_Whereas, in the interest of public safety, every business providing dockless electric scooters and/or bicycles (Dockless Mobility Devices) operating in the City of Los Angeles (City) should reasonably be required to cooperate fully with law enforcement under the circumstances described above as a condition of being granted a business license or Dockless Mobility Permit;_

_Whereas, such requirement of provider cooperation with law enforcement is necessary to protect the safety of the public and does not unreasonably infringe on the privacy rights of users of Dockless Mobility Devices;_

_Whereas, it is the responsibility of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and the City to “promote safety. . . and improve the quality of life for the people of Los Angeles“ (_[_LADOT Statement_](https://ladot.lacity.org/sites/g/files/wph266/f/LADOT%20Receives%20Permit%20Applications%20for%20Dockless%20.pdf) _)__;_

_Whereas, prominent Dockless Mobility Device providers all publicly proclaim that the safety of riders and the community is their “obsession”_ _(_[_Bird_](https://www.bird.co/safety/) _)__or their “top”_ _(_[_Lyft_](https://www.lyft.com/safety) _)__or “#1”_ _(_[_Lime_](https://www.li.me/how-to-lime) _)__priority;_

_Whereas, Dockless Mobility Devices providers can reasonably_[see below; word “reasonably” deleted from final adopted resolution, per Board amendment]_provide notice to users in the “Terms of Use” oftheir rental agreements that user information will be provided to law enforcement, upon request by law enforcement, in the event of an accident involving injury to another person caused or claimed to be caused by the operation of the Dockless Mobility Device;_

_Now, therefore, be it_

_RESOLVED, that Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) urges the City to (1) deny a business license and/or Dockless Mobility Permit, or suspend and/or revoke any previously-issued business license and/or Dockless Mobility Permit, to any provider of Dockless Mobility Devices operating in the City that fails or refuses to cooperate fully with law enforcement in providing information about the user of its Dockless Mobility Device involved in an accident causing injury to another person; (2) if and as necessary, immediately enact additional regulations amending existing rules and/or data protection policies in the City’s Dockless Mobility Pilot Program to provide for issuance of business licenses and/or Dockless Mobility Permits only upon condition that providers cooperate fully with law enforcement under the circumstances set forth above; and _(_ 3) provide for suspensions, followed by revocation hearings, of any such licenses and/or permits issued to Dockless Mobility Device providers that fail or refuse to comply fully with law enforcement under the circumstances set forth above; and_

_RESOLVED FURTHER, that PPCC send a copy of this resolution directly to Councilmember Mike Bonin and to Mayor Eric Garcetti, as well as to all members of the Los Angeles City Council, to emphasize the importance of this safety concern to the residents of Pacific Palisades._

_Adopted: ________, 2019”_

Steve Boyers explained the background for the motion and the Chair invited discussion.

Board members generally expressed deep concern over the incident and the provider’s failure to cooperate with police. Questions were asked about the circumstances and whether the police had followed up or could have obtained a warrant for the information.

Sue Kohl (Area 5 Representative) explained that the pastor had decided not to press charges.

Steve Boyers commented that this was the pastor’s personal decision but does not affect the resolution, which is the first step in an attempt to put pressure on the City to adopt necessary rules to ensure that companies that refuse to cooperate with the police will not receive licenses. He explained that doing business with the City is a privilege, not a right, and the companies’ ability to conduct business here should be conditioned on being responsible corporate citizens.

Chris Spitz stated that she and the Chair have submitted the resolution language to WRAC Leadership and that she will personally follow up with WRAC members so that this may become a WRAC position and thus have even more weight with City Council.

Steve Boyers indicated that this is a complicated issue involving regulations, terms of use, liability insurance, etc., and that it’s possible that the temporary permits already received by providers under the pilot program will soon be extended. He suggested the formation of a PPCC committee do further research and follow-up with the City.

Rick Mills (Area 4 Representative) then moved to amend the resolution by deleting the word “reasonably” from the paragraph:

“Whereas, Dockless Mobility Device providers can _reasonably_ provide notice to users in the terms of use . . . .”

The resolution sponsors accepted the amendment and there were no objections from the Board.

Following discussion, a vote was taken on the resolution as amended.

Vote: Unanimous in favor of the resolution as amended.

11.2. _WRAC-recommended Motions A through E below_ (sponsored in PPCC by the Executive Committee).

The Chair and Chris Spitz introduced each motion in turn [which did not require a second as each was made by a committee of more than one voting board member].

Discussion was invited on each motion and votes were taken as follows:

A. Support for findings of City Attorney’s Blue Ribbon panel on school safety: _“Pacific Palisades Community Council supports the findings of the Blue Ribbon Panel on School Safety, convened by the City Attorney, and urges LAUSD to adopt the priorities of the report recommending steps towards increased school safety.”_ __

Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion.

B. Support for Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Mitigation Task Force and request for neighborhood outreach by the task force: _“Pacific Palisades Community Council supports Council Member Bonin’s motion for the formation of a Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Mitigation Task Force and urges the task force to conduct neighborhood outreach to community stakeholders and understand / consider their thoughts and concerns.”_

Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion.

C. Request for City to develop regulations for co-living developments: _“Pacific Palisades Community Council requests that the City develop planning, zoning and leasing regulations for co-living developments, which are residential in nature but have aspects of hotels/transient occupancy. Issues include: 1. Length of leases; 2. Parking for “units,” which have larger bedroom counts; 3. Compliance with density bonus ordinances – regulatory framework.”_

Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion.

D. Request for City to enforce affordable housing density bonus regulations: _“Pacific Palisades Community Council requests that the Housing and Community Investment Dept. fully comply with the regulations of the State and City affordable housing density bonuses ordinances (SB1818 and Prop. JJJ/TOC), per the concerns stated in the City Controller’s audit report of Jan. 2017. This includes ensuring that developers properly register units and record covenants upon occupancy, properly publicize and qualify low-income tenants and audit their status every year, assign the correct restricted rent and review it every year, and conduct annual audits to ensure that the affordable units properly and legally serve the intended population of low-income households of Los Angeles. HCID shall state how it will change its processes to ensure compliance. The job performance metric of the HCID General Manager shall reflect full compliance with the State and City’s affordable housing density bonus programs, especially annual audits of tenants of those units and developers who lease those units.”_

Vote: Unanimous in favor of the motion.

E. Support for motion calling for prohibitions on developer contributions to elected officials: _“Pacific Palisades Community Council supports Council Member David Ryu’s motion (_[_CF 19-0046_](https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=19-0046) _) and its prohibition on developer and contractor contributions to City elected officials with the following clarifications:_