Loading...
SR 10-25-2022 1A1 Vernice Hankins From:Austin Shaheri <ashaheri@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 19, 2022 12:08 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:More efficiency with composting toilets please read other email first EXTERNAL  I wanted to cut down on water waste, when idea is to start installing the falcon waterless urinals in every bathroom  possible potentially even for women, as most of the time people are going number one. These toilets are known as  waterless by the companies falcon and Sloan. I was interested in composting toilets to cut down on water waste. As well  it could be a useful tool to create compost without First sending it down to Hyperion. Many millions of gallons are  processed through Hyperion and which they do use enzymes to create a type of fertilizer with our waste. They then use  this fertilizer on fields all over the country known as biosolids. Why do we have to use millions of gallons of water every  day to accomplish this? Water should be deemed as sacred and we should remember our relationship to it and start  having reverence and worship for the element of water. If you have any ideas or would like to collaborate you may email  me at this email or contact me at 310‐689‐9872. Thank you for reading.   Austin  Sent from my iPhone  Item 1 10/25/22 1 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Vernice Hankins From:Austin Shaheri <ashaheri@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 19, 2022 12:03 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Food waste, hungry animals EXTERNAL    You tell us not to feed the seagulls, however you are well aware that studies show that about 90% of the fish are gone  from our oceans due to human overfishing, so what are these birds supposed to eat? At the same time there’s food  waste from sushi restaurants and people who hesitate to feed birds whatever scrap they’ll eat and they will eat just  about anything. The notion that not feeding them so they can try to go get food for themselves and not rely and humans  will help cause greater extinction of species, not to mention the oceanic species, there is a documentary called waste as  food done by DW documentary for free on YouTube, the notion is that every waste products should be turned into  something that is beneficial for the earth on all accounts. It is heartbreaking to once again cc birds with flat stomach full  of plastic in attempts to feed their young. And dying because of it.     My idea was to have food consciousness and for the sushi restaurants to donate their scraps back to the ocean species.  Similarly for land animals. We deforest we farm and then we produce food waste this may be a solution to the number  of mass extinction happening. If you would like to hear more about my ideas feel free to contact me back at this email or  at 310‐689‐9872.      This can produce industries as well. In the country of India there is a bird sanctuary where people feed the birds and it  has become a part of the birds migration route, obviously they see that they are brothers and sisters with a different  species, and nowadays with mass extinction happening we have to change our mind to recognize our connection and  potential great relationships to develop with other species including birds.     Thank you for reading,    Austin Shaheri  Sent from my iPhone    Sent from my iPhone  Item 1 10/25/22 2 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: parking issue     From: Laura Dave <lauracaryn@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 8:24 PM  To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox  <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; leahmendelsohn@aol.com; Josh Singer <jsinger10@gmail.com>  Subject: parking issue    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Council and Manager,    Our names are Laura and Josh Singer and we live at 258 16th street. I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380  regarding parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons.  These cars do not  block the sidewalk or the street. There are many benefits to this:    1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.   2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road.   3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce     I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto  the sidewalk or the street.     Sincerely,  Laura Dave Singer and Josh Singer  Item 1 10/25/22 3 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380     From: Todd Humphrey <toddmhumphrey@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:13 PM  To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com  Subject: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Manager,    My name is Todd Humphrey and I live at 246 16th Street. I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380 regarding  parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons including me.  These cars do  not block the sidewalk or the street. Moreover, there are many benefits to allowing residents to continue to use their  driveway aprons:    1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.    2. Fewer parked cars on the street allows more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road.   3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce     I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto  the sidewalk or the street.     Sincerely,  Todd Humphrey  Item 1 10/25/22 4 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Municipal Code Section 3.12.380 Response Requested     From: Ann <cheslawann3@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 10:40 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com  Subject: Municipal Code Section 3.12.380 Response Requested     EXTERNAL      Dear Council Members and City Manager White:     I was tremendously surprised to read on Patch a couple days ago about a new ordinance being adopted: Municipal Code  section 3.12.380 regarding parking on driveway aprons.    I have lived on 15th Street for over 20 years. The street is one short block between Wilshire and California and dead  ends in Lincoln Middle School. There is a lot of traffic early in the morning and at the end of the school day which makes  finding parking on the street and getting in and out of spaces very difficult.     I have one parking space in my garage…but for over 20 years, visitors, workpeople ‐ like gardeners, exterminators,  plumbers, medical and food delivery people ‐ have parked in the apron.  No one has ever blocked the sidewalk or the  street.  In fact, using this area has opened up street parking spaces for neighboring residents. It has also helped keep  service providers from double parking on this narrow and already crowded street.    Given that we have Santa Monica Hospital across Wilshire, and the well‐trafficked La Condessa restaurant which  somehow has parking access at night, there are very few spaces ever available on 15th. I, as well as my neighbors, have  viewed our aprons as helping the community have more street parking space. To the best of my knowledge, no street  cleaners, tree trimmers etc. have ever had a problem. No tickets have been issued ever at my residence for cars crossing  the sidewalk or jutting out into the street; we are not inhibiting efforts of the City workers whom we so rely on and  appreciate.    On a personal note, I am 74 and several of my friends are in their 80s and yes, 90s. Having this space so that people do  not have to walk long distances has been so very helpful.    My questions:    1) Am I reading this ordinance correctly: https://patch.com/california/santamonica/be‐careful‐where‐you‐park‐your‐car‐ santa‐monica?utm_term=article‐slot‐1&utm_source=newsletter‐ daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter/?    Item 1 10/25/22 5 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 2) What community discussions have gone on to determine if there is a real issue and why has there been such short  notice on this (at best)?    3) What, in fact, is the ”equity” issue? If apartments/homes do not have aprons, but people who comply with the old  apron law are taking cars off the street, does this not give the “un‐aproned” more parking space opportunity?     4) How can the community appeal this decision or at a minimum get exceptions so we are all working together?     Thank you for getting back to me on the above.    Respectfully,     Ann Cheslaw  1124 15th Street‐ Apt A  Santa Monica 90403  310.393.4049 landline     Item 1 10/25/22 6 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 5 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380     From: Amita Davis <amitadavis@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 6:02 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com  Subject: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Council and Manager,    My name is Amita Davis and I live at 1615 Georgina Ave. I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380 regarding  parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons, including me.  These cars do  not block the sidewalk or the street. There are many benefits to this:  1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.    2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road.   3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce     I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto  the sidewalk or the street.     Sincerely,  Amita Davis  Item 1 10/25/22 7 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parkway Enforcement Nov 1     From: Tom Dare <tom.dare@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:48 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Cathy Dare <cathy.dare@gmail.com>  Subject: Parkway Enforcement Nov 1    EXTERNAL    Dear City Council and City Manager,    I am writing to ask the City to suspend the November 1 enforcement of SMMC section 3.12.80, which affects parking in a  driveway or parkway.    A few facts on my situation     I am a 30 year SFR owner in a dense multi‐family area, a senior, with an 18 foot long parkway between the  street and sidewalk.    My SFR driveway is very narrow, and I need to move our households single car to the parkway in order to bring  City collection bins and my bicycle out of the garage ‐ there is no room between the driveway and neighbors  fence.   I live a 1/2 block from Lincoln Middle School, and use the parkway throughout the day to avoid backing down  into potential kids and pedestrians walking by.    At night we do not use the parkway, it is 100% for daytime use, and using it does not block any pedestrians.   My use of the parkway saves a spot on the street in a very dense neighborhood, which is already impacted by  UCLA hospital and local merchant employee parking.    Finally, at 18 feet long, parking a 14‐15 foot car on the parkway does not extend into the street or sidewalk.    A simple ask is to consider the impact and creative options, versus a complete ban:     Consider a parkway permitting process, similar to preferred parking, with fees to cover the program. I would  gladly pay $200 per year to retain the right, backing down my driveway across the sidewalk with kids is a huge  concern.   o Perhaps there could be an inspection or map review to ensure the parkway is eligible for parking a  passenger car at the time a permit is issued.   o Significantly Increase the fines for parkway violations that block the street or sidewalk ‐ I agree  pedestrians and street traffic should not be impacted ‐ hefty fines change behavior.   Item 1 10/25/22 8 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2    Adopt the Los Angeles, LA County, and Malibu standard, which allows homeowners to park in the parkway  providing the practice does not affect street or sidewalk access.      Status quo ‐ no adoption of SMMC 3.12.380 ‐ is a valid option.     I would welcome the opportunity for an on‐site visit or any follow‐up to provide more insight into my request.     Thank you for your consideration, working towards a resolution will demonstrate our collective desire to solve everyday  issues and focus on the bigger picture!     Best,    Tom      Tom Dare 1307 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 tom.dare@gmail.com (310) 308-9668     Item 1 10/25/22 9 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway apron parking     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Michael Bradley <michaeljune44@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 10:28 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway apron parking    EXTERNAL    Dear SM Council & City Manager,    I am a very, very longtime resident of Fifteenth Street, and I have read that you will begin enforcing a no‐parking  regulation on the “apron” or “parkway” between my property line and the curb.     Respectfully, I urge you to reconsider this decision and continue to allow us to park our cars on the apron.     I am 78 years old, and with decreasing mobility, it is far more convenient for me to use the apron for proximity to my  front door and avoidance of street‐cleaning restrictions. This is especially important for two‐car families. And when I  have visitors it is important for them to use the apron to DECREASE parking on the street. Fifteenth Street is narrow and  liable to sideswiping of cars parked at the curb. And on holidays, if more than one neighbor has a party, the street  parking fills up very quickly.     Los Angeles City and County, as well as Malibu, have exceptions to their apron limitation, allowing cars to use the  parkway if they do not block the sidewalk or the street. This is logical and common courtesy; with this exception added  to the Santa Monica rule, my neighbors and I will continue to benefit the city and ourselves by keeping our cars parked  off the street.     Sincerely,   Michael Bradley  425 15th Street  Santa Monica, CA 90402  Item 1 10/25/22 10 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway apron     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Olga Milosavljevic <olgamilosavl@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:05 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway apron    EXTERNAL    Please revise Driveway apron rule to allow parking as long as it doesn’t obstruct sidewalks or streets.    Important to consider rights if people with limited mobility   Item 1 10/25/22 11 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 5 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: driveway apron parking     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: glen woodmansee <filmenergy@yahoo.com>   Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 7:35 PM  To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: driveway apron parking    EXTERNAL      October 22, 2022    Glen Woodmansee  PO Box 3073, Santa Monica 90408    Dear City Manager:     Blocking a sidewalk with a parked car is very rare in my neighborhood, because the sidewalks are extensively  used for walking.  The new ordinance 3.12.380 makes sidewalk parking illegal.     In many Santa Monica neighborhoods, the parking strip adjoining the curb is NOT as wide as the length of a car.   So parking on those narrow "driveway aprons" would partly block the sidewalk.        The drafters must have those narrow parking strips in mind when they define "driveway apron" as including the  sidewalk.     The title of the new ordinance is "Driving on sidewalk...", and its purpose is to prohibit driving or parking on "any  sidewalk, parkway, or curb".  Almost as an afterthought, it tacks on the prohibition of parking "upon any driveway  apron", which in many neighborhoods is the equivalent of blocking the sidewalk.     I respectfully request an amendment to the new ordinance to correct this ambiguity, since the aprons in my  neighborhood are wide enough to park WITHOUT blocking the sidewalk.     You can imagine the many self‐evident advantages for a home owner to have the freedom of leaving a car on his  own driveway that leads to his garage, provided it doesn't block the sidewalk.  It's fast, allows a quick delivery, permits  an extra visitor, takes a car off the curb, etc.         The first part of the new ordinance clearly prohibits parking on sidewalks without the additional language.       I think you will find that my neighbors north of Montana, and in other parts of Santa Monica with wide driveway  aprons, will be unanimously opposed to a change in wording that unnecessarily limits their use of their own driveway.    Item 1 10/25/22 12 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 6 Sincerely,    Glen Woodmansee    Item 1 10/25/22 13 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 7 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: driveway apron - please overturn decision; what is the citizen benefit of this rule?     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Ankica Milosavljevic <ankicamilo@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:26 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; council@santamonica.gov;  Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>  Subject: driveway apron ‐ please overturn decision; what is the citizen benefit of this rule?    EXTERNAL    Dear Council, Manager/Mr. White, Councilperson Brock et al,    I’m elderly who has lived here for over 50 years. I  increasingly suffering from mobility issues. This ruling materially  impacts my ability to safely navigate and get around. I need guaranteed parking in front of my home. As several  neighbors have forgone their driveways and now park on the street, spaces in front of my home are often taken.    I do not understand how this law benefits anyone. I do understand that people increasingly have larger and larger cars  which may not fit within the apron. Any car that blocks or protrudes into the pedestrian sidewalk or the street blocking  thoroughfares or obstructing flow of traffic has always been a fine‐able offense.     Why not enforce the existing rule instead of introducing a more restrictive rule to deal with an issue of a specific cohort?    Thank you,  Ankica  Item 1 10/25/22 14 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 8 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380     From: Vinay Prabhu <vinayis@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 8:12 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com  Subject: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Council and Manager,  My name is Vinay Prabhu and I am a homeowner at 302 16th Street in Santa Monica. I’m writing about Municipal Code  section 3.12.380 regarding parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons,  including me.  These cars do not block the sidewalk or the street. There are many benefits to this:  1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.    2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road.   3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce     I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto  the sidewalk or the street.     Sincerely,  Vinay Prabhu  (323) 702‐4928  302 16th St, Santa Monica, CA 90402  Item 1 10/25/22 15 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:52 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway Apron Parking     From: Deborah Hakman <drhakman@yahoo.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 8:23 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway Apron Parking    EXTERNAL    I have lived in my house on 17th Street for 35 years and have been safely parking in the driveway apron without blocking the sidewalk or the roadway. i am requesting that the City Council amend the Municipal Code to allow for driveway apron parking that does not infringe on the sidewalk or roadway. As the City continues to allow construction of big single family homes and huge "guest houses" with multiple vehicles, parking on the street, especially on street sweeping days, is difficult. Further, many homes have several vehicles that do not fit on the driveway. In addition, because construction of ADUs does not require additional off street parking, more vehicles are parking on the street. Finally, because 17th Street is so narrow I have had my cars, my neighbors' cars and guest's cars side swiped while parking on 17th Street. Continuing to allow driveway apron parking allows me and my neighbors to park safely off street. I am respectfully requesting that driveway apron parking be allowed as long as the vehicle does so safely without blocking the sidewalk and roadway. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Deborah Hakman 340 17th Street Santa Monica, CA 90402 Item 1 10/25/22 16 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:52 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SMC section 3.12.380 "driveway apron" parking     From: Jill Obery <425indigo@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 8:38 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: SMC section 3.12.380 "driveway apron" parking    EXTERNAL    Dear Santa Monica City Council and City Manager,    Please continue to allow vehicle parking on the driveway aprons at personal residences in the city of Santa Monica.    We have elderly parents who live on 16th Street and often use their driveway apron when visiting or transporting them  to appointments.  This allows safe access, away from street parking, which is often filled in front of their house or is  unavailable during street sweeping days.  We do not park on the sidewalk so there is ample room for pedestrian traffic.      Please amend the municipal code to allow for driveway apron parking.    Thank you,    Jill Obery  Item 1 10/25/22 17 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:52 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking in Driveway Aprons     From: Nikoo Naimi <nikoonaimi@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 12:16 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Parking in Driveway Aprons    EXTERNAL    To Whom it May Concern,    I am a lifelong Santa Monica resident and currently live at 505 16th Street. I have recently become aware of the ban on  parking in driveway aprons and I would like you to know that we feel strongly opposed to this law. As is, we have very  limited driveway parking and street parking. Being able to park in our parking apron is a solution to this and makes it  more convenient for us and also clears up the street for more available parking spaces. We would really like for you to  consider amending this ordinance.     Thank you,  Nikoo Enayati   Item 1 10/25/22 18 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:52 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking on Driveway Aprons     From: Amanda Daniels <amandadhome@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 9:35 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Jason Axe <JasonAxe@earthlink.net>; Leah Mendelsohon <leahmendelsohn@aol.com>  Subject: Parking on Driveway Aprons    EXTERNAL    Hello,     I own the home at 548 16th Street in Santa Monica. I was just made aware of your intent to ban parking on driveway aprons. Parking is already terrible on my street. Montana Avenue employees and visitors take up valuable street parking. I use my driveway apron daily for parking. I am respectful of pedestrians and never infringe on the sidewalk. I walk the neighborhood daily and have never seen a car parked on a driveway apron blocking the sidewalk.     Please amend the ordinance (consistent with the law in Los Angeles) to allow for parking on an apron if it doesn't block the sidewalk or street.    Thank you,   Amanda Daniels - The Amanda Daniels Trust  548 16th Street  Sant Monica, CA 90402  310-916-3623  Item 1 10/25/22 19 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 5 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:51 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: need for driveway apron parking     From: pmcdc@aol.com <pmcdc@aol.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 10:56 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: need for driveway apron parking    EXTERNAL    This is a note to register a very strong "please do NOT enact this" note on the proposal to deny home owners the right to park on their propery's driveway apron. This would be a terrible thing for us. And amounts to taking away part of our rightfully owned property. We use this for parking for several reasons, prime being access to both sides of the car, and avoiding car wreckage by sap drips from a large cedar tree which we cannot destroy. We know this from the sap wrecking two prior cars. There has not been a remedy for taking away the sap, despite many efforts by us and car specialists. The position of a hedge makes entry to the car, in the driveway, impossible for the passenger. This complicates entry and egress for a disabled family member with a wheelchair. We have had unending construction going on in our block (for years) and construction workers fill in many street spaces most week days. Having our car off the street, of course, is (a) an assurance of getting a parking space where we live (and have lived for 35 years), and (b) a means of freeing a space for our immediate neighbors who must park on the street. We have never had a car which exceeds the apron length limits, so having a car stick into either the sidewalk or street has never been an issue. In short, this seems to be a very intrusive and unreasonable regulation proposal and we ask that you kindly reconsider it and abandon it with grace and understanding. Peggy McDowell-Cramer 457 17th Street Item 1 10/25/22 20 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 6 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:50 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: PLEASE KEEP - Parking on Driveway Aprons!     From: Christian Toraldo <christian.toraldo@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 6:15 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: PLEASE KEEP ‐ Parking on Driveway Aprons!    EXTERNAL    Dear Members of City Council and City Manager ‐ it is CRITICAL to continue to allow parking on driveway aprons. We are  homeowners on 16th Street in Santa Monica. We have a 2 year old and a 4 year old ‐ and 16th street is SO BUSY now  with cars speeding up and down that it is NO LONGER SAFE to load our children in/out of the car while the car is parked  on the street. This is a SAFETY issue for families with children of all ages, but especially families with very young children  (like ours) and families that include the elderly (like many of our neighbors).     In addition to this critical SAFETY concern ‐ here are several other reasons.    (1) People with limited mobility have guaranteed spots close to their homes.  (2) With fewer parked cars on our narrow streets, there is more room for passing oncoming cars and more room for  cyclists ‐ especially when non‐resident traffic is already VERY heavy and DANGEROUS with many vehicles speeding at all  times.  (3) Residents will not have to worry about moving their cars on street cleaning days.  (4) Eliminates the need for drivers to cross the sidewalks when parking their cars and departing their homes ‐ another  CRITICAL safety issue.  (5) Car theft/vandalism/crime is far less likely when cars are parked closer to homes.    Allowing driveway apron parking will not infringe on the rights of pedestrians, who do not walk on the parkways, but  who instead walk on the sidewalks.    Finally ‐ I spend thousands of dollars every year gardening, watering, and maintaining the CITY LAND in front of my  home (where the driveway apron is also located) to ensure the neighborhood is beautiful, clean and safe.     Please continue to allow those homeowners/residents that spend their own money to make Santa Monica great for  everyone the ability to park in driveway aprons. This is an absolutely critical SAFETY measure that will help keep the City  of Santa Monica great. Thanks for your kind attention to this matter.    Best regards      Item 1 10/25/22 21 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 7 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:50 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please allow parking on DRIVEWAY APRONS     From: Metin Mangir <mangir.metin@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 8:37 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Please allow parking on DRIVEWAY APRONS    EXTERNAL    To the Santa Monica City Council Members,  Please allow parking on DRIVEWAY APRONS. I do not understand your reasoning for prohibiting parking on driveway aprons.   It does NOT block sidewalk, it does NOT block the street. Driveway apron is NOT an area where people walk, other than people who come to visit the particular house.   Your prohibition parking on driveway aprons will force me to park on the street. This will increase congestion. It will expose my car to damage by passing cars.  Allowing residents to park on their driveway aprons has many benefits, including:  (1) Eliminates the need for drivers to cross the sidewalks when parking their cars and departing their homes.  (2) With fewer parked cars on our narrow streets, there is more room for passing  oncoming cars and more room for cyclists.  (3) Residents will not have to worry about moving their cars on street cleaning days.  (4) People with limited mobility have guaranteed spots close to their homes.  Respectfully,  Dr. Metin Mangir  536 16th Street, Santa Monica    Item 1 10/25/22 22 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 9:21 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Apron parking     From: frankie stabler‐sholem <frankiesholem@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:21 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Apron parking    EXTERNAL    Hi City Managers et al,    We live on the 100 block of Georgina Ave. Our street is always completely parked up because our house backs up to the  apartments on San Vicente Blvd and the apartment dwellers don’t have enough parking in their buildings.   It is extended frustrating to not be able to park on our own street and to not have available parking for our guests and  workers at our home.   Therefore (and also because my husband has severe spinal stenosis) we’d like to be able to continue parking legally in  the “apron” driveway in front of our house. (Especially on street cleaning days when it’s virtually impossible to find a  single spot on the street!)     FOR THESE REASONS AND MANY MORE  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AMEND SECTION 3.12.380 of SMMC     We desperately need our apron parking spot! We never block the sidewalk nor the street!     Desperately asking for your consideration of this matter. Apron parking IS allowed in the city of Los Angeles! We have so  many large and pressing issues in Santa Monica. Let’s not make this one of them.   Thank you   Frankie and barry Sholem   141 Georgina Ave   Sent from my iPhone  The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.    Frankie Sholem   Frankie@roothospitality.co    Item 1 10/25/22 23 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 9:11 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Eliminating Safe Parking     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Katherine Eskovitz <keskovitz@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:11 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com; Eskovitz Sean <sean.eskovitz@icloud.com>  Subject: Eliminating Safe Parking    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Council and Manager,    My name is Katherine Eskovitz, and I live at 249 16th Street. I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380  regarding parking on driveway aprons. I, along with with many residents on our street, park on the driveway apron, as it  is a safe parking spot for our family.     The City is on notice of the serious safety issue caused by eliminating these safe parking spots. This is among the reasons  Los Angeles has kept these parking spots for its citizens.     Years ago, our pregnant neighbor on 16th Street was strapping her child into a car seat when she was swiped by a car  coming down our narrow, crowded street. An ambulance came, she went to the hospital, and she suffered injuries.     There is no justifiable reason to eliminate this safe parking. These cars do not block the sidewalk or the street. There are  many benefits to this:    1. Keeping streets safe. Eliminating these safe parking spots will make it more dangerous for children in particular, who  need help entering a car seat or buckling up. Busy families use these safe spots, and forcing all cars into already narrow  streets is an accident waiting to happen.   2. Protecting those with limited mobility by ensuring they have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.    3. Protecting cyclists and traffic with fewer parked cars on the street, leaving more room to pass oncoming cars and for  cyclists on our already narrow road.   4. Ensuring adequate neighborhood parking by leaving more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is  already scarce    I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto  the sidewalk or the street.     Sincerely,  Katherine Eskovitz  Item 1 10/25/22 24 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 9:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway Apron-SMMC, Section 3.12.380     From: Glenn Brander <gbrander@mdrealtycorp.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:57 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway Apron‐SMMC, Section 3.12.380    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Council and Manager,     My name is Glenn Brander and I live at 236 16th Street.  I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380 regarding  parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons, including a member of my  family.  These cars do not block the sidewalk nor the street. There are many benefits to this:    1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.    2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already rather narrow  road.  As it is now, cars need to pull over to the side to allow a car driving towards them to pass, if more cars are parked  on the street, this will exacerbate what is already a challenge for both passing cars and residents.    3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce.     I urge you to amend the municipal code by allowing parking on driveway aprons, so long as a vehicle is not protruding  onto the sidewalk or the street, as for the reasons noted above, it would benefit the community as a whole.     Respectfully submitted,     Glenn Brander  Santa Monica Resident & Concerned Citizen    Glenn Brander, Principal  Brander Investment Group  Miller & Desatnik Realty Corp.  3627 Motor Avenue  Los Angeles, CA 90034  Off    310‐202‐9166, ext 202  Cell  310‐428‐4116  Private Fax  310‐882‐5569  DRE:  01020220  Bio:   http://www.mdrealtycorp.com/our‐family/glenn‐brander      Item 1 10/25/22 25 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 11:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Unconscionable ticketing of driveway aprons Attachments:56B3AE23-2BC4-4672-B4B4-3D1BF97032CD.heic     From: joysgang@aol.com <joysgang@aol.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:44 AM  To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox  <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; leahmendelsohn@aol.com  Subject: Unconscionable ticketing of driveway aprons    EXTERNAL    Attached please read important letter regarding the prohibiting of parking on the driveway aprons. I would like to share further important thoughts on this matter, The property owner constructed and maintains this apron. The property owner maintains the parkway (with the exception of trimming the trees) So, if the city maintained the aprons and parkways weekly, maybe the city could have some claim over the use of the aprons. But, indeed, the city has no involvement with either....EVER! This apron is an easy handicap accessible for the property owner. or resident. There is not enough street parking. Having more crowded street parking, will further impact street flow. What is the problem with cars in this apron? Are people running on the parkways? Don't the pedestrians use the sidewalks? This looks like a selective use of power in order to gain revenue from the property owners. Why does the city allow RV parking in our residential areas? And RV living on the streets? Why don't these people pay our usual rents/ property taxes/ etc etc . ... Why is it allowed that they dump their sewer water, and gray water in the gutters? Clearly discriminatory toward the law abiding tax payer. Please repeal this ridiculous unfair Secton 3.12.380!!!!!!! joy Jones 420 Georgina Avenue 310-8-4-4700 Item 1 10/25/22 26 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Item 1 10/25/22 27 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 12:15 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway Apron     From: John Repstad <JRepstad@raginc.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 12:14 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway Apron    EXTERNAL    We live in Santa Monica on 15th Street and we would like to be able to continue to park legally on our drive way apron.  Our street is very busy with 4 houses under construction and every day the street is jammed packed with work trucks  and cars. It’s difficult to safely pull out of our driveway. I park on the apron when I get home from work and night and  then leave in the morning so during the day my car is not on the apron but even if it was it wouldn’t impact the rights of  pedestrians as they never walk on the parkway they just walk on the sidewalks. Please let us continue to keep cars off  the streets to help free up parking spots for friends and guests as needed.    Thank you.    John D. Repstad | Senior Director  Realty Advisory Group, Inc.  545 S Figueroa St., Suite 1209 | Los Angeles, California 90071  Main: 213.892.8881 x269  Cell: 310.200.1819  Fax: 213.627.6526  www.RAGInc.com | Jrepstad@RAGInc.com  Company ID# 01301202 | Agent ID# 01322897      This electronic communication is subject to a disclaimer, please click on the following link or cut and paste the link into the address  bar of your browser.    https://raginc.com/general‐email‐disclaimer/    Item 1 10/25/22 28 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 12:02 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Drive way apron parking     From: Ott, Derek A. <DOtt@mednet.ucla.edu>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:59 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Drive way apron parking    EXTERNAL    Hi‐  I'm writing regarding the pending changes regarding driveway apron parking.  I'm definitely opposed to this and would like to provide some information as to why.  My house is located at 724 15th St, which is very close to Montana Avenue stopping and eating area.   Not surprisingly, there often very few parking spots available on the street.  We currently have 3 cars and it is difficult to park all 3 cars in our driveway.  Many of the driveways in the area were constructed years ago based upon smaller car size.  As a consequence our driveway is quite narrow especially as you get towards the house.  Therefore, realistically only 2 cars can be effectively parked in our driveway and often the apron is the only available  place remaining.  Furthermore, I sometimes parked in the apron in order to prevent individuals from actually blocking our driveway with  their vehicle.  Sometimes, individuals will park their car with a portion either very close or extending beyond the access point to our  driveway.  Rising we, individuals have actually parked perpendicular to our driveway as well which completely blocks assets and  requires them to be towed away   Therefore, I sometimes parked in the apron to prevent either of these possibilities.  By preventing me from parking in the apron the future, I will now have several issues to contend with.  I would be happy to discuss this with you directly if you have questions.   Thank you so much  Derek    Derek Ott, M.D. Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Division of Child Psychiatry David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA 10850 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-470-2033 310-475-2936 (fax) dott@mednet.ucla.edu Item 1 10/25/22 29 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 info@derekottmd.com –for refills + scheduling www.derekottmd.com Vacation reminder: Email Policy: Please do not use email for lengthy and complicated medical questions that should properly be addressed via a consultation. It is also not suitable or intended for any sort of emergency communication. As a rule of thumb, Dr. Ott will reply to your email within 24 hours. His response may be delayed over weekends, holidays, or due to technical difficulties. Please be aware that your email communication with Dr. Ott will become part of your medical record. Please note that email systems may be insecure or unprotected. Please note that other members of your household or your employer may have access to your communication with Dr. Ott and consequently your communication via email should not be considered private. Email communication with Dr. Ott is provided as a convenience to the patient.  However, by your continued communication via email with Dr. Ott, you are accepting the inherent insecurity and the privacy risks therein. Please be sure to include your full name in all communication.The information contained in this message is intended solely for the addressee stated above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please respond immediately by calling the telephone number shown above and return the original message to us by e-mail. Thank you.      UCLA HEALTH SCIENCES IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.  Item 1 10/25/22 30 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 12:02 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Allow parking on driveway aprons     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: John Bartlett <johnnybcali@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 12:00 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Allow parking on driveway aprons    EXTERNAL    My name is John Bartlett, and I live in Santa Monica at 434 17th St.     I am writing ask the city council to continue to allow parking on driveway aprons.     I understand that, starting November 1st, no parking on parkways and aprons will be enforced. No parking on the  parkway makes sense, as this area is not intended for vehicles, but parking on aprons, as long as the car doesn’t obstruct  the sidewalk or street should be allowed.    Whether or not there was already an ordinance against parking on the apron, this hasn’t ever been enforced, at least in  the more than two decades that I’ve been living in Santa Monica. Already parking is difficult in our city and eliminating  these spots only makes it more difficult. I know that city is trying to encourage use of public transportation and feels that  parking is not a priority, but yanking away spots that people already use everyday isn’t the way to encourage public  transportation. The first step on that would be making public transportation safer. In any case, public transportation  isn’t an option for me. And while pedestrians may use the sideway and the parkway, they’re not regularly walking across  the apron, so having a car parked there doesn’t materially limit their use of the parkway.    If there is an issue with cars blocking the sidewalk, those cars should be ticketed. There’s no sense in punishing everyone  for the misdeeds of a few.     Other nearby cities, like Los Angeles and Malibu, don’t allow parkway parking but do allow apron parking, and there is  no reason that we shouldn’t follow that precedent, and no reason that we should change the status quo of the last  decades.     I totally understand that there are numerous challenges facing Santa Monica today, and that apron parking is a relatively  minor issue to some, but it is a big quality of life issue to me, especially when larger issues like homelessness and public  safety don’t seem to be getting better. Why can’t we continue to allow cars to park in vehicular use areas like they  always have?    Thank you for your consideration,    John Bartlett  Item 1 10/25/22 31 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 12:47 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please continue to allow parking on apron driveway     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Teresa Bartlett <poobrr@berkeley.edu>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 12:46 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Please continue to allow parking on apron driveway    EXTERNAL    To whom this may concern,    I grew up in Santa Monica and have been living here for decades, currently a home owner on 400 blocks of 17th St.  It’s  very disappointing to learn that city will start ticketing cars parking on the apron driveway that has never been a issue  for as long as I live here. I’m not sure why this is all of a sudden a priority for the city to enforce when there are plenty of  more important issues residents of Santa Monica are concerned about, mainly the safety issue regarding uncontrolled  homeless population who again and again have been increasingly threatening and harassing residents and destroying  public and private properties. However, the city doesn’t seem to mind that and chose to concentrate it’s time and  money to ticket residents’ cars, making our lives even more miserable.  Parking our car once on the street resulted in a  hit and run because the street is so narrow.  When the neighboring cities such as Malibu and Los Angeles allow parking  on the apron driveway, not blocking any sidewalks for pedestrians, why does Santa Monica need to go out of its way to  punish its tax paying residents?  Please go ahead to ticket the cars blocking sidewalks but leave other cars alone. The city  wants to encourage people using public transportation but fails to make it safe for riders. The city wants to encourage  bike riding but bicyclists run through stop signs and red lights all day long, running into pedestrians and cars, yet they  never get ticketed. Every SM news and new rules I have read have been nothing but negative and disappointing for the  residents.  Santa Monica used to be a city I’m proud to call home.  Not anymore….    Disappointed and discouraged,     Teresa B    Sent from my iPad  Item 1 10/25/22 32 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:15 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: O'Neill Office <cathyronoffice@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:10 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com; Cathy O'Neill <cathyron@me.com>  Subject: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380    EXTERNAL    Dear SM City Council and Manager,    My name is Cathy O'Neill and I live at 244 16th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90402.  I’m writing about Municipal Code  section 3.12.380 regarding parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons,  including me.  These cars do not block the sidewalk or the street. There are many benefits to this:  1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes.  2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road.  3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce.    I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto  the sidewalk or the street.    Sincerely,    Cathy O'Neill    From the family office of  Ed and Cathy O'Neill  cathyronoffice@gmail.com  Office: 310‐393‐9843    Janis Ponce, PA/House Manager: Cell 818‐268‐7742 Courtney Vine, Organizer: Cell 310‐266‐1678  Item 1 10/25/22 33 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:40 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: driveway apron parking Importance:High     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Selina Boxer Wachler <boxwach@me.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:38 PM  To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: driveway apron parking  Importance: High    EXTERNAL    good afternoon,     i reside in santa monica on 14th st.     i would like to CONTINUE to park on my driveway apron and to have my guests park here when visiting.  this will not  only take up one less spot on our overcrowded streets but will allow easy access for visitors to my house.   as long as the car does not block the sidewalk i do not see why this RIGHT should be taken away.   thank you    selina boxer wachler  708 14th st 90402  310 738 6040  Item 1 10/25/22 34 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: driveway apron parking     From: Diane Suchet <suchetd@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:50 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office  <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: driveway apron parking    EXTERNAL    Hello    I received the notification regarding driveway apron parking. I live on 450 17th street North of Montana and would like  to ask to be allowed to continue to park my car in my driveway apron.    thanks in advance    Diane  Item 1 10/25/22 35 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 3:34 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway apron     From: Brian Boxer Wachler <bbw@boxerwachler.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:18 PM  To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway apron    EXTERNAL    Hi there,    I would like to propose an exception for the November 1 ordinance prohibiting cars from parking on the apron.    Residents should be exempt because there will be situations where it will force people to park on the street and take up  a street parking spot.  Therefore allowing to park on the apron frees up more street parking.  Residents with limited  mobility will have more difficulty if forced to park on the street.    Thank you for your consideration.    Warm regards,    Brian Boxer Wachler, MD    www.BoxerWachler.com  Item 1 10/25/22 36 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 4:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway apron     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Angelika DeVol <angelikadevol@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:33 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete  <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan  <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City  Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Driveway apron    EXTERNAL        > Dear Council members,  >   > I am writing to you in hopes that you will reconsider the proposal to start ticketing vehicles parked in their driveway  apron.. My husband and I are senior citizens and have been parking in our driveway apron for 27 years because of safety  and access. Our parkway on 17th Street is 20’ deep and 12’ wide. Our car is 15’ long and 5’wide. It never encroaches on  either the street or walkway.  >   > With numerous and constant construction sites on our street we are already short of parking with all the additional  trucks and vehicles on our street. It is especially problematic on street cleaning days. Further more 17th street is a very  busy street with lots of traffic and cars are not able to pass another car driving on the opposite side. We have to wait,  pull over and let them pass. Our cars have been hit several times over the years when parked on the street. It will just  get worse.   >   > I would hope that the City Council will take a more nuanced look at this situation.    >   > As a matter of fact the City of Los Angeles has a more reasonable approach by allowing vehicles to park in their  driveway apron as long as they don’t stick out into the street or walkway. That makes sense!  >   > In hopes you will reconsider,  >   > Angelika Devol  Item 1 10/25/22 37 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 4:45 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway Apron Issue - Case Number: CS0047875     From: Sally Hackman <sallyhackman@aol.com>   Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 8:05 PM  To: jasonaxe@earthlink.net; City of Santa Monica <info@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox  <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com; SallyHackman@aol.com; cpataki@verizon.net  Subject: Re: Driveway Apron Issue ‐ Case Number: CS0047875    EXTERNAL    I am extremely upset at the City Council's decision to disallow parking in the aprons of homes. I have been parking in the apron of my home on 16th St. for 50 years and have never had my car on the sidewalk and in the street. My husband and I both have handicapped placards and there is not room in the driveway for both cars. It makes sense to ticket for people obstructing the street or sidewalk but this ordinance will force one of us to find street parking perhaps farther from our home than we can comfortably walk. In addition it will add more cars to an already crowded narrow street. And on street cleaning days only half the people will be able to park on 16th forcing everyone else onto Alta on Marguerite, certainly too far away for us. I am a therapist and see patients from a home office. Once all the residents cars are on the street parking will be an issue for my patients as well as friends and family. As long as you can ticket when people obstruct the sidewalk or street there appears to be no benefit to this ordinance and it will only cause problems where none exist now. Sincerely, Sally Hackman 522 16th St -----Original Message----- From: Jason Axe <jasonaxe@earthlink.net> To: 311@santamonica.gov; Santa Monica City Council <council@smgov.net>; Santa Monica City Manager <manager@smgov.net> Cc: Leah Mendelsohn <leahmendelsohn@aol.com>; Sally Hackman <SallyHackman@aol.com>; Caroly Pataki <cpataki@verizon.net> Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2022 2:02 pm Subject: Driveway Apron Issue - Case Number: CS0047875 Two weeks, ago, I received the email below from 311@santamonica.gov in response to my email (at the bottom) addressing a recent decision to enforce an ordinance banning parking on driveway aprons. To date, I have not received a response from anyone. I followed up with information about how the City of Los Angeles has amended its ordinances to allow for parking that is on a driveway apron but that does not block the street or sidewalk, but I did not receive a response to those emails either. The benefit to the community of allowing parking on driveway aprons far outweighs any potential burden. Allowing parking on a driveway apron will ensure that people with limited mobility have easy access to their homes. It will also lead to fewer cars parked on the narrow residential streets, which provides safer streets for cars to drive on and children to cycle on. Item 1 10/25/22 38 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 I would appreciate the courtesy of a response from anyone associated with the City to get a better understanding whether this issue will be debated at a future council meeting. From reviewing video of the two council meetings when the decision was made, it appears that the specific question regarding parking on a driveway apron was never discussed, as it was part of a larger issue. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hello - Thank you for submitting a request to the City of Santa Monica. Case Number: CS0047875 Request Type: General Questions Description: Driveway Apron Parking Hello, I am writing to register my dissatisfaction with news that the City of Santa Monica is going to enforce an ordinance prohibiting parking on driveway aprons. https://www.santamonica.gov/ press/2022/09/30/enforcement- to-begin-for-vehicles-parked- on- parkways-and-driveway-aprons- I am not aware whether this is an old ordinance that was not being enforced, or a new ordinance that got very little notice in the news. Regardless, I can't see the benefit to the City of forcing more cars onto the streets for parking, unless it is for the purpose of generating more revenue when residents who have been used to parking on aprons forget to move their cars on street sweeping days. Many of my neighbors park their cars in their driveway aprons. By doing so, they free up spots on the street for other residents and for guests, and they are able to ensure they are able to park closer to their houses when the streets are otherwise crowded with parked cars. None of these cars parking in driveway aprons are impeding anyone's use of the parkway. People walk on the sidewalks or the streets (unfortunately) in our neighborhood. But where they don't walk is on the parkways because they are mindful of the grass or plants. It certainly makes sense to ticket people who block sidewalks or streets with their cars. But for cars that fit completely on a driveway apron, this ordinance sounds like a law trying to solve a problem that no one needed solving. I, and I assume many of the people who are soon going to hear about this, hope you will reconsider this unnecessary ordinance and modify it so homeowners and their guests can park their cars on their driveway aprons as long as no portion of the car blocks the sidewalk (which would impede pedestrians). The narrow streets are crowded enough with parked cars as it is. Putting more of them on the streets is a safety hazard that can easily be avoided by allowing homeowners to continue parking their cars on their driveway aprons, if they so choose. Thank you, Jason Axe 528 16th Street Item 1 10/25/22 39 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 10:20 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kristin McCowan; Douglas Sloan; David White Subject:Item 1: General Public Input --> please include the pdf attachment Attachments:CC Resolution 11360.pdf EXTERNAL I request adherence to City Council Resolution 11360 (enclosed), which states: "RULE 17. SEATING ORDER. After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Council member seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be seated next to the Mayor [emphasis added]." In violation of City Council Resolution 11360, and to the public's astonishment, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan has been recently electing to sit elsewhere. If Ms. McCowan is still Mayor Pro Tem, I request she conduct herself in accordance with Resolution 11360 unless the Council choses to publicly suspend the pertinent Council rule. It is unacceptable of any councilmember, let alone the Mayor Pro Tem, to flagrantly violate Council rules or procedures and engage in behavior showing contemptuous disregard for the law. If Ms. McCowan wishes to resign her position of Mayor Pro Tem, it is my hope the resignation will be official and public, rather than manifested by the continued unabashed displays of boredom by Ms. McCowan on the dais, and by her electing to abandon the Mayor Pro Tem seat. Thank you for your respect for City Council rules and procedures, commitment to transparency, and immediate attention to this matter. Regards, Olga Zurawska Item 1 10/25/22 40 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 City Council Meeting: September 14, 2021 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. 11360 (CCS) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 11172 (CCS) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council Rules of Order and Procedure are hereby amended to read as follows: RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS RULE 1. RULES OF ORDER. Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the City Charter, the Municipal Code, or applicable provisions of state law, the procedures of the City Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Roberts Rules of Order. The City Council rules, or any one thereof, may be suspended by a vote of two- thirds (2/3) of the Councilmembers present. RULE 2. TIME AND PLACE FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 611 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Council establishes the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month as the days for holding regular meetings of the City Council. The regular meeting shall commence at 5:30 p.m., for the Closed Session. It is the intention of the City Council that all other DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 41 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 agenda items shall commence no earlier than 6:30 p.m., following the Closed Session. If any such Tuesday falls on any day designated by law by the City Council as a day for public feast, Thanksgiving or holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the date of the regular meeting next following said Tuesday at the hour heretofore fixed or at such other day as may be fixed. The City Council Chamber in City Hall is established as the place for holding the City Council’s regular meetings. RULE 3. QUORUM AND ACTION In accordance with Section 614 of the Santa Monica City Charter, four Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, or other law or these rules action shall be taken by a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council. However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only four Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as five Councilmembers are participating. Whenever any Councilmember questions the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the City Clerk to call the roll, each Councilmember shall respond when his or her name is called and the Clerk shall announce the result. Such proceedings shall be without debate, but no Councilmember who is speaking may be interrupted by a question as to the presence of a quorum. The City Council may also establish standing subcommittees of its members to address designated areas of City business on the Council's behalf and may establish ad hoc committees to formulate reports or recommendations on particular matters. RULE 4. MEETINGS TO BE PUBLIC - EXCEPTION FOR CLOSED SESSIONS. As required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”), California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., all regular, adjourned regular and special meetings of the City Council shall be public, provided, however, the City Council may meet in a Closed DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 42 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 Session from which the public is excluded, for those purposes authorized by the Brown Act. No Councilmember, employee of the City, or any other person present during a Closed Session of the City Council shall disclose to any person the content or substance of any communication which took place during the Closed Session unless the City Council specifically authorizes the disclosure by majority vote or unless the disclosure is required by law. RULE 5. AGENDA. The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows: a) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda. b) The Agenda and all available supporting documents shall be delivered to Councilmembers on the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday City Council meeting to which it pertains or as soon thereafter as possible. c) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may direct that any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. Councilmembers should endeavor to submit Councilmember agenda items as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday in order to ensure that matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on the day two days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless the Councilmember has identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current agenda. Councilmember items may only be combined with other items on the agenda by a vote of the Council. A Councilmember who wishes to combine his or her item with another item on the agenda may direct that the following language be included with the DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 43 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 agenda item: “This item may be considered with Item.” The City Manager may combine staff items on the agenda in order to ensure that the public’s business is handled efficiently and conveniently. d) The City Clerk shall post the Agenda as required by the Brown Act. Copies of the Agenda shall be posted in the lobby of City Hall. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in his or her office declarations establishing compliance with the posting requirements. e) No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda unless the item is added to the Agenda in the manner required by the Brown Act. f) Matters directed to be placed on the Agenda at the direction of Councilmembers shall be listed on the Agenda in the order of receipt by the City Clerk. g) Written requests to the City Council shall be received and opened by the City Clerk and referred to the City Manager or his or her designee and either shall be transmitted to the appropriate board, commission or staff member or shall be placed on the Agenda if City Council consideration is deemed appropriate by the Mayor or City Manager. Written requests being agendized shall be scheduled for City Council consideration at the earliest convenient meeting, taking into consideration the length and content of meeting agendas. Members of the public submitting written requests shall be advised of how their request is being handled. Councilmembers shall receive copies of those written requests which are not agendized. Agendized communications shall be listed on the Agenda in order of receipt. No communication shall be placed on an Agenda if it contains material that: 1) Is profane. 2) Is potentially slanderous or libelous. 3) Advocates or opposes the candidacy of any person or party for any elective office. 4) Is primarily an advertisement or promotion or has as a substantial purpose the advancement of any cause the major benefit of which is private and not public. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 44 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 5 Members of the public submitting written requests to the City Council are encouraged to limit their submissions to one per meeting. h) All electronic presentation materials intended for use at a City Council meeting, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by an overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than 12:00 PM on the day of a City Council meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits. RULE 6. CATEGORIES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS. The business of the City Council shall be conducted in the order and manner specified below. The order may be changed by a majority vote of those present. The following is the order of business: a) Call to Order. b) Salute to the Flag. c) Roll Call. d) Closed Session. e) Special Agenda Items. This item includes the City Manager’s Report, proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, special meetings, appointments to the City Council and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies. f) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions which do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial. Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if all members of DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 45 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 6 the City Council were present when the vote for first reading and introduction took place and this vote was unanimous. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar. Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda. Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session. g) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session. h) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent agenda as a continued item. i) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal. j) Ordinances. 1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public discussion is permitted on second readings. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 46 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 7 2) Introduction and First Reading. k) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency. l) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law. m) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions who may present reports under this item include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau. n) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar. o) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public. p) Councilmember Requested Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested agenda items. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the agenda item. Councilmembers should discuss requested agenda items in advance with the City Manager to see if the City Manager will place them on the agenda as Staff Administrative Items or otherwise or address them in other ways. q) Public Input. This item allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 47 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 8 RULE 7. PREPARATION OF MINUTES. The City Clerk shall have exclusive responsibility for preparation of the Minutes, and any directions for corrections in the Minutes shall be made only by majority vote of the City Council. RULE 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Minutes of a City Council meeting may be approved without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished each Councilmember with a copy and unless a reading is ordered by a majority vote of the City Council. RULE 9. PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings of the City Council. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside. In the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order and a temporary Presiding Officer shall be elected by the Councilmembers present to serve until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore or until adjournment. RULE 10. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER. a) Participation. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed upon Councilmembers by these rules, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a Councilmember by reason of his or her acting as the Presiding Officer. b) Duties. The Presiding Officer shall: 1) preserve order at all meetings of the City Council; 2) state (or cause to be stated) each question coming before the City Council; 3) announce the decisions of the City Council on all subjects; 4) decide all questions of order subject to the right to appeal rulings on questions of order to the entire City Council in accordance with Rule 12(d) below; and 5) encourage all persons present at the meeting to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 48 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 9 RULE 11. SWORN TESTIMONY AND SUBPOENA POWER. Any Councilmember may request that anyone appearing before the City Council on any matter shall be sworn. On receipt of such a request, all proceedings shall be suspended and the City Council will immediately vote on whether the individual should be sworn. A majority vote of the Councilmembers present shall determine whether the speaker shall be placed under oath. All oaths will be administered by the City Clerk. The City Council shall have the power to issue subpoenas as provided in City Charter Section 614. RULE 12. RULES OF DEBATE. a) Getting the Floor. A Councilmember desiring to speak shall gain recognition by the Presiding Officer. b) Questions to Staff. Every Councilmember desiring to question City staff shall address his or her questions to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk or designated staff. Members of the City staff, after recognition by the Presiding Officer shall hold the floor until completion of their remarks or until recognition is withdrawn by the Presiding Officer. c) Interruptions. A Councilmember who has the floor shall not be interrupted when speaking unless he or she is called to order by the Presiding Officer, a point of order or a personal privilege is raised by another Councilmember or the speaker chooses to yield to a question by another Councilmember. If a Councilmember is called to order, he or she shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined. d) Points of Order. The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Councilmember to appeal to the City Council. If an appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be overruled?” The Presiding Officer's decision may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers then present. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 49 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 10 e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned. f) Privilege of Final Comment. The Councilmember moving the introduction or adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or motion, shall have the privilege of speaking last on the matter after all other Councilmembers have been given an opportunity to speak. g) Motion to Reconsider Legislative Actions. A motion to reconsider any legislative action taken by the City Council may be made only by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side and may be seconded by any Councilmember. Such motion may be made at any time and shall be debatable. A motion by a non- prevailing Councilmember or a request by a member of the public for reconsideration may be made only if one year has passed since the action was taken. h) Calling for the Question. A question may be called by majority vote of those present. However, neither the moving party nor the party seconding any motion may call for the question, each Councilmember shall be afforded one opportunity to speak on each item before the question is called, and a question may not be called to interrupt or cut off a particular speaker. i) Limitation of Debate. Councilmembers shall limit their remarks to the subject under debate. No Councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other Councilmember desiring to do so has spoken. Prior to beginning deliberation, the Council may, by a two-thirds vote of those present, limit the amount of time that each Councilmember may spend stating his or her views on a particular agenda item. RULE 13. PROTEST AGAINST CITY COUNCIL ACTION. Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for his or her opposition to any action of the City Council entered in the Minutes. Such opposition shall DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 50 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 be made in the following manner: “I would like the Minutes to reflect that I opposed this action for the following reasons…” RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS. On quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off-the-record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before City Council consideration of the matter. Disclosure shall include the identity of any individual(s) with whom the Councilmember had contact, and the nature of the contact. RULE 15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY. a) Permitted. Pursuant to the Brown Act, public testimony is permitted on all agenda items, except ordinances for second reading, and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any matter which is not on the Agenda but is within the City Council’s jurisdiction. However, members of the public do not have the right to give testimony outside the scope of or unrelated to the agenda item under consideration. Additionally, members of the public should strive to avoid unduly reiterating their own or others’ testimony. b) Registration. Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda for public discussion shall register with the City Clerk staff or the staff managing phone calls through a call-in service provider prior to the start of the meeting, if possible, but no later than prior to the public hearing on that item. Except when donating time to another speaker, which will only be permitted when both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting, a request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and may only be heard with Council approval. c) Manner of Addressing the City Council. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, each member of the public addressing the City Council shall go to the podium or be selected from the phone comment queue to speak, state his or her name and whom he or she is representing, if he or she represents an organization or other person. Each member of the public is encouraged, but not required, to also state his or her address, neighborhood, or city of residence. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. After a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the City Council on the matter under DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 51 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 consideration without first securing City Council approval. d) Written Public Comment. Those wishing to provide public comment are encouraged to submit it in writing via email to be viewed online. For written comments received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting best efforts shall be made to have them posted on the Council’s online agenda. All written comments shall be made part of the public record. e) Time Limits. Except on Written Communication, members of the public shall limit their remarks to two minutes per agenda item unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote or the City Council reduces this time limit because of the large number of speakers for public comment on the particular item. For purposes of these Rules, the consent calendar shall be considered one item. The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf and members of the public with physical constraints on their ability to remain at the meeting or on the phone line for an extended period of time, and to the extent possible alternating between members of the public physically present at the meeting and those who have called in. Persons speaking on another’s written communication and persons submitting late speaker requests, who receive permission to speak shall be limited to one minute. On Written Communication, those speaking on another’s item may speak only if the person raising the matter appears and testifies, either in person or by phone. If the person who raises the item does not appear and testify, the matter shall be received and filed and persons wishing to speak on the matter may give their testimony during Public Input. A member of the public wishing to speak on more than one item shall limit his or her remarks to a total of six minutes per meeting unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote. A member of the public may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to two minutes. Testimony given as an applicant or appellant does not count toward the six-minute maximum. A Board or Commission member reporting to the City Council on behalf of a Board or Commission shall not be subject to these rules on time limits; however, City Council may limit the duration of such reports. f) Special Time Limits for Applicants and Appellants. Applicants and appellants on administrative items shall limit their remarks to ten minutes and may reserve some of their time for use for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public hearing. The appellant DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 52 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 shall have the opportunity to address the City Council first and last. g) Special Time Limits for Special Agenda Items. Public testimony is permitted on the City Manager’s Report and Appointments to the City Council. Proclamations, commendations and appearances by special guests are ceremonial items. In order to ensure adequate time for the Council’s regular business, groups of honorees or guests, who wish to speak, should appoint one or two representatives to speak for them. h) Special Assistance for Those Who Cannot Wait to Speak. Members of the public, including those with special needs, who cannot wait to speak on an agenda item may request assistance from the City Clerk, and a member of the Clerk's office will provide assistance in preparing a written statement of testimony for distribution to the City Council. i) Extended Time Limits for Speakers Who Require Interpreter. A member of the public who utilizes an interpreter to provide English language translation shall receive twice the time otherwise allotted under these Rules. j) Donating Time to Another Speaker. Donations of time to other speakers may be made only if both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting. Except on Public Input, a member of the public, speaking on their own behalf, may donate two minutes per agenda item to another speaker, speaking on their own behalf, and a speaker may accept one such donation from another per agenda item. The speaker and the person donating time shall turn in their chits together, notify the clerk of the donation, and go to the podium together. The speaker shall state both of their names and state that he or she is speaking for both. Donated time shall not increase an individual speaker’s total time limit of six minutes per meeting. Any request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and the donator will not be permitted to donate his/her time. k) Any electronic presentation materials presented as attachments to written public comment submitted by email for viewing online must be submitted in accordance with the time deadline set forth in Section 15(d) above. Electronic presentation materials will not be accepted in connection with public comment being provided by calling in to the Council meeting. For speakers who will be physically present to provide public comment at the Council meeting, all electronic presentation materials intended for use in DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 53 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 connection with the public comment, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by the overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than 12:00 PM on the day of a City Council meeting. All such electronic presentation materials must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office and include the City Council meeting date, agenda item number, and name of the public speaker who, as noted above, will need to be present at the meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits – arrangements for the use of electronic presentation materials by such a speaker should be made with the City Clerk by no later than 2:00 pm on the day of the Council Meeting. RULE 16. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY. When the City Council is in session, all persons present, whether in person or speaking by phone, must preserve safety and order and should strive to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. Members of the public who are physically present at the Council meeting should sit in the audience seating area, unless addressing the City Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, should not block the aisles with personal belongings and should not bring audible equipment into the Council Chambers including cellular telephones or pagers. Members of the public may not, except when testifying on or participating in an agenda item, enter the well area, which is the open area directly in front of the dais and extending outward from it to a line running between the points on the Clerk's desk and the podium nearest to the audience. Any person who disrupts the meeting shall be called to order by the Presiding Officer. Disruption shall include but not be limited to, blocking the audience or camera view of the proceedings. If such conduct continues, the Presiding Officer may request the Sergeant at Arms to remove the person from Council Chambers. The Chief of Police or such member or members of the Police Department as he or she may designate, shall be Sergeant At Arms of the City Council and shall carry out all orders given by the Presiding Officer through the City Manager for the purpose of maintaining order at City Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require him or her to do so. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 54 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 RULE 17. SEATING ORDER. After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Council member seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be seated next to the Mayor. RULE 18. ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AND FAILURE TO VOTE. Every Councilmember is entitled to vote unless disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest. A Councilmember who abstains from voting consents to the decision made by the voting Councilmembers. RULE 19. VOTING PROCEDURE. Any vote of the City Council, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members answering “Yes” for an affirmative vote or “No” for a negative vote upon his or her name being called by the City Clerk. Voting order shall be based on seating order with each roll call vote beginning at alternating ends of the dais and the Mayor voting last. RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Any Councilmember who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter by reason of a conflict of interest shall publicly state or have the Presiding Officer state the nature of such disqualification and shall leave the dais prior to Council consideration of the matter. A Councilmember stating or having the Presiding Officer state such disqualification shall not be counted as part of a quorum and shall be considered absent for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter. RULE 21. TIE VOTE. Tie votes shall be lost motions. RULE 22. CHANGING VOTE. The vote of a Councilmember may be changed only if he or she makes a timely request to do so immediately following the announcement of the vote by the City Clerk or the Presiding Officer and prior to the time that the next item in the order of business is taken up. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 55 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 RULE 23. AGENDA MANAGEMENT. At any time prior to the City Council taking up agenda items after the report back from Closed Session, any member of the City Council may make a motion for agenda management to reorder or combine agenda items. Such a motion shall require the votes of a majority of the Councilmembers present to pass. If such a motion is passed, the City Clerk shall call agenda items in accordance with the agenda as modified by the motion. RULE 24. PROCEDURE ON AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING A MOTION. The following procedure shall be followed in connection with any Agenda item requiring a motion: a) City Clerk reads the title. b) Presiding Officer calls for a staff report. c) Councilmembers question City staff. d) City Council conducts Public hearing. e) City Council deliberates. f) A Councilmember makes a motion, another Councilmember seconds the motion, and the Council debates it, with the maker of the motion having the opportunity to speak last. g) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk restates the motion. h) The City Council votes on the motion. i) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces result. RULE 25. PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, or, in their absence, their authorized representatives, shall attend and be present during all City Council meetings and give necessary service and advice. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 56 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 RULE 26. RECORD OF MEETINGS. All public meetings of the City Council shall be recorded. The recording shall be made by the City Clerk and retained in accordance with the City’s record retention schedule. The use of other recording or television equipment is permitted so long as it is not disruptive of the meeting. RULE 27. USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO COMMUNICATE DURING MEETINGS During City Council meetings, Councilmembers shall not use electronic communications of any type, including texts and emails, to communicate among themselves. RULE 28. INTERPRETATION AND MODIFICATION OF THESE RULES. These rules shall be interpreted liberally in order to provide for the optimum in the free interchange of information and public debate without an unnecessary waste of time or duplication of effort. These rules may be amended by resolution. RULE 29. FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES OF ORDER. These rules of order and procedures govern the conduct of City Council meetings. These rules are intended to expedite the transaction of the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion and are deemed to be procedural only. Failure to strictly observe these rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of the City Council or invalidate any action taken at a meeting that otherwise conforms to law. DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 57 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 SECTION 2. Resolution Number 11172 (CCS) and all other resolutions adopting, amending, or relating to City Council Rules of Order, are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: GEORGE S. CARDONA Interim City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 58 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 Adopted and approved this 14th day of September 2021. Sue Himmelrich, Mayor I, Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 11360 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council held on the 14th day of September 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Brock, Davis, de la Torre, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk DocuSign Envelope ID: D8695968-3B6D-443E-A108-D70AB5580B8D Item 1 10/25/22 59 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380 From: Elyssa Sanders <elyssa.sanderspr@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 9:16 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com Subject: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380 EXTERNAL Dear SM City Council and Manager, My name is Elyssa Katz and I live at 245 16th street. I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380 regarding parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons, including me. These cars do not block the sidewalk or the street. There are many benefits to this: 1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes. 2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road. 3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto the sidewalk or the street. Sincerely, Elyssa Katz 2. Forward this email to others you know beyond our block who may be affected by this issue. Most people are not aware of the city's change. I only learned of it because Leah put a flyer on my car. Thank you, Leah! 3. Contact Leah for more ways to help. Leah and I will try to attend the City Council meeting this Tuesday. We’re not sure if they’ll give us time to speak. Leahmendelsohn@aol.com, 310-729-9595 See here for the City’s announcement Item 1 10/25/22 60 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 https://www.santamonica.gov/press/2022/09/30/enforcement-to-begin-for-vehicles-parked-on- parkways-and-driveway-aprons- Thanks! -Vinay 323-702-4928 Item 1 10/25/22 61 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:33 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway apron ticketing From: JACLYN SCHATZOW <jschatzow@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 6:36 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Driveway apron ticketing EXTERNAL Hello. Can someone pls explain why we are going to be ticketing for parking in driveway aprons? Is there nothing better to do with our resources in Santa Monica (I’m thinki ng about the homeless everywhere, garbage, and crime for example). Our car does not block either the street in any way nor the sidewalk so I’m confused. Why not ticket cars that are actually impeding traffic or pedestrians? What a crazy thought. Parking already is impossible and forcing more cars on the street seems counterintuitive. Both Los Angeles, Malibu and Westwood allow parking in aprons if the vehicle doesn’t block anything. I hope you will reconsider this ridiculous ordinance. Please cut your Santa Monica constituents a break. Living here has already gotten more challenging why give us something else to complain about? Item 1 10/25/22 62 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Item 1 10/25/22 63 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 Item 1 10/25/22 64 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 S Item 1 10/25/22 65 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 5 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:33 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway Apron Proposed Parking Restriction From: pampaspup@aol.com <pampaspup@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 6:22 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; leahmendelsohn@aol.com Subject: Driveway Apron Proposed Parking Restriction EXTERNAL To The Santa Monica City Coucil: I am a longtime resident of Santa Monica (address 432 15th St.) I have become aware that the City plans to start issuing parking tickets to cars that are parked on the portion of a driveway that parkway edge of the sidewalk to the street (the "driveway apron") I am upset about this and would respectfully request that the City amend its municipal code to allow people to continue parking on the "driveway apron" unmolested. This, of course, as long as the person parking does not block any part of the sidewalk or the street. For me, this new parking restriction will be an occasional inconvenience. For others in my neighborhood this will become a big problem. As taxpaying residents of the City we would like to feel that the city machinery exists to provide services and to make life easier where possible. It's starting to feel like the City powers that be exist to extract every single last dollar they can from us and to make life more difficult and inconvenient. If a car is blocking a sidewalk, by all means issue a citation. But don't make blanket rules that make life more miserable. Respectfully, Diego Sanchez-Elía Item 1 10/25/22 66 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 6 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380 From: Erin Palermo Brooks <palermo.erin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:40 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com Subject: Parking/SM Municipal Code 3.12.380 EXTERNAL Dear SM City Council and City Manager, My name is Erin Brooks and I live at 1138 15th St, Santa Monica. I’m writing about Municipal Code section 3.12.380 regarding parking on driveway aprons. Many residents on our street park on their driveway aprons. These cars do not block the sidewalk or the street. There are many benefits to this: 1. People with limited mobility have guaranteed parking spots near their homes. 2. Fewer parked cars on the street leaves more room to pass oncoming cars and for cyclists on our already narrow road. 3. Leaves more free spots on street cleaning days when street parking is already scarce. I urge you to amend the municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding onto the sidewalk or the street. Thank you, Erin Item 1 10/25/22 67 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 7 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway apron From: MICOL <miotuli@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:50 PM To: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Driveway apron EXTERNAL Hello, I received a letter stating cars will no longer be able to park in the "driveway apron" starting november 1st. My car doesn't fit in my garage nor is it safe for me to get out of my car in the street. A person died this way not too long ago on San Vicente blvd in Santa Monica. Also, when I leave town I don't know where to leave my car and I would get a ticket this way. Freeing up street space is also good for cyclist and traffic. MY car does not block pedestrians walking in front of it on the sidewalk nor does it block the street. There is no reason with all the hefty property taxes I pay you to own a home in santa monica, that I should not be allowed to safely park my car in the Driveway apron. Please consider allowing me and others to park in front of our houses in our driveway aprons. Thank YOu! Micol Bartolucci Item 1 10/25/22 68 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 8 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway parking From: Donald Brand <dbofsantamonica@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:59 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Driveway parking EXTERNAL Greetings So the city of Santa Monica wants to take my parking spot on my driveway apron that I maintained for over twenty years can please tell me why? I'm hoping it's not to generate money by giving tickets to the residents who live in Santa Monica pay every tax known to man kind. My home address 735 17th 1) It's much safer for me to park before the walkway on 17th there is a lot of foot traffic if I put my car on the main part of the driveway there a greater chance of hitting pedestrian. 2) When I park on the apron I'm not parking on the street much more of a chance for an accident 17th is narrow many of side mirrors of residents have been knocked off no one leaves a note. 3) When I park on the apron leaves more room for shoppers that walk to Montana. It's just wrong to change this after so many years, who complains about residents parking their cars on the driveway. Please reconsider this move on to something to make our community better this action will do nothing to help. Thanks for reading Donald Brand 310-569-7305 Item 1 10/25/22 69 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:33 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Driveway Apron Parking From: Margie Somers <margiensomers@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:38 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Driveway Apron Parking EXTERNAL Please amend the code to allow for driveway apron parking like LA City & Malibu too. As long as the vehicular does not stick out into the street or into the sidewalk what’s the harm? Please - it’s needed for my caregiver. Thank you for your help and consideration. Margie Somers 337 15th St, Santa Monica, CA 90402 HomeOwner - 35 years. -- Margie Margery N. Somers (310) 804-1189 Item 1 10/25/22 70 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:14 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SM Municipal Code 3.12.380/Parking From: Eleanor Sanchez <Eleanor@completeclothing.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:13 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: leahmendelsohn@aol.com Subject: SM Municipal Code 3.12.380/Parking EXTERNAL Dear City Council and Manager, My name is Eleanor Sanchez Meyer and reside at 317 16th St. I am writing about the above municipal code regarding parking on driveway aprons. Many of the residents who have aprons in their driveway use it including me when there is street cleaning or if I have a guest and there is no parking on our narrow street. Parking on our apron does not block our sidewalk or the street. When my elderly parents who are in their late 80’s come for a visit they use this as they use walkers and wheel chairs. The street parking does not give homeowners on our block enough room as the street is narrow and does not give us enough parking as there are many homes being built on our block. You can imagine with dumpsters and trucks taking up our space it leaves us with not many options for parking. For example a large white van sped by and since there were cars parked on both sides of our street his van ripped the mirror off of my gardeners truck and it flew on to the back of my car which it damaged. This is costly not only to my gardener but to me as well. In addition because of the crime in Santa Monica I don’t feel anyone of us feels comfortable or safe parking blocks away from our homes. I am urging you to please amend this municipal code to allow parking on driveway aprons as long as a vehicle is not protruding on to the sidewalk or hanging out on to the street. Sincerely, Eleanor Sanchez Meyer Item 1 10/25/22 71 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:22 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SMMC, section 3.12.380 enforcement -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Passeri <vincentpasseri@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:21 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: SMMC, section 3.12.380 enforcement EXTERNAL Hello, It has come to my attention that the City of Santa Monica intends to enforce parking in the apron of your driveway. As a long time resident of Santa Monica I would like to voice my strong objection to this enforcement. I park my car horizontally in the apron of my driveway and my car never blocks the sidewalk. The car does not impede pedestrians as they walk on the sidewalk as well as in the street. I have never seen pedestrians walk in the parkway or driveway aprons. Parking in the apron minimizes possible damages to my car as the streets north of Montana are narrow when cars are parked on either side of the street. I have previously had my car hit when parking on the street. I would strongly urge the City of Santa Monica to rethink enforcement of this section as I do not believe that parking in the apron of my driveway in anyway harms any other citizen. Furthermore, as a resident of Santa Monica it would be nice to see my tax dollars go to larger City issues not the enforcement of something so trivial. Regards, Vincent Passeri 476 21 Street Santa Monica 90402 Item 1 10/25/22 72 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:00 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Your proposal to enforce SMMC, section 3.12.380--parking on driveway apron--OPP0SITION From: Kenneth Clayman <kenclayman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:52 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Your proposal to enforce SMMC, section 3.12.380--parking on driveway apron--OPP0SITION EXTERNAL Dear council members and City Manager: I am vigorously opposed to your enforcing this ordinance because it will endanger public safety, and subject the city to civil liability. The various streets that would be impacted by this action are already very hazardous to drive. They are so narrow that one of any two cars going in either direction has to pull over to allow the other to proceed. It is already difficult to do this because of the cars parked on each side of the street. By forcing more cares to the streets, the problem will be worsened. I predict that this is going to cause accidents, with cars in danger of side swiping each other, or even to collide. Any "solution" that would permit cars to block driveways, would make problems even worse, by eliminating more spaces where drivers can pull over to avoid sideswiping or even colliding with oncoming cars. This would make an existing dangerous problem even worse. Also, the Vehicle Code prohibits blocking driveways, so why should the city allow it. A workable solution to any concern about parking on the apron is to cite only those who block the sidewalk, or protrude onto the street. Further, as I lawyer, I fear that any accidents that can be attributed to this new policy would subject the city to civil liability. . Please re-consider this action, and continue to allow driveway apron parking, as long as it is done according to the rules of blocking the sidewalk or sticking out into the street. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Item 1 10/25/22 73 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 Ken Clayman 516 16th St. Santa Monica, 90402 (805) 218-9696 Item 1 10/25/22 74 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Michelle Gray Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:59 AM To:councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject:Item 1: General Public Comment Dear City Council, I am submitting the email thread below for your consideration to draw your attention to four issues: 1. Mayor Sue Himmelrich refused to agendize a brief but important Housing Commission report with recommendations for today’s City Council meeting. She did this after a) having publicly announced her inability to treat the Housing Commission without bias in light of her husband’s inability to continue serving on the commission after a new city anti-nepotism policy, and b) slandering Housing Commission leadership privately and publicly. 2. I do not believe city policy via Resolution 11360 permits the mayor to unilaterally veto agenda items, as explained in detail below. However, repeatedly unanswered questions to the City Manager and City Attorney make it clear the city is not willing to engage in discussion of overreach of power by the mayor or her clear violations of state ethics guidelines for elected officials, which is a larger problem than the bad action of one elected official. 3. I am endeavoring to agendize a different, extremely time sensitive Housing Commission report with recommendations, for the 8 November 2022 City Council meeting. After months of run around, including weeks of unanswered questions in direct correspondence with the City Manager, I have still not been given appropriate directions for doing so. Therefore, I must appeal to individual City Councilmembers to request that this Housing Commission report be agendized as a 13 item for the 8 November 2022 City Council meeting. 4. Obviously, in light of item three, months of conflicting and obstructive information by staff, and no indication that City Council agenda item 13 has ever been used, the process for agendizing reports by city boards and commissions is insufficiently codified in city policy. I look forward to the City Council remedying this disenfranchisement of appointed city officials, and by extension all Santa Monicans, in the coming months. Thank you for your review and consideration of these serious matters. Very best wishes, Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission Writing as an individual in the interests of all appointed city officials and Santa Monicans ____________ Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 5:12 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis Item 1 10/25/22 75 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Thanks, David, but that doesn’t answer any of my questions and ignores the central fact that boards and commissions have a right to use our dedicated agenda item (13) for Board & Commission Reports. Please note the specific information I gave you and question I asked you on 13 October: “the time sensitive report that I’m working on now is about HC recommendations for SMHA payment standard changes. The deadline for staff to make those changes is in January, and I wanted to ensure City Council saw our report soon enough to allow staff ample time to execute any decisions that City Council might make. How far in advance of each City Council meeting do you need to receive an agenda item request? For example, when is the submission deadline for an HC item to be included in the 8 November City Council meeting agenda? Please also answer my specific questions from 18 October, based directly on recent events and the City Council rules in Res 11360: “1. City policy states the agenda is prepared by the City Manager, who consults with the mayor and mayor pro tem. What, if anything, gives the mayor the authority to single handedly veto an appropriate agenda item? What about when the item in question involves a city commission the mayor has expressly admitted and repeatedly demonstrated bias toward? [Please see the mayor’s 2 February 2022 recusal from CC action regarding the Housing Commission and multiple demonstrations of her personal bias against the Housing Commission since then.] 2. City policy states that the City Manager or any Councilmember can direct that an item be placed on the agenda. Do you object to the inclusion of the Housing Commission recommendations regarding SMHA payment standards in the agenda? If so, on what grounds? If not, isn’t your direction to agendize it sufficient? 3. What recourse do boards, commissions, and/or City Councilmembers have when denied the inclusion of an item in a City Council agenda, unethically or otherwise? 4. Where is it codified that boards and commissions must direct their reports or advice to City Council via senior staff in the affiliated city department for consideration of being agendized?” Again, it is inappropriate for subject-related city staff to gatekeep whether or not reports and recommendations by appointed public officials are routed to the City Council that we’re required to advise, via agenda or otherwise. Boards and commissions do not work for, nor are they subject to discretionary oversight by, city staff in affiliated departments. Routing our reports through staff is expected and good. Gatekeeping them is not. Item 1 10/25/22 76 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 3 If you or any Councilmember can direct an item be agendized, and advisory boards and commissions 1) are required to advise City Council, and 2) this duty is underscored by a permanent dedicated agenda item for board and commission reports, why is it so difficult to agendize a Housing Commission item? Why are we getting the run around when we’re volunteers trying to do our jobs? David, please answer my questions. I’ve been very clear, and I can’t overstate how much staff has unnecessarily complicated my few, clear concerns. I’m available to talk by phone or video if that would help. Thanks, Michelle Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov From: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 4:48:31 PM To: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@santamonica.gov> Subject: RE: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Michelle, I don’t have too much to add. It is my understanding that folks from the City have provided guidance in the past. For future reports, please continue to work with Community Services Department staff. From my perspective, in observing other commissions, what I have noticed is that when they have recommendations or reports for the Council, the Department in which the Commission is affiliated will submit the report or the recommendation to the City Council. At that point, yes, any councilmember can request that the report or recommendation be discussed at a future council meeting. This request would be done through a 16 Item and if the 16 Item is adopted by Council, we would work to schedule the item for a future agenda. The only alternative I can fathom is the scenario where a Housing Commission report aligns with an item that staff already has on the agenda. I haven’t asked how that has played out over time – my only experience is limited to the recent RAB discussion. David White City Manager santamonica.gov Item 1 10/25/22 77 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 4 Facebook | Twitter | Instagram Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 12:03 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council David, please reply to my increasingly time sensitive emails sent to you on 13 October and 18 October, both included below. I also welcome Doug’s input on the legal aspects of my questions in the 18 October email. Thank you, Michelle ____________ Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:30 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Hello David, While I still eagerly await your reply to my previous email, I was also just forwarded this message from Christopher Smith: “We spoke with the Mayor today about the Housing Commission’s request to present to Council on the Housing personnel staffing item. The Mayor determined not to agendize this item at this time. Please communicate this decision to the Commission. Item 1 10/25/22 78 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 5 As for the SMHA payment plan item, the Commission should submit the Commission’s memo and report to the Department Head who will consult with Dave and, in turn, the Mayor about whether to place the item on an agenda.” And yet, according to Resolution 11360, Rule 5: Agenda: “The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows: ( a ) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda.” and “( c ) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may direct that any matter within the City Council's jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. Councilmembers should endeavor to submit Councilmember agenda items as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday in order to ensure that matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on the day two days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless the Councilmember has identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current agenda.” [Emphasis mine]. In light of this, please clarify all of the following: 1. City policy states the agenda is prepared by the City Manager, who consults with the mayor and mayor pro tem. What, if anything, gives the mayor the authority to single handedly veto an appropriate agenda item? What about when the item in question involves a city commission the mayor has expressly admitted and repeatedly demonstrated bias toward? [Please see the mayor’s 2 February 2022 recusal from CC action regarding the Housing Commission and multiple demonstrations of her personal bias against the Housing Commission since then.] 2. City policy states that the City Manager or any Councilmember can direct that an item be placed on the agenda. Do you object to the inclusion of the Housing Commission recommendations regarding SMHA payment standards in the agenda? If so, on what grounds? If not, isn’t your direction to agendize it sufficient? 3. What recourse do boards, commissions, and/or City Councilmembers have when denied the inclusion of an item in a City Council agenda, unethically or otherwise? 4. Where is it codified that boards and commissions must direct their reports or advice to City Council via senior staff in the affiliated city department for consideration of being agendized? It is inappropriate for subject-related city staff to gatekeep whether or not reports and recommendations by appointed public officials are routed to the City Council that we’re required to advise, via agenda or otherwise. Boards and commissions do not work for, nor are they subject to discretionary oversight by, city staff in affiliated departments. If you or any Councilmember can direct an item be agendized, and advisory boards and commissions 1) are required to advise City Council, and 2) this duty is underscored by a permanent dedicated agenda item for board and commission reports, why is it so difficult to agendize a Housing Commission item? Why are we getting the run around when we’re volunteers trying to do our jobs? Item 1 10/25/22 79 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 6 Please respond meaningfully with more information as soon as possible, David. The unilateral decision and overreach of power of one biased public official is problematic. That bad decision being allowed to stand by the entire city organization, and is an unacceptable threat to the democratic governance of all of Santa Monica. Similarly, unnecessary gatekeeping of input from city advisory bodies by city staff or elected officials disenfranchises all Santa Monica residents from city government. Thank you for your attention to this serious and unnecessarily complicated matter, David. Best wishes, Michelle From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:35 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Hello David, Will you please reply to my email below regarding the process for adding a time sensitive 13 item to the 8 November City Council meeting agenda? Thank you, Michelle ____________ Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 11:21:51 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Item 1 10/25/22 80 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 7 Thank you very much, David. I greatly appreciate you looking into and clarifying some of the process for me. I’m glad to hear the hiring report has been distributed and will be discussed Monday for possible agendizing. So you know, the time sensitive report that I’m working on now is about HC recommendations for SMHA payment standard changes. The deadline for staff to make those changes is in January, and I wanted to ensure City Council saw our report soon enough to allow staff ample time to execute any decisions that City Council might make. How far in advance of each City Council meeting do you need to receive an agenda item request? For example, when is the submission deadline for an HC item to be included in the 8 November City Council meeting agenda? Thank you for clarifying who participates in setting the agenda. I look forward to learning more about your preferred timelines and formats for receiving agenda item requests and the related reports and other attachments from boards and commissions. Thank you again, David, and happy anniversary! Best wishes, Michelle Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov From: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 10:37:15 PM To: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Christopher J. Smith <Christopher.J.Smith@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@santamonica.gov>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@santamonica.gov> Subject: RE: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Chair Gray, I apologize for the delayed response. I asked staff from the City Manager’s Office to help me prepare a response for you regarding process and next steps. I rely on them, and others, to ensure that I am adhering to our rules. I have been advised that our Assistant City Attorney has previously advised that under Council Rule 5, the City Clerk shall prepare the agenda under the direction of the City Manager. However, the City Manager must consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in preparation of the Agenda. Also, any Councilmember or the City Manager may direct that any matter within the Council’s jurisdiction be placed on the agenda. With respect to the report from the Housing Commission pertaining to hiring practices, I have shared the report with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and have communicated with them that I am looking forward to discussing this report with them at our upcoming Agenda Setting meeting. In addition, I want you to know that I have shared the report with the entire City Council. In line with the feedback from our Assistant City Attorney, City Council, through a 16 Item could also direct that that the report be placed on an agenda for discussion. Item 1 10/25/22 81 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 8 I will have more to report early next week and truly appreciate your patience. David White City Manager santamonica.gov Facebook | Twitter | Instagram Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 2:45 PM To: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Thank you, Doug. That’s why I addressed my original email and question to the City Manager. I await the City Manager’s substantive response to my time sensitive question. Best, Michelle Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov From: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 2:36:04 PM To: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov> Subject: RE: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council COUNCILMEMBERS PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO ALL The current Council Rules provide only Councilmembers or the City Manager may place items on the Agenda, so the Commission may request one or more of them to do so. Thank you. Item 1 10/25/22 82 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 9 Douglas Sloan City Attorney City Attorney’s Office 1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 458-8336 douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov santamonica.gov CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is a confidential attorney client communication and attorney work product. This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) it is addressed to above. Please do not forward or produce pursuant to a Public Records Act request. The information in this message may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (310-458- 8336) and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Michelle Gray <Michelle.Gray@santamonica.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 12:23 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Theresa Marasco <Theresa.Marasco@santamonica.gov> Subject: TIME SENSITIVE—how to agendize time sensitive 13 items for City Council Hello David, I’m writing with a time sensitive question about agendizing 13 items for City Council meetings. I’m asking you directly because more than one Commissioner has been unable to receive a timely and complete response from staff, and the question was unaddressed in the Clerk’s Office’s recent Chair/Vice Chair training, which said nothing to attendees about agendizing board and commission reports as City Council 13 items at all. What exactly must a board or commission do to ensure a time sensitive item 13 is agendized for the next City Council meeting, or a particular City Council meeting? Boards and commissions must sometimes add time sensitive reports to the City Council agenda as 13 items because they involve deadlines set by outside agencies. The report I’m preparing now might require City Council to direct staff to act by January and I’m trying to plan accordingly because I’m sensitive to city staff workload and the long lead times required for action. Item 1 10/25/22 83 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 10 We’ve been told that City Council agendas are planned months in advance and but given no indication when a submitted 13 item may appear on the agenda. We’ve also been given no deadline for submitting items to you for a particular agenda. Unfortunately, this lack of information has already delayed the Housing Commission’s ability to communicate one matter to City Council in a timely manner, and is negatively affecting the Housing Commission’s ability to fulfill its obligations as an advisory body to City Council. Please tell me the procedure for agendizing time sensitive 13 items for presentation to City Council, and how I might do so with the current Housing Commission report to ensure it’s on the next agenda as a 13 item. Thank you very much for your attention, David. I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Michelle ____________ Michelle Gray Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission michelle.gray@santamonica.gov Item 1 10/25/22 84 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 11 Vernice Hankins From:OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:58 AM To:Douglas Sloan; councilmtgitems Cc:Susan Cola; Susan Cline; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Denise Anderson-Warren; Nikima Newsome; dolores@mirrormediagroupla.com; Jorge Casuso; David Ganezer; sam@mirrormediagroupla.com; David White; Sue Himmelrich Subject:item 1 – City Attorney less than competent in Roberts Rules but will train CC??? EXTERNAL To date I have not received confirmation from City Attorney Sloan that he understands that he was confusing two types of questions of privilege when writing and talking from the dais about Councilmember de la Torre's request for training in parliamentary procedure. It is worrisome that City Attorney Sloan is now being tasked with training city officials on parliamentary procedure instead of a professional parliamentarian doing that. Since early June this year when City Attorney Sloan commenced his employment with the City, he has witnessed and IGNORED multiple grave violations of the parliamentary procedure, mostly on the part of the Mayor, yet he did not intervene or suggest training. Those violations resulted in manipulation of the Council discussions and ultimately likely in the manipulation of the votes on multiple items. One sign of integrity is when a person has the courage to acknowledge their less than comfortable grasp of a topic or skill, and is willing to learn from an expert on the topic. This did not occur here. The Council is engaging in a charade where the blind will be leading the blind on the topic of parliamentary procedure. Extremely disappointing, and disrespectful of the right of the citizens to a competent Council who is well versed in procedure so as to engage in democratically run meetings. Regards, Olga Zurawska On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 06:51:06 PM PDT, OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Attorney Sloan, It deeply concerns me that the senior legal professional in the City is mistaken about the rule that controls the situation. The Council rule you cited is not the relevant rule. Councilmember de la Torre did not raise a question of personal privilege. He raised a question of privilege relating to the assembly (see the attachment to my original email in this thread). This is an entirely separate rule with different parameters. It is included in Council Rules by reference to Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised only, not listed with the handful of actions outlined in Resolution 11360. Item 1 10/25/22 85 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 12 The fact that I have reiterated this multiple times and you continue to cite the wrong rule is alarming. At the very least, it demonstrates that City Council requires basic training, and perhaps temporary oversight, by a professional parliamentarian rather than City Attorney Office staff. Councilmember de la Torre raised the question that he did because, in addition to the minor infractions of Roberts Rules that you dismissed his claim with, there are ongoing serious violations of Roberts Rules that regularly jeopardize the democratic conduct of City business. Please confirm you understand that you cited the wrong Council Rule and that in light of recent events and this exchange you support hiring a professional parliamentarian to give the City Council an expert crash course in Robert's Rules of Order. Thank you for your time and assistance. Regards, Olga Zurawska On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 01:43:49 PM PDT, Douglas Sloan <douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov> wrote: Olga, Here is the Council Rule: (e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned, or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned. That does not include giving direction for a future item. A Councilmember concerned about a ruling from the Chair or to clarify a procedure may raise a Point of Order and ask the City Attorney to weigh in. I'm always available for that. I thoroughly understand the Council Rules. Doug From: OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 1:27:18 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cola <Susan.Cola@santamonica.gov>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>; Nikima Newsome <Nikima.Newsome@santamonica.gov>; matt@smdp.com <matt@smdp.com>; emily@smdp.com <emily@smdp.com>; Catanzaro Sam <sam@mirrormediagroupla.com>; dolores@mirrormediagroupla.com <dolores@mirrormediagroupla.com>; Jorge Casuso <jcasuso@santamonicalookout.com>; David Ganezer Item 1 10/25/22 86 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 13 <editor@smobserver.com>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: ᎆᎇWhat Mayor + City Attorney did tonight is unlawful, pls remedy immediately ᎆᎇ EXTERNAL Hello Mr. White, I would like to reiterate my position that Councilmember de la Torre’s motion was an attempt to address an ongoing and immediate (current) serious problem concerning the abuse of power by the presiding officer and the resulting infringement on the assembly members’ rights. Therefore, the motion was properly offered and improperly dispensed with, the latter confirming the need for the remedies that Councilmember de la Torre sought. Due to the immediacy of the ongoing procedural violations which constitute a threat to democracy, the motion did not require noticing under the Brown Act. The immediacy of this issue was well illustrated later in the same meeting when, as a direct result of the presiding officer’s failure to follow parliamentary procedure, a motion was made and its phrasing reversed, causing confusion among Councilmembers regarding what they were voting on. City Councilmembers were very nearly made to vote without understanding the motion on the floor (item 5-C). This would have resulted in City policy counter to the wishes of the majority of the elected city officials as they almost voted to pass a motion that was the exact opposite of what they intended. The presiding officer has caused such and other grave violations of parliamentary procedure at every single City Council meeting she “facilitated.” While the mishandling of Councilmember de la Torre’s question of privilege relating to the assembly cannot be undone, the next best course of action is to agendize his remedies as originally requested and agreed to during the 9/27/22 Council meeting, i.e. immediate monitoring of correct parliamentary procedure by the City Attorney and a crash course by a professional parliamentarian within 30 days. The currently agendized item referencing action by March 30, 2023 is unacceptable given the imminent threat the referenced violations pause to the rights of the assembly members and to democratic city governance. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Regards, Olga Zurawska On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 08:32:27 PM PDT, oz <zurawska@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello City Manager White, This is in regard to Councilmember de la Torre’s question of privilege relating to the assembly that he raised at the 9/27/22 Council meeting. The Brown Act does not apply to periodic procedural issues that come up during the assembly’s public meetings. A question of privilege relating to the assembly is one such instance. Please see the attached screenshots of RRoO 19:9- 10. Item 1 10/25/22 87 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 14 Ironically, the presiding officer, aided by the City Attorney, violated parliamentary procedure by refusing to hold a vote on a validly offered and seconded motion. The fact that the motion attempted to address ongoing serious violations of parliamentary procedure makes the fact that further misconduct was permitted to quash this motion – ABSURD. The City Attorney is incorrect that it is not his place to weigh in on parliamentary procedure. The entirety of Robert’s Ruies of Order is included in City Resolution 11360 by reference. Therefore, questions about parliamentary procedure are by definition legal questions concerning City policy. If the city Attorney doesn’t feel equipped to give direction on parliamentary procedure, it is the responsibility of the City Manager to hire a professional parliamentarian to oversee parliamentary procedure at City Council meetings. What happened earlier tonight was another example of a serious violation of City policy and abuse of power by the presiding officer. This needs to be addressed publicly with an apology and corrections by both the City Attorney and the presiding officer, and an immediate resumption of Councilmember de la Torre’s motion, preferably tonight. Regards, Olga Zurawska Item 1 10/25/22 88 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 15 Item 1 10/25/22 89 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:56 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SMMC 3.12.380 From: Cyn Yamashiro <cyn.yamashiro@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:51 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: SMMC 3.12.380 EXTERNAL I recently learned of the City’s intent to enforce a prohibition against parking on the apron. Since neither vehicular nor pedestrian traffic is impaired so long as the cars are otherwise parked legally, there seems no real rational basis for this ordinance-other than the potential by-product of increasing your revenues through increased traffic tickets. I don’t believe the latter would withstand constitutional challenge. Of course the cost to the citizens of an otherwise parking- impacted city by eliminating tens of thousands of otherwise legal parking spots is severe. I strongly encourage you to rescind the ordinance or declare you will not enforce it. Cyn Yamashiro 1302 Pearl Santa Monica CA 90405. Item 1 10/25/22 90 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 1:03 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Apron parking From: susan levine <levinesusan29@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:39 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Apron parking EXTERNAL We are asking that you amend the municipal code to allow for driveway apron parking. Allowing residents to park on their driveway aprons Means fewer parked cars on are already narrow streets .Also residents do not have to worry about moving their cars on cleaning days. We have lived in our house for 44 years and have not noticed that anyone who parks on the apron extends onto the sidewalk Also for older residents like myself & my husband, with certain limited physical capabilities, having to park our car away from our home will make it difficult to carry groceries, etc into the house. Thank you for your consideration Susan & Norm Levine Item 1 10/25/22 91 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:55 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: PLEASE AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING PARKING ON ONE'S RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APRON From: vaillan@verizon.net <vaillan@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:39 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: PLEASE AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING PARKING ON ONE'S RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APRON EXTERNAL I am a longtime resident at 1315 Pearl Street in the city. My family moved here in 1960. I am opposed to a blanket prohibition of parking on driveway aprons in the city. I believe that many necessary hardships will be created as an unintended consequence. You have the ability to amend the ordinance to lessen the disproportional impact to some residents. Please consider the following: 1) Other jurisdictions currently allow the owner of a property to park on their driveway aprons as long at the vehicle fits on the apron entirely. Vehicles are not allowed to encroach on the sidewalk or into the street proper. The city can ticket cars now. I am not sure a new ordinance is needed. 2) Recent large scale expansion of apartments in the city, as well as a relaxation of parking requirements for modified multi family structure to allow more units, is already impacting residential parking. Furthermore, with an increasing trend to work at home at least part time the need for parking is increasing. 3) Some streets are narrow and parking is only allowed on one side. Thus parking on apron is at a premium. 4) Persons with mobility issues are of ten counting on the availability of parking on their driveway. On street sweeping days available parking is hopefully across the street and Item 1 10/25/22 92 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 2 nearby ... but you cannot count on it. On my street (Pearl Street) parking next to be bike path is challenging for an elderly person. The city is allowing powered bicycles in the path. These are often traveling at 20-25 miles per hour. It is much safer to park in the driveway. Thanks for your time. François Vaillancourt 1315 Pearl Street Item 1 10/25/22 93 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 Item 1 10/25/22 94 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 Item 1 10/25/22 95 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22 Item 1 10/25/22 96 of 96 Item 1 10/25/22