noise source.
(r) Noise Sensitive Land Use. Public or private schools, places of worship,
cemeteries, libraries, hospitals and similar health care institutions.
(s) Person. A person, firm, association, co-partnership, joint venture,
corporation or any entity, public or private in nature.
(t) Simple Tone Noise. A noise characterized by a predominant frequency or
frequencies so that other frequencies cannot be readily distinguished. If
measured, simple tone noise shall exist if the one-third octave band sound
pressure level in the band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the
sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one-third octave bands by: five dB
for frequencies of five hundred Hz and above; by eight dB for frequencies
between one hundred sixty and four hundred Hz; and, by fifteen dB for
frequencies less than or equal to one hundred twenty-five Hz.
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
9
(u) Sound Amplifying Equipment. Any machine or device used to amplify
music, the human voice, or any other sound, but does not include (1) vehicle
radios or stereos when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicles in
which they are installed or (2) machines or devices designed and operated for
personal use and heard only by the person utilizing such a machine or device.
(u)(v) Sound Level Meter. An instrument meeting International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) International Standard 61672 (Parts 1 and 2)
“Electroacoustics—Sound Level Meters,” or most recent revision thereof, for a
Type 1 sound level meter or an instrument and the associated recording and
analyzing equipment whichthat will provide equivalent data.
(v(w) Sound Pressure Level. Twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of the
ratio of the pressure of the sound to a reference pressure whichthat shall be
explicitly stated. The term “noise level” used in this Chapter is the sound
pressure level.
(w(x) Stationary. Remaining in a fixed location for at least five minutes.
(y) Vibration. Any movement of the earth, ground or other similar surface
created by a temporal and spatial oscillation of displacement, velocity or
acceleration in any mechanical device or equipment located upon, attached or
affixed to, or in conjunction with that surface.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.030, Exemptions, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
4.12.030 Exemptions.
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
10
(a) The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter,
except for Sections 4.12.025, 4.12.100, and 4.12.105, or unless otherwise
expressly identified in any section of this Chapter:
(1) Activities conducted on public or private school grounds, including,
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 beaches.
(b) The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter
unless otherwise expressly identified in any section of this Chapter:
(1) Any alarm or emergency device, apparatus or equipment regulated
by Municipal Code Sections 3.56.010 through 3.60.010;
(2) Activities undertaken by governmental agencies to protect public
health, safety or welfare;
(3) Any activity regulated by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
10.04.04.010 et seq. (Aircraft Noise Abatement Code);
(4) Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by
State or Federal law.
(5) Any non-commercial activity conducted outdoors:
(A) Between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m. on weekdays or
eight a.m. and ten p.m. on weekends;
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
11
(B) On public property that is generally open to the public,
including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, parkways,
parks, and beaches;
(C) Not on the Santa Monica Pier or the Third Street Promenade;
(D) Not immediately abutting any exclusively residential use; and
(E) Not violating Section 4.12.025 of this Code with respect to any
residential, hospital or school use.
SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.050, Designated noise
zones, is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.12.050 Designated noise zones.
The properties hereinafter described are hereby assigned to the following noise
zones:
Noise Zone I. All property in anya residential district established by Santa
Monica Municipal Code SubchapterSection 9.04.04 02.010(B)(1) or any revisions
thereto. In addition, property zoned Low Density Multiple Residential Beach
District (R2B), Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential District
(R3R), Ocean Park Single Family Residential District (OP1), OP Duplex Ocean
Park Duplex Residential District (OP-Duplex) OPD, Ocean Park Low Multiple
Residential District (OP2), Ocean Park Medium Multiple Residential District
(OP3), and Ocean Park High Multiple Residential District (OP4) shall be included
in this noise zone.; except, however, the Santa Monica Pier shall be excluded
from this noise zone.
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
12
Noise Zone II. All property in any commerciala nonresidential district established
by Santa Monica Municipal Code SubchapterSection 9.04.0402.010(B)(2) or any
revisions thereto. In addition, property zoned Beach Parking District (BPD), Civic
Center (CC), Bayside Commercial District (BSCD); except, however, the
industrial conservation district shall be excluded from this noise zone and the
Santa Monica Pier shall be included in this noise zone.
Noise Zone III. All property in any manufacturing orthe industrial conservation
district as established by Santa Monica Municipal Code SubchapterSection
9.04.04 or any revisions thereto. In addition, property zoned Light Manufacturing
and Studio District (LMSD) shall be included in this noise zone. 02.010(A).
SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.100, Restrictions in public
parks, beaches, or recreational facilities, is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.12.100 Restrictions in public parks, beaches, or recreational facilities.
(a) No person shall use or operate sound amplifying equipment or play any
audio or electronic device including, but not limited to, any radio, tape player,
compact disc, electronic keyboard or any other musical instrument after ten10:00
p.m. orand before eight7:00 a.m. on weekdays or 8:00 a.m. on weekends in or
upon any public park, beach, or recreational facility owned or maintained by the
City of Santa Monica unless this device is only audible through headphones or
earphones.
(b) This Section shall not prohibit any individual or group person from playing
any musical instrument, or any other audiousing or electronic deviceoperating
sound amplifying equipment if granted permission by the City to play or perform
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
13
in or upon a public park, beach, or other recreational facility owned or maintained
by the City pursuant to a community event permit.
(c) If a person with a community event permit plays any musical instrument or
uses or operates sound amplifying equipment at the same location or within 500
feet of the same location in or upon any public park, beach, or recreational facility
within Noise Zone 1 on more than two days in any seven-day period, the person
shall be limited to playing any musical instrument or using or operating the sound
amplifying equipment, whether constantly or intermittently, for no longer than a
single 45 minute period after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or
8:00 a.m. on weekends on the third through seventh day during that seven-day
period.
SECTION 5. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.105, Restrictions on
sound amplifying equipment, is hereby added to read as follows:
4.12.105 Restrictions on sound amplifying equipment.
(a) No person shall use or operate sound amplifying equipment on a public
sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway located in Noise Zone I after 10:00 p.m. and
before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or 8:00 a.m. on weekends.
(b) No person who is not stationary while using or operating sound amplifying
equipment shall use or operate such equipment on a public sidewalk, street,
alley, or parkway located in Noise Zone 1 between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.
(c) If a person who is stationary under subsection (b) uses or operates sound
amplifying equipment at the same location or within 500 feet of that location in
Noise Zone 1 on more than two days in any seven-day period, the person shall
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
14
be limited to using or operating the sound amplifying equipment, whether
constantly or intermittently, for no longer than a single 45 minute period between
8 p.m. and 10 p.m. on the third through seventh day during that seven-day
period.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), this Section shall not apply to the
use or operation of sound amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street,
alley, or parkway immediately abutting a property with a commercial use, as set
forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(B), in Noise Zone I.
(e) Law enforcement personnel, firefighting personnel, emergency health care
providers, and employees, agents, or representatives of the City shall be exempt
from the provisions of this Section when engaged in official business of or on
behalf of the City.
SECTION 6. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.790, Distance restriction
for targeted residential protests, is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.08.790 Distance restriction for tTargeted residential protests.
(a) For purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Dwelling” has the same meaning as defined in Section 9.52.020.0720 of
this Code.
(2) “Picketing” means the posting of a person or group for a demonstration or
protest.
(2) “Targeted dwelling” means the dwelling at which a targeted residential
protest is directed.
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
15
(32) “Targeted residential protest” activity means a demonstration, picketing
activity, or other public assembly that is directed at a particular residential
dwelling or occupants of that dwelling and either (i) proceeds on a definite course
in front of or around that particular dwelling or (ii) occurs at a particular location in
front of or around that particular dwelling.
(b) No person shall engage in a targeted residential protest demonstration or
picketing activity that is targeted at a residence and which occurs (1) within fifty
(50) feet of the property line of the targeted dwelling, except that a targeted
residential protest residence. However, if the targeted residence is within fifty feet
of the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, the demonstration or picketing
activity may occur on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street from the
targeted residencedwelling without regard to the 50-foot limitation; or (2) after
8:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or 8:00 a.m. on weekends.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted as prohibiting a community event
or public assembly that is not a targeted residential protest.
(d) When feasible, excluding exigent circumstances, a warning shall be issued
before enforcement of subsection (b). Such warning shall be sufficient if
provided orally, by posted signs, or by amplified announcement.
(e) Any interested person may seek an injunction or other relief to prevent or
remedy violations of subsection (b).
SECTION 7. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.620, Sound truck, is
hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
16
SECTION 8. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.630, Sound amplifying
equipment, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 9. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.640, Noncommercial use
of sound trucks, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 10. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.650, Registration
statement, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 11. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.660, Registration
statement amendment, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 12. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.670, Registration and
identification, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 13. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.680, Regulations for
use, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 14. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.690, Vehicles –
commercial advertising, is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 15. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 16. 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
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
17
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 17. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
George S. Cardona
Interim City Attorney
7.B.i
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: AttI-ProposedOrdinance (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jennifer Polhemus <jenniferpolhemus@verizon.net>
Sent:Sunday, July 25, 2021 10:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7B -- support for amending noise ordinance
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers –
As a longtime community activist, I acknowledge the importance of protest rights.
The recent protests at 32nd and Pearl (near my residence) have indeed been excessively
disruptive, by any reasonable community standard. The restriction on amplified noise seems a
reasonable approach, since bullhorns caused the most far‐reaching auditory impact.
I agree with this statement in the Staff Report:
“In the proposed amended Section 4.08.790, the distance and time limitations balance the
need for residential privacy and tranquility, particularly during nighttime hours, while also
providing a place and time period in the daytime and evening hours when targeted residential
protests may occur and protestors may reach their intended audience.”
Jennifer Polhemus
Resident and Santa Monica Small Business Owner
2521 32nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405‐3102
JenniferPolhemus@Verizon.net
Item 7.B
07/27/21
1 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar
de la Torre; Lana Negrete; John Jalili; George S. Cardona
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 7/27 agenda item 7-B -- Noise ordinance -- SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
July 25, 2021
To: Mayor Sue Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 7/27/21 agenda item 7-B: First reading of an ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal
Code Chapter on Noise:
I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
In December 2020, a series of extremely noisy protests took place outside the Sunset Park home of
L.A.County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. This went on for weeks, with nightly, hours-long amplified noise in the
middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. These protests resulted in numerous complaints from nearby
residents whose lives were disrupted by the noise.
The City Council subsequently directed staff to draft amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to reduce
protest noise in residential neighborhoods, while still upholding First Amendment rights. The proposed
amendments are as follows:
A) Amend provisions of the City’s Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12) to update the definitions of Noise
Zones to match the current Zoning Ordinance, and implement limitations on the use of sound amplifying
equipment in certain public places in residential districts during specified evening hours. Also repeals and
deletes out-of-date and superseded provisions in Chapter 4.08.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
2 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
B) Amend SMMC Section 4.08.790 to impose distance (not within 50 feet of the property line of the targeted
dwelling) and time (not between 8 PM and 7 AM on week days, or 8 AM on weekends) restrictions on targeted
residential protests.
Again, I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
3 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jon Katz <tmbjon@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 10:34 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and Councilmembers:
The Santa Monica Democratic Club Executive Committee has considered the new noise ordinance proposed by staff. We
understand that the ordinance is intended to protect the right to peace in our residential neighborhoods, but also that
there are important First Amendment concerns that must be considered when we are limiting the right to speech, even
if some may consider those restrictions to be reasonable under the Supreme Court's definition. We are grateful to see
that the ordinance has been amended from previous versions to allow for more opportunities for free speech.
However, we still oppose the passage of this ordinance for the following reasons:
‐ First, we believe it is now well established after several Council meeting items this year concerning noise and protest
ordinances, all of which have failed to pass, that the Santa Monica Police Department already has all of the necessary
tools, resources, and ordinances in place to be able to adequately protect residents' peach and safety as well as
protestors' free speech simultaneously.
‐ Second, we are concerned about the 50‐foot limitation in Section 6, which states that no person shall engage in a
targeted residential protest within 50 feet of the dwelling. This arbitrary rule would seem to have the exact
oppose effect as intended: keeping protest and noise away from the target of protest and onto the sidewalks and
driveways of their neighbors, the exact residents whom you are trying to protect with this ordinance. If anything, the
inverse of this policy should be what is implemented: all noise must be contained to within 50 feet of the targeted
home.
The message of the anti‐vax protests at Supervisor Kuehl's house which motivated this ordinance is deplorable, and we
understand the intention to restrict the rights of these ill‐intended protests from disrupting residents. However, when it
comes to the First Amendment, we must always consider the rights of those whose speech we disagree with most. That
is the true test of how, and where, and when, we value the right to freedom of speech.
‐Jon Katz
President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
On behalf of the Executive Committee
‐‐
tmbjon@gmail.com
cell: (215) 962‐4357
Item 7.B
07/27/21
4 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Alex Novakovich <alexnovak@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 9:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar
de la Torre; Lana Negrete; John Jalili; George S. Cardona
Subject:Agenda item 7-B - noise ordinance - support
EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Sue Himmelrich and Santa Monica City Council members
RE: 7/27/21 Agenda item 7‐B: First reading of an ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter
on Noise:
I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
In December 2020, a series of extremely noisy protests took place outside the Sunset Park home of L.A.County Supervisor Sheila
Kuehl. This went on for weeks. I live 7 blocks away, heard them and was bothered by them. Neighbors living closer to Shelia weren’t
so lucky. The protests were so loud and so disruptive people couldn’t think inside their own homes.
The City Council subsequently directed staff to draft amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to reduce
protest noise in residential neighborhoods, while still upholding First Amendment rights.
I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
2607 26th St.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
5 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 10:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: 7/27/21 City Cnl. Mtg. - Item 7B: First reading of an ordinance amending the Santa Monica
Municipal Code Chapter on NOISE
EXTERNAL
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:11 AM
Subject: 7/27/21 City Cnl. Mtg. ‐ Item 7B: First reading of an ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code
Chapter on NOISE
To: Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>, Kristin.Mccowan@smgov.net
<Kristin.Mccowan@smgov.net>, <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>, <phil.brock@smgov.net>, Christine Parra
<christine.parra@smgov.net>, <lana.negrete@smgov.net>, Gleam Olivia Davis <gleam.davis@smgov.net>
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
In December 2020, a series of extremely noisy protests took place outside the Sunset Park home of
L.A.County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. This went on for weeks, with nightly, hours-long amplified noise in the
middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. These protests resulted in numerous complaints from nearby
residents whose lives were disrupted by the noise. The City Council subsequently directed staff to draft
amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to reduce protest noise in residential neighborhoods, while still
upholding First Amendment rights. The proposed amendments are as follows:
A) Amend provisions of the City’s Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12) to update the definitions of Noise
Zones to match the current Zoning Ordinance, and implement limitations on the use of sound amplifying
equipment in certain public places in residential districts during specified evening hours. Also repeals and
deletes out-of-date and superseded provisions in Chapter 4.08.
B) Amend SMMC Section 4.08.790 to impose distance (not within 50 feet of the property line of the targeted
dwelling) and time (not between 8 PM and 7 AM on week days, or 8 AM on weekends) restrictions on targeted
residential protests.
I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance to continue the protection of neighborhoods
throughout the City.
Thank-you,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 7.B
07/27/21
6 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
4
Wilmont Chair
Item 7.B
07/27/21
7 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Louis Ssutu <lsapc@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 10:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Louis Ssutu
Subject:In Support of Noise Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
1. Reflecting the wishes of all Santa Monica voters I fully support thé proposed Noise Ordinance.
To further update the existing noise ordinance, defining noise by decibels is unworkable. No one carries around a noise
meter. Please follow other cities by enacting a noise curfew from 10 pm to 7 am.
2. Congratulations on finding Mr. White as our new City Manager. He seems to have the right experience and
commitment. Much better than the previous inexperienced job hopper who rejected even your front loaded
compensation! Please consider back loading Mr. White’s compensation to discourage job hopping.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lou Ssutu
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.B
07/27/21
8 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Wilson <danielle.wilson@unitehere11.org>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 12:51 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana
Negrete
Cc:Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Comments on item 7B - amendments to Noise Ordinance and other city ordinances
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Councilmembers -
As we argued when the last iteration of this proposal came back in March, we do not believe new legislation is
warranted to prevent the type of protests that took place in front of Supervisor Kuehl’s home last year. The
SMPD already has authority to regulate noise in the city, something we can attest to from personal experience
on picket lines. We urge the council to reject the proposed amendments.
The proposed changes prepared by staff will have consequences well beyond the concerns the Council has
identified. As the staff report acknowledges, Council’s December 15, 2020 direction to staff was to “review
options and return with proposed amendments … to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in
residential neighborhoods …” (emphasis added). Yet the new proposed amendments address commercial
areas, not just residential zones. Moreover, the changes would restrict peaceful labor picketing of the sort that
working people, particularly hotel housekeepers, have conducted in the city for years.
One of the proposed changes would limit the speech protections of Section 4.12.030(b)(5), which was passed
into law after extensive discussion with community stakeholders to address free-speech concerns raised by the
ACLU and others. The change would reduce the exemption provided for non-commercial activity by one hour
on each weekend day. This change is particularly harmful to Santa Monica’s working people who often must
report to work at 8am, including on weekends, and who have customarily conducted peaceful protests at this
time to address their labor conditions as well as issues of broad community concern such as affordable
housing and coastal access.
There is no justification to make this change. The current exemption language in Section 4.12.030(b)(5) is
already limited to non-commercial activity on public property that is “[n]ot immediately abutting any exclusively
residential use” and [n]ot violating Section 4.12.025 of this Code with respect to any residential, hospital or
school use.” There is simply no justification for this speech-limiting this change—which is not even limited to
residential zones—that is plausibly related to addressing prolonged, targeted protests of homes in residential
neighborhoods. The change is misguided and must not be enacted.
We also object to proposed changes which would limit peaceful protest activity in public spaces such as public
parks. The proposed change to Section 4.12.100 would extend the same unnecessary and burdensome time
limitations to protests with sound amplifying equipment in public parks, beaches, or recreational
facilities. Similarly, the proposed change to Section 4.12.030(a) would curtail the protection that section
provides for spaces that are generally open to the public. Again, if the concern is prolonged protests targeted
specific residential homes, why curtail free speech expressions at public parks or beaches?
In sum, there is no fit between the narrow concerns the Council has identified and the sweeping changes the
staff’s proposed amendment would have in curtailing core free speech activity. History is riddled with
misguided attempts to respond to emotional appeals over the particular concern of the moment with overbroad
restrictions on constitutional rights. Santa Monica—a city that prides itself on respecting free speech—should
not make this mistake here.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
9 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
For these reasons, we urge the Council to reject the specific changes we have identified, and more generally,
to refrain from making any speech-limiting changes without engaging more fully with the community, including
groups such as the ACLU, and fully considering the consequences of its actions.
Sincerely,
Danielle Wilson
‐‐
Danielle Wilson
Research Analyst
UNITE HERE Local 11
464 S Lucas Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Cell: 818-534-7999
Item 7.B
07/27/21
10 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Annspun <annspun@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 5:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar
de la Torre; Lana Negrete; John Jalili; George S. Cardona
Subject:7B Noise Ordinance Support (?hours)
EXTERNAL
I would like to support the noise ordinance (7B) for Tuesday's upcoming city council
meeting, except for the hours....
If you are going to adjust, how about 8 pm to 8 am for no protesting? (7 am is too early
for many).
Or no protesting allowed before 8 and after 4. I'm not sure why the hours are so lenient
and not more restrictive.
Thank you,
Ann Greenspun
SM Resident
annspun@aol.com
Item 7.B
07/27/21
11 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 6:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar
de la Torre; Lana Negrete
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 7/27 agenda item 7-B -- Noise ordinance -- SUPPORT from FOSP Board
EXTERNAL
July 26, 2021
To: Mayor Sue Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 7/27/21 agenda item 7-B: First reading of an ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal
Code Chapter on Noise:
A majority of the FOSP Board members urges the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
In December 2020, a series of extremely noisy protests took place outside the Sunset Park home of L.A.
County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. This went on for weeks, with nightly, hours-long amplified noise (bull horns,
etc.) in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. These protests resulted in numerous complaints from
nearby residents whose lives were disrupted by the ongoing noise.
The City Council subsequently directed staff to draft amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to reduce
protest noise in residential neighborhoods, while still upholding First Amendment rights. The proposed
amendments are as follows:
A) Amend provisions of the City’s Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12) to update the definitions of Noise
Zones to match the current Zoning Ordinance, and implement limitations on the use of sound amplifying
equipment in certain public places in residential districts during specified evening hours. Also repeals and
deletes out-of-date and superseded provisions in Chapter 4.08.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
12 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
B) Amend SMMC Section 4.08.790 to impose distance (not within 50 feet of the property line of the targeted
dwelling) and time (not between 8 PM and 7 AM on week days, or 8 AM on weekends) restrictions on targeted
residential protests.
Again, the FOSP Board urges the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
13 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marianne O'Donnell <marianne@well.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 7:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Attorney Mailbox
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Council meeting July 27th: Comment on proposed amendment to City's noise ordinance
EXTERNAL
Greetings,
I found out through the Santa Monica Daily Press that an amendment to the City's noise ordinance will be
included among the items to be discussed at the City Council meeting tomorrow July 27th, 2021:
https://www.smdp.com/council-to-discuss-city-manager-contract-noise-ordinance-and-commission-
appointments/206966
"City Council will also hear the first reading of an amendment to the City’s noise ordinance during Tuesday’s
meeting. This proposal was brought about in response to the fall 2020 protests that targeted County
Supervisor Sheila Kuehl’s residence and disturbed multiple neighbors through the prolonged and often nightly
use of amplified sound."
#1:
I'm concerned that I found out about this through the local paper, not through the SMAlerts or the City's
website, which is a cause for concern about the Council truly representing the community, and voters. We
need to have due democratic process in this city if we want the community and City Hall to work together as
partners, not foes.
#2:
As a longtime resident, I'm really concerned about the remarkable increase in noise and disturbance in our
neighborhood. It's not about protests, which are few and far between - and had Ms. Kuehl addressed her
constituent's concerns, she may not have ended up with a protest near her home.
What concerns me as a resident who lives just south of the Civic Center and SW of SaMoHi, is the noise
nuisance we've been getting from:
a) The Civic construction site that has been permitted to work outside legally allowed construction hours right
next to residential neighborhoods, and often start at 6AM with loud, heavy equipment noise. The community
was never consulted on that permit.
b) SaMoHi using increasingly loud sound systems: this year's graduation night was a torture for local residents,
with a bass that was so strong it had our windows and furniture shaking three blocks away, and even broke
one of our picture frames. We know that we were not the only ones affected, because many neighbors were
upset and blamed City Hall, and complaints were posted on NextDoor. Covid brought some peace on that
front, but SaMoHi activities and events, such as the marching band coach microphone early mornings, have
been an ongoing and increasing nuisance.
c) The constant helicopter cowboy show we've had to endure ever since the new SMPD chief Seabrooks took
over. Maybe she's trying to project strength and efficacy, but it doesn't affect the everyday, street level issues
we have to deal with homelessness, petty crime and property loss; as voters and taxpayers, we're also
concerned about how much this show is costing all of us.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
14 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
My point is:
If the Council is to consider an amendment to the noise ordinance, please consider the three pleas above. Do
not make decision to just protect the elected or privileged. I'm aware that City Hall considers my neighborhood
(Pico, NW Ocean Park) as expendable, but we're not, and we demand peace and respect, too - or else.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marianne O'Donnell - 90405
Item 7.B
07/27/21
15 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Mark <ellenmark93@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 9:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Noise Amendment
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council,
I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
In December 2020, a series of extremely noisy protests took place outside the Sunset Park home of
L.A.County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. This went on for weeks, with nightly, hours-long amplified noise in the
middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. These protests resulted in numerous complaints from nearby
residents whose lives were disrupted by the noise.
The City Council subsequently directed staff to draft amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to reduce
protest noise in residential neighborhoods, while still upholding First Amendment rights. The proposed
amendments are as follows:
A) Amend provisions of the City’s Noise Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 4.12) to update the definitions of Noise
Zones to match the current Zoning Ordinance, and implement limitations on the use of sound amplifying
equipment in certain public places in residential districts during specified evening hours. Also repeals and
deletes out-of-date and superseded provisions in Chapter 4.08.
B) Amend SMMC Section 4.08.790 to impose distance (not within 50 feet of the property line of the targeted
dwelling) and time (not between 8 PM and 7 AM on week days, or 8 AM on weekends) restrictions on targeted
residential protests.
Again, I urge the Council to SUPPORT this proposed ordinance.
Thank you,
Ellen Mark
Santa Monica
Item 7.B
07/27/21
16 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen K Goldwasser <ekgoldwasser@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:LOUD MUSIC ON WEEKENDS in OCEAN VIEW PARK directly below residences - THE SHORES
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I want to voice my concerns that over the pandemic, there has been a very loud jazz band and a DJ who brings 10
speakers and plays loud, bass music in Ocean View Park below the south tower of THE SHORES, and next to the Sea
Colony. Many residents have called the police for help to have the music stopped, turned down, or ask the people
involved to move to another section by the beach where there are not residents living.
We have been told the decibel readings are not high enough to warrant their removal. The music is amplified and
travels up the buildings and hill into our residences. Life is becoming unbearable as they have been coming mostly on
the weekends from 2pm ‐ 6pm, and this past Sunday until 9PM.
Can you all PLEASE change the ordinance to ban music in this park? I feel it’s ok once in a while with a permit like folks
get for parades, etc… but this is abusive for every weekend for people who are trying to live peacefully in their homes.
I’ve written several letters to the city council, mayor, Santa Monica officials, and no action has taken place throughout
the pandemic to enforce the removal of the noise.
Below is a photo of the 10 speaker set up this past weekend.
Thank you!
Ellen
Item 7.B
07/27/21
17 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
Ellen Goldwasser
ekgoldwasser@mac.com | M: (770) 331-5050
Item 7.B
07/27/21
18 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Natalya Zernitskaya <nzernitskaya@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:00 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Attorney Mailbox;
Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis
Subject:City Council Agenda 7/27/21 Item 7B Public Comment
Attachments:LWVSM Item 7B Public Comments 7.27.2021.pdf
EXTERNAL
Good Morning,
Please see the attached public comment submitted on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica regarding
City Council Agenda Item 7B. I have also included the text of the attachment for your convenience below:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
July 27,2021
Re: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers,
The League of Women Voters of Santa Monica believes in the individual liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States. Individual rights now protected by the Constitution should not be weakened
or abridged.
In the last few years, the League of Women Voters has defended the First Amendment as the right to protest
has become increasingly threatened. In 2018, the League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS)
submitted comments regarding proposed regulations pertaining to the National Park Service’s protest
permitting process that would have made it harder to have demonstrations at the National Mall, Memorial
Parks, and President’s Park.
With regard to Agenda Item 7B, a proposed ordinance amending provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code related to noise and targeted residential protests, we urge the Council consider the following questions to
ensure that the proposed ordinance genuinely meets the needs of the Santa Monica community and does not
infringe upon constitutionally protected speech or civil liberties:
Who will be impacted by these proposed amendments?
What are the intended and unintended outcomes?
Do the proposed amendments align with the City’s values, particularly with regard to advancing equity
and inclusion?
Is the language of the proposed ordinance in line with its narrowly stated goal of protecting residential
privacy and tranquility, while avoiding potential negative impacts to civil liberties?
Can the issues described by the justification for the proposed ordinance be addressed with existing
municipal code?
Is now the appropriate time for this type of update to our noise ordinance?
Could the proposed amendments unintentionally result in the targeting of marginalized communities?
We appreciate your careful consideration of the potential impacts of the proposed ordinance in item 7B and
look forward to hearing what is sure to be a robust discussion on the matter.
Item 7.B
07/27/21
19 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
President
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
President
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
league@lwvsantamonica.org
Item 7.B
07/27/21
20 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robin Sherry <robin.sherry@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7B Noise Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Good evening Mayor Himmelrich and Council members. My name is Robin Sherry, I am a 38 year resident of The Shores.
For the past several months, I along with many of my neighbors have been assaulted by
ridiculously loud amplified music. A D.J. with 10 speakers blasting music, all coming from Ocean View Park in front of The
Shores apartments. This nightmare goes on every weekend Saturday and Sunday for at least 8 hours.
I have to close my windows and have my fan on, it just muffles the sounds. We all know noise carries and even more so
in a high rise. It is challenging enough living on Indianapolis "Neilson" Speedway.
We all have called the police numerous times and they said they have a right to be there. They will go out and tell them
to lower the volume. When the police leave, they crank the repetitive music back up again.What
about our rights to peace and quiet? I am disabled, next week I will be having my 39th surgery. I only sleep a few hours a
night. I try to take a few zzzs during the day but I am unable to on the weekends because of the
blaring music. The sounds from the park make it impossible to take a snooze. Why do a few outsiders have more rights
than hundreds of residents? There is a grassy area North of The Shores near Perry's, Send the disrespectful,
musicians that way. Please let the residents of The Shores and Sea Colony enjoy our apartments again. We are a
residential neighborhood and we were here long before the park!
Item 7.B
07/27/21
21 of 21 Item 7.B
07/27/21
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hector O. Villagra
CHAIR Marla Stone VICE CHAIRS Sherry Frumkin and Frank Broccolo
CHAIRS EMERITI Shari Leinwand Stephen Rohde Danny Goldberg Allan K. Jonas* Burt Lancaster* Irving Lichtenstein, MD* Jarl Mohn
Laurie Ostrow* Stanley K. Sheinbaum* *deceased
1313 WEST EIGHTH STREET • SUITE 200 • LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 • T 213.977.9500 • F 213.915.0220 • ACLUSOCAL.ORG
July 27, 2021
Via Electronic Mail Honorable Members of the City Council City of Santa Monica council@smgov.net
councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
RE: Item 7B - Ordinance Amending SMMC Chapter on Noise and Targeted Residential Protest
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Item 7B on tonight’s agenda—the revised proposed noise ordinance---continues to implicate fundamental free speech rights.1 After our March 9, 2021 letter urging the Council to remove discussion of a previous version of this ordinance from the agenda, it appears the
Council heeded some of the First Amendment concerns we raised, such as by removing then-proposed amendments to SMMC § 4.68.040’s permit requirements.2 Nonetheless, the revised proposed ordinance remains vulnerable to constitutional challenge in several notable ways, warranting further consideration from the Council.
As a threshold matter, it is axiomatic that the First Amendment strongly disfavors prior
restraints on speech. Baby Tam & Co., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1100 (“A prior restraint exists when the enjoyment of protected expression is contingent upon the approval of government officials.”); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Advance notice or registration requirements drastically burden free speech.”). The blanket
requirement to obtain “permission by the City . . . pursuant to a community event permit” is
undoubtedly a prior restraint. See Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992). The City thus bears a heavy burden to justify any requirement to obtain a permit before engaging in speech in a public forum. NAACP Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984).
1 July 27, 2021 Meeting Agenda, available at http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1279 (Item 7B: “Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending SMMC Chapter on Noise”). 2 See March 9, 2021 Meeting Agenda, available at http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1262 (item 7D: “Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Amending Provisions in Article 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Relating to Community Events, Public Assemblies, Targeted Residential Protests, and Noise to Promote Public Safety and Welfare”).
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Honorable Members of the City Council July 27, 2021 Page 2
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
To comply with the First Amendment, an ordinance “(1) must not delegate overly broad discretion to a government official; (2) must not be based on the content of the message; (3) must
be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; and (4) must leave open ample
alternatives for communication.” Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006). We are concerned the proposed ordinance fails this test in several ways.
First, despite some improvements to the proposed ordinance, the version being
introduced tonight fails to address our concerns about the permitting requirements of section 4.12.100.3 The prior permission requirement in section 4.12.100(b), in conjunction with section 4.68.040 regarding community events permits, functionally prohibits individuals from this expressive activity while allowing groups. In addition to impermissibly discriminating between
individuals and groups, as discussed in our last letter, this is inconsistent with the Ordinance’s
stated intent of “protecting residential privacy and tranquility.” Ordinance Preamble, ¶ 2. As such, it is arbitrary and not “narrowly tailored to serve any significant government interest.” Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006).
Second, while section 4.12.100(c) of the revised ordinance is clearer than its predecessor,
it does not cure the constitutional infirmity because it burdens significantly more speech than is necessary to further any substantial government interest. The prohibition imposed on an individual or group wishing to play an instrument or operate a sound amplifying device during certain hours within 500 feet of the same location for more than two consecutive days appears
unsupported by any clear rationale, much less a “significant government interest.” Santa Monica
Food Not Bombs, 450 F.3d at 1037. This 500-foot requirement—in both the context of section 4.12.100(c) and section 4.12.105(c)—imposes too great of a burden on expressive activity, especially in smaller parks in the City. For example, there are several parks in Santa Monica that do not even measure 500 feet in length or width. If an individual or group were to play an
instrument or use a sound amplifying device in Hotchkiss Park, for example, moving 500 feet
away would take them entirely out of the park and likely onto streets or sidewalks “immediately abutting” property for residential use, which are also subject to the noise restrictions in the ordinance. See Ordinance § 4.12.030(b)(5)(D). As a result, the 500-foot restriction fails to “leave open ample alternatives for communication” to the intended audience. Santa Monica Food Not
Bombs, 450 F.3d at 1037; see also McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 490 (2014) (forcing
speakers to move excessive distance “effectively stifled [their] message”). As discussed at greater length in our previous letter, the 500-foot rule is arbitrary and overly restrictive and should be removed from the proposed ordinance.
Third, section 4.12.105 also is vague and not narrowly tailored to a significant
government interest. Section 4.12.105(b) states, “[n]o person who is not stationary while using or operating sound amplifying equipment shall use or operate such equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway located in Noise Zone 1 between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.” Especially in light of the 500-foot rule appearing in both sections 4.12.100(c) and 4.12.105(c), it is not clear what
government interest section 4.12.105(b) furthers. As we read it, section 4.12.105(b) prohibits
individuals engaged in expressive activity from moving around, while the section immediately following it requires them to change locations. Thus, this section is internally contradictory and
3 Unless otherwise noted, citations are to specific sections following the numeration in the text of the revised proposed ordinance.
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Honorable Members of the City Council July 27, 2021 Page 3
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
therefore unclear as to what activity is proscribed and is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Before adopting this ordinance, the City should either remove or
clarify these requirements.
We are concerned that the ordinance is not consistent with the City’s stated intentions of supporting free speech. While the ordinance acknowledges the expansive legal principles protecting free speech, it also imposes confusing and unnecessarily restrictive burdens on that
speech. As such, we urge the Council to carefully review these outlined concerns and make
appropriate changes before adopting this proposed ordinance. We appreciate your attention to this matter and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact Zoë McKinney at zmckinney@aclusocal.org or Sari Zureiqat at szureiqat@aclusocal.org.
Sincerely,
Zoë McKinney First Amendment and Democracy Staff Attorney
Sari Zureiqat UCLA First Amendment Legal Fellow
Cc (via e-mail):
George S. Cardona, Interim City Attorney george.cardona@smgov.net John Jalili, Interim City Manager
john.jalili@smgov.net
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hector O. Villagra
CHAIR Marla Stone VICE CHAIRS Sherry Frumkin and Frank Broccolo
CHAIRS EMERITI Shari Leinwand Stephen Rohde Danny Goldberg Allan K. Jonas* Burt Lancaster* Irving Lichtenstein, MD* Jarl Mohn
Laurie Ostrow* Stanley K. Sheinbaum* *deceased
1313 WEST EIGHTH STREET • SUITE 200 • LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 • T 213.977.9500 • F 213.915.0220 • ACLUSOCAL.ORG
March 9, 2021
Via Electronic Mail
Honorable Members of the City Council City of Santa Monica council@smgov.net RE: Proposed Urgency Ordinance
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Members of the City Council: The Council should remove Item 7D, “Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Amending Provisions in Article 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Relating to
Community Events, Public Assemblies, Targeted Residential Protests, and Noise to Promote the Public Safety and Welfare,” from this evening’s City Council meeting agenda. The Urgency Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) proposing extensive revisions to Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”), Article 4 implicates fundamental free speech rights and
consists of thirty-one pages of detailed and complex revisions to an already complex statutory scheme regulating noise and community events. It alters some of those existing regulations and maintains others without explicit incorporation here. Nonetheless, the Ordinance was introduced to the Council just three days ago on Friday, March 5. Neither the general public nor interested groups that will be directly impacted by the adoption of this Ordinance have had adequate time
to analyze the proposal to identify any concerns. As such, members of the public will not have a meaningful opportunity to provide informed public comment. For this reason alone, the Council should remove Item 7D from the agenda. Furthermore, we intend to closely review the Ordinance, along with the existing
provisions it alters or otherwise references, to ensure that the City of Santa Monica is not impermissibly burdening protected First Amendment activity. Given that this Ordinance was presented only three days ago, at the very end of the work week, we have not had sufficient time to conduct such analysis. Upon initial read of the Ordinance, however, we have already identified a few obvious First Amendment concerns, which counsel against adoption of the
Ordinance on such a short timeline. First, as currently written, the Ordinance appears to allow groups of people to play musical instruments and operate sound amplifying equipment in public parks, beaches, and recreational facilities during certain specific hours, but limits individuals from doing the same.
Section 4.12.100 provides that for a person to do so, they must first be “granted permission by
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Honorable Members of the City Council March 9, 2021 Page 2
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
the City . . . pursuant to a community event permit.”1 As currently enacted, however, Article 4, makes clear that community event permits are intended for larger gatherings and assemblies or
“event[s] on public property which require[] the placement of a tent, canopy, or other temporary structure.” Id. § 4.68.040. Nowhere in section 4.68.040, either as enacted or as amended, does it
establish that a single individual can or must apply for a permit before playing music or using
sound amplifying equipment in a public park, beach, or recreational area—nor should it. Provision 4.12.100, in conjunction with existing section 4.68.040, impermissibly discriminate between an individual engaged in expressive activity and groups. This discrepancy highlights that the proposed revision is not narrowly tailored to serve the substantial government interest of
preventing excessive or offensive noise.
Second, the Ordinance is arbitrary in other ways. The proposed text of section 4.12.100(b) would prohibit an individual or group wishing to play an instrument or operate sound amplifying equipment during certain hours from performing or gathering within 500 feet
of the same location for more than two consecutive days in a seven-day period, unless starting on
the third day, such activity was limited to 45 minutes. In addition to being convoluted, filled with long sentences and confusing layers of conditions of exceptions making it difficult for members of the public to understand what is permissible and what is forbidden, this section is also arbitrary. If the goal of limiting activity to two consecutive days and to only 45-minute
periods thereafter is to protect certain locations from targeted picketing, or the same building
from experiencing prolonged noise on too many days, then it is unclear what interest the additional 500-foot requirement is protecting. This provision prohibits more speech than necessary to further any substantial government interest.
Third, the City must allow ample opportunity for spontaneous gatherings, i.e., events
prompted by news known to the public fewer than 48 hours prior to the event, without having to apply for a permit. Under the proposed Ordinance, gatherings of 150 or more people are required to obtain a permit subject to some specific exceptions. § 4.68.040(b)(2). As currently written, however, section 4.68.040(c)-(d) of the proposed Ordinance does not permit
spontaneous, large, stationary gatherings at any area other than in front of City Hall. Proposed
section 4.68.040(d) provides that “spontaneous events may be conducted on the lawn of City Hall without the organizers first having to obtain a community event permit.” However, the area in front of City Hall presents accessibility concerns and is not conducive to large gatherings due to the landscaping, which includes tree wells and rolling hills interrupted by cement barriers.
The paved area directly in front of City Hall is also mostly occupied by a water feature. As a
result, there is no open, flat area that allows for large gatherings. The proposed additions in section 4.68.040(c) are not ample alternatives. That section of the proposed ordinance would allow for a spontaneous gathering of 500 or fewer participants, but only under a narrow set of circumstancing including if that group “assemble[s], march[es], or walk[s] in groups of less than
50, two abreast[.]” Section 4.68.040(c)(1). Large stationary spontaneous events that include
speakers are not practical when the group has to split up into groups of 50 or fewer and stand two abreast on a public sidewalk or pedestrian path. Moreover, the exception in subsection (c)(2) for groups of 500 to 1,000 is only for marches and parades and is unavailable to groups that want to gather in one place and listen to speakers. In effect, therefore, spontaneous gatherings of more
1 Unless otherwise noted, citations are to specific sections following the numeration in the text of the proposed
urgency ordinance.
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Honorable Members of the City Council March 9, 2021 Page 3
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
than 50 individuals intending to direct protest at a particular location would be categorically impermissible.
Finally, section 4.68.040(c)(2) creates an illogical exception to the permit requirement for
gatherings of between 500 and 1,000 participants if, among other requirements, the event
“utilize[s] private property as the start and finish location of the parade.” We can think of no legitimate, much less significant government interest that this requirement would protect. It also creates a substantial risk that the Ordinance would be implemented in a way that discriminates against disfavored groups and those espousing controversial views, who will be less likely to
secure private property to host their gathering.
We are concerned that a more complete review of the Ordinance may reveal additional concerns. At a minimum, based on the concerns we have already identified, the Council should not vote on this item at this evening’s City Council meeting. Given that the proposed legislation
impacts fundamental rights, it should not be adopted on an urgent basis. And the City can hardly
claim urgency in this case, when the legislation at issue is not addressing an identified problem for which there are no existing regulations. To the contrary, SMMC Article 4 contains detailed provisions regulating community events and noise in the City
We look forward to reviewing the proposed Ordinance in greater detail and urge the
Council not to take action on this item at tonight’s meeting. Sincerely,
Peter Eliasberg
Chief Counsel Manheim Family Attorney for
First Amendment Rights
Zoë McKinney
First Amendment and Democracy Staff Attorney
Sari Zureiqat
UCLA First Amendment
Legal Fellow
Cc (via e-mail):
George S. Cardona, Interim City Attorney
george.cardona@smgov.net
Lane Dilg, City Manager lane.dilg@smgov.net
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 2:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Noise Ordinance
From: Susan Cope <susan.waller.cope@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:29 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Noise Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council,
When I saw that a noise ordinance was to be read at tonight's meeting,
my heart leapt. I am in the mountains getting a short break from the
constant assault of noise from amplified music‐‐ at all hours‐‐ to the
mortars that are still being fired every night on the beach. My dog has
been traumatized beyond belief‐‐seeing the frisky creature she always
has been re‐emerge in the quiet up here is a joy, albeit short‐term. Up
here, my ability to concentrate on my own work has blossomed. But I'll
be back before the weekend, not with the flood of joy I've always felt
about coming home, instead, a sense of dread. Please don't suggest I
could move. I truly don't have that option.
My heart plummeted when I realized that city parks are not part of this ordinance. We're
surrounded: bound by View Park on the north and South Beach Park to the west. I know there are
no rules against amplified noise (some call it music) in the parks unless it exceeds certain decibel
levels or goes on past 10pm. Please consider more control.
At the top of View Park sit the two towers of The Shores. To the south are Sea Colony I and II. How
many people are impacted by this constant barrage? Hundreds, at the least. Weekends are
torture. There is sometimes the "DJ" at the top of the hill who blasts from a ring of speakers for
hours. There is a jazz band that's perhaps less egregious. There is a woman in South Park who
blasts us while she walks on the backs of "clients." This is a small sample of the overlapping insults
we face. Sometimes we get it from behind, when amplified music from Main St. comes our way.
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
The worst is the mortars fired in the evening along Barnard Way, from a moving vehicle. I worked
in tv news, and it sure sounds like 'incoming' to me. We need some police presence, or we need
to scrub the law against fireworks from the books. It was not enforced on the 4th of July, nor has
it been enforced any other day or night.
Ocean Park has always had a "lord of misrule" approach to holidays, at least since the 1980's
when I moved here. But not every day at every hour. Not to the detriment of residents' ability to
live their lives, do their work, enjoy their homes.
Here are some thoughts: severely curb amplified music in the beach parks. Maybe insist on
permits and public notification. As for the mortars and other fireworks, a police presence or
stake‐out on Barnard by South Beach Park might catch the culprit or culprits.
Thank you for trying to improve our lives in Santa Monica!
Susan W. Cope
susanwallercope@gmail.com
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Attorney Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: URGE SUPPORT to amending ordinance of SMMC Chapter on Noise.
From: Robert Mickelson <rpmickelson@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:35 PM
To: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan
<Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Attorney Mailbox
<Attorney.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Community Affairs <Community.Affairs@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: URGE SUPPORT to amending ordinance of SMMC Chapter on Noise.
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I'm writing to URGE you to support the Ordinance Amending SMMC Chapter on Noise. I live on the corner of 32nd
and Pearl across the street from Sheila Kuehl. These were not ordinary “protests" but aggressive acts of intimidation
and bullying. The “demonstrators" were making continual guttural animalistic screams through their bullhorns along
with taunting threats they were coming get Sheila... similar to the “protesters” on Jan. 6th. During one of the earlier
“demonstrations” several of the “protesters" were bashing Sheila’s front door with their flag poles. Along with the
bullhorns there were constant air horns, siren sounds, honking and vile language that would continue until 10
PM. Our friends and neighbors could hear the noise from many blocks away. This went on for several weeks. My
wife and I lost the use of our dining room and living room and had to retreat to the back of our house for hours on
end and turn up the music full blast to drown out the sounds.
The police would sit on the corner and say that there was nothing they could do and that it was up to you the City
Council to change the noise ordinances. With this new COVID surge and new COVID restrictions these
disturbances might start again.
This normally is normally a very quiet, family oriented, residential neighborhood. I believe these amendments will be
a good first step to prevent the recent abusive noise and disturbance in our neighborhood!
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!
Many thanks for your support!
Best,
Robert
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica
310-283-1963 cell
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
2
PS - see below my previous pleas for URGENT ACTION!!! as the noise and intimidation continued and became
unbearable.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Mickelson <rpmickelson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: URGENT ACTION!!! ‐ 32ND AND PEARL DISTURBANCES
Date: January 5, 2021 at 10:33:33 AM PST
To: Phil.Brock@smgov.net, gleam.davis@smgov.net, christine.parra@smgov.net, Mayor Kevin McKeown
<kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net, kristin.mccowan@smgov.net, oscar.delatorre@
smgov.net, council@smgov.net, attorney@smgov.net, community.affairs@smgov.net
Hi All,
Happy New Year!
Unfortunately the DEMONSTRATORS ARE BACK with more vile language and louder than
ever. The BULLHORNS are INTOLERABLE!!! As well, they are grouped in front of our house not wearing
masks. A large part of the demonstration is that COVID does not exist. In this time of lockdown and spiking
COVDI cases, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE to mitigate the noise level and danger from not wearing
masks during the demonstrations. From my understanding both the noise levels and not wearing masks are
code violations.
PLEASE HELP!!!
Best,
Robert
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica
310‐283‐1963 cell
On Dec 17, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Robert Mickelson <rpmickelson@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members and City Attorney,
I live on the corner of 32nd and Pearl, ground zero for the disturbances in our
neighborhood. After 8 nights and many days of “protests” we were assured by the police
last Friday night that the “protests” were finally OVER!!!
Last night they RETURNED from 7 to 10 PM, LOUDER and more DISTURBING than
ever!!! Three bull horns, a siren sound, continued prolonged honking of drive by cars, and
an extremely loud boom box playing wrap music. They also had a green laser pointer and a
bright flashlight continuously scanning Sheila Kuehl’s house.
We appreciate that you addressed the noise issue at this Tuesday’s city council meeting but
with their return this is an URGENT on going issue that needs to be addressed
IMMEDIATELY!!!
This is normally a very quiet, family, residential neighborhood. We fully respect the concern
over first amendment rights but these continuing “protests” have well stepped over the line
and are now abusing and terrorizing the neighborhood. Along with the loud noise that can
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
3
be heard many blocks away, none of the “protesters” are wearing mask and are intimidating
neighbors who are wearing them.
We feel that there are numerous city noise violations from bullhorns, sirens, whistles, loud
music and prolonged honking. There are also numerous state violations for not wearing
masks and social distancing while protesting.
The police on the scene have stated that they wouldn’t do anything regarding noise, masks
or the intimidation to residents unless instructed by City Council or senior officers.
Some suggestions for immediate relief for the residents while still honoring the right to
demonstrate would to:
Ban demonstrations in residential neighborhoods after 7PM.
Ban any amplification devices such as bull horns, whistles, loud music and prolonged
honking.
WE NEED HELP IMMEDIATELY!!!
Thanks,
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica
310‐283‐1963 cell
7.B.j
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Proposed Amendments:
Noise Ordinance &
Ta rgeted Residential Protests
JULY 27, 2021
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Council
Direction:
12/15/2020
Review options and return with proposed amendments
to the City’s Noise Ordinance, or other City Ordinances,
to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in
residential neighborhoods while still upholding First
Amendment rights.
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Response to Council Direction
Modifications to
Noise Ordinance
Modifications to
Code section
addressing targeted
residential protests
Removal of
outdated sound
truck provisions
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
First
Amendment
Requirements
Time, place, and manner restrictions
Content neutral
Narrowly tailored to serve significant
government interest
•Residents’ peace and tranquility
•Protect individuals from unwanted speech
Leave open ample alternative channels for
communication of information
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Current Noise Ordinance: Three Types of
Prohibitions
Decibel Limits:
•Vary by Noise Zone (SMMC
4.12.050)
•Vary by time in Noise Zone 1,
residential districts (SMMC
4.12.060)
•10:00 pm to 7:00 am
weekdays & 10:00 p.m. to
8:00 am weekends (lower
decibel limits)
•Other times (higher decibel
limits)
General Prohibition
(SMMC 4.12.025):
•“Unreasonably disturb the
peace, quiet and comfort of
persons of normal sensitivity
within the area of audibility”
•“so harsh or prolonged or
unnatural or unusual in their
use, time or place as to cause
physical discomfort to any
person of normal sensitivity
within the area of audibility”
•Non-exclusive list of factors to
be considered
Public parks, beaches,
recreational facilities
(SMMC 4.12.100)
•No playing of audio or
electronic devices
•After 10:00 pm and before
8:00 am
•Unless device is only audible
through headphones or
earphones
•Exception if pursuant to
community event permit
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Current Noise
Ordinance:
Two Exemptions
(SMMC 4.12.030)
Exempt from all provisions except general
prohibition in 4.12.025:
•“activities conducted on public property that is generally open
to the public, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks,
alleys, parkways, parks, and beaches”
Exempt from all provisions unless otherwise
expressly identified in any section:
•“Non-commercial activity conducted outdoors”
•“between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m.”
•“on public property that is generally open to the public,
including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys,
parkways, parks, and beaches”
•“not on the Santa Monica Pier or the Third Street Promenade”
•“not immediately abutting any exclusively residential use” and
•“not violating section 4.12.05 of this Code with respect to any
residential, hospital or school use”
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Current Noise Ordinance:
Application after Exemptions
Location 7:00 am to 10:00 pm 10:00 pm to 7:00 am
Indoors or private property Higher DB Limits
(8:00 am on Weekends) &
General Prohibition
Lower DB Limits
(8:00 am on Weekends) &
General Prohibition
Outdoors on Public Property General Prohibition
(non-commercial only if immediately
abutting exclusive residential or
impacting residential)
General Prohibition
Parks, Beaches, Recreational
Facilities
Same as outdoors on public property
(8:00 am)
Same as outdoors on public property
& No audio or electronic devices (includes
musical instruments) (8:00 am)
Targeted Residential Protests Same as outdoors on public property Same as outdoors on public property
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Non-
Commercial
Exemption
Time Limits
Amend Section
4.12.030(b)(5)
Time Frame for Exemption
for Non-Commercial Activity
•Change to mesh with time frames
for DB Limits
•7:00 am to 10:00 pm on weekdays
•8:00 am to 10:00 pm on weekends
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Sound
Amplifying
Equipment:
Definitions
Amend Section 4.12.020
Define sound amplifying equipment:
•Any machine or device used to amplify music, the
human voice, or any other sound
•Excludes vehicle radios or stereos when used or
heard only by vehicle occupants
•Excludes machines or devices designed and
operated for personal use and heard only by the
user (e.g., iPhone with airpods)
Define stationary:
•Remaining in a fixed location for at least 5 minutes
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Sound
Amplifying
Equipment:
Prohibited After
10:00 pm
New Section 4.12.105
Prohibited:
•Place: Public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway
located in a residential district
•Time & Manner
•Between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays
or 8:00 am on weekends
•Consistent with timing of noise level
restrictions in Section 4.12.060 and exception
for non-commercial activity in Section
4.12.030(b)(5).
•Exception if directly abutting commercial use
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Sound
Amplifying
Equipment:
Limited Use 8:00 pm –
10:00 pm
New Section 4.12.105
Prohibited:
•Place: Public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway
located in a residential district
•Time & Manner
•Between 8:00 pm and 10:00 pm
•Unless stationary, which allows noise level
measurement as part of Section 4.12.025
enforcement
•If stationary, and use is at same location or within
500 feet of that location on more than two days in
any 7-day period, limited to single 45-minute period
between 8:00 pm and 10:00 pm for all but first and
second days of use within that 7-day period
•Exception if directly abutting commercial use
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Sound
Amplifying
Equipment:
Limits in Parks
and Beaches
Amend Section 4.12.100
Limitations modified to be consistent with
4.12.105:
•Place: public park, beach, or recreational facility owned or
maintained by the City
•Time & Manner
•Absent community event permit, prohibited between
10:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays or 8:00 am on
weekends (was 10:00 pm to 8:00 am)
•If community event permit, and use is at same location in
residential district or within 500 feet of that location on
more than two days in any 7-day period, limited to single
45-minute period after 10:00 pm for all but first and
second days of use within that 7-day period
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Amend Section
4.08.790:
Ta rgeted
Residential
Protests
Current Section 4.08.790:
•Distance limitation: more than 50 feet or on sidewalk
across street from targeted residence
Proposed Amendments:
•Retain distance limitation –specify measure from
property line of targeted dwelling
•Add time limitation –prohibited after 8:00 pm and
before 7:00 am on weekdays or 8:00 am on weekends
•Add warning requirement --when feasible, warning
shall be issued before enforcement.
•Add third-party enforcement --interested parties,
including neighbors, may seek injunction or other
relief.
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Noise Ordinance after Proposed Amendments:
Application after Exemptions
Location 7:00 am to 10:00 pm 10:00 pm to 7:00 am
Indoors or private
property
Higher DB Limits
(8:00 am on Weekends) &
General Prohibition
Lower DB Limits
(8:00 am on Weekends) &
General Prohibition
Outdoors on Public
Property
General Prohibition (non-commercial only if
immediately abutting exclusive residential or
impacting residential) (8:oo am on weekends) &
No sound amplifying equipment in Noise Zone 1
unless stationary (8:00 pm -10:00 pm) or unless
immediately abutting commercial use
General Prohibition (8:00 am on weekends)&
No sound amplifying equipment in Noise Zone
1 unless immediately abutting commercial use
(8:00 am on weekends)
Parks, Beaches,
Recreational
Facilities
Same as outdoors on public property
(8:00 am on weekends)
Same as outdoors on public property
& No sound amplifying equipment or musical
instruments (8:00 am on weekends)
Targeted Residential
Protests
Same as outdoors on public property &
Not allowed after 8:00 pm
Not allowed (8:00 am on weekends)
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Noise
Ordinance:
Cleanup
Amend
Delete
Delete
Section 4.12.050
•Modify Noise Zones per current Zoning Ordinance
•Noise Zone 1 = residential district, excluding Pier
•Noise Zone 2 = non-residential district, including Pier
•Noise Zone 3 = industrial conservation district
Sections 4.08.620 to 4.08.680
•Regulate sound trucks
•Superseded by Noise Ordinance
•Potential constitutional issues
Section 4.08.690
•Regulates advertisements on sound trucks
•Superseded by Sign Ordinance, which regulates
vehicle signs, including signs that emit noise
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)
Possible
Alternatives
No changes to current Noise Ordinance
Keep time limits for exemption for non-commercial activity
the same
•7:00 am to 10:00 pm with no modification for weekends
•Urged by hotel workers’ union to permit early am picketing on
weekends
Adopt sound amplification limitations but do not include
exception for use of sound amplifying equipment
immediately abutting a commercial use
Modify start time for prohibition on targeted residential
protests from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm
7.B.k
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4654 : 1st Reading - Amendments to Noise Ord)