See email here: https://imgur.com/a/gA5Njqw

If you’ve been following the local turf wars at all, it has been, at best, confusing why SMMUSD – unlike other nearby districts like LAUSD and of course the City of Santa Monica itself – has been so gung ho on installing artificial turf on its campuses. Even if you buy the arguments about “field availability” for older students (I don’t, but let’s put that aside for the sake of argument…), District COO Carey Upton has been pushing turf even for our littlest kids, including 4 year olds (!). This is even though turf gets much hotter than real grass on warm days, and turf temps have regularly exceeded 130 degrees in just the past couple of months. Carey Upton has gone so far as to install turf at the new Ocean Park School House without Coastal Commission permits and is currently pushing turf for the new Roosevelt TK/K yard. Parents and other community members have been upset, not just at these decisions but in the way they’ve been treated in raising these issues.

What many parents and community members don’t know, however, is just how cozy Upton is with the artificial turf industry, and just how dismal our superintendent and the School Board have been in rooting out his inappropriate and unethical behavior. It honestly boggles this mind how they allow this stuff, but just to keep it relatively short, here’s a top 5. Tencate (a turf manufacturer) sure is right that Upton is a “fantastic champion,” but I think the community deserves to know who they’re dealing with…

1) Upton literally accepts gifts from the artificial turf industry: https://imgur.com/a/gi9VQKt.

I personally find it insane that the District doesn’t already prevent gifts from its vendors? If this were the City, this would be a straightforward violation of the Oaks Initiative, because I guess the City just has higher (better) ethical standards? Note that Upton’s never mentioned this at the dozens of meetings about the topic.

2) Upton speaks at Tencate-hosted conferences: https://imgur.com/a/a445nTW. Looks like he’s pretty excited about it 🙃: https://imgur.com/a/i8Unctr.

He then has Tencate reps speak before the School Board, without mentioning this to the public. Our superintendent (Dr. Antonio Shelton) shouldn’t be let off the hook either. He has also spoken at one of these conferences and has also failed to mention that to the public, despite knowing this is a contentious issue: https://imgur.com/a/VjAI7JP.

3) Upton has offered to lobby the City of LA on Tencate’s behalf and used his SMMUSD email address to lobby State Senator Ben Allen in defense of turf (luckily Ben is a champion on this issue!): https://imgur.com/a/Tyx5pW0. And: https://imgur.com/a/ftj5wlZ

Most recently, he went to Culver City’s Sustainability Commission to promote turf. I struggle to understand how this is an acceptable use of time for someone with (admittedly) so many job responsibilities?

4) Upton has zero problem being dishonest with the community – here, taking an, at best, disingenuous approach to zoning to avoid community input on turf: https://imgur.com/a/0aTbV2T

From the linked email to School Board member Laurie Lieberman: “Politically, it is better exempt the project now rather than needing to exempt the project on a specific new challenge. (An example, tonight the SM Sustainability Commission is discussing banning a synthetic turf. If they were to do this, the BOE would need to exempt the project to put in a synthetic turf field. Voting on this when it is a community issue would be more of a challenge.”

Bonus anger points: check out how Upton talks about street safety advocates! This is the guy designing “safe” pick up and drop off for our kids. Lovely.

5) Upton – along with Shelton, Laurie Lieberman, and Jon Kean – tried to push the PTA study in their own direction, attempting to exempt play yards for our littlest kids [Note that the PTA study refused to listen to them because they actually gaf…]. I highly recommend reading this email chain in full to get a sense of how manipulative these people are, how afraid they are of disagreement, and just a sense of how they operate in general. It’s unbecoming to say the least: https://imgur.com/a/luavPgU.

Gems in here include School Board Jon Kean accusing the study group, including an environmental sciences professor, of being “biased.” I’d love to understand what definition of “bias” would include the study’s authors, but not their COO who literally accepts gifts from the industry. I don’t think Jon will be explaining that one anytime soon though.

And really impeccable logic from Laurie – “I saw turf in Chicago, so it must be fine, even for little kids!” Seriously, this is the level of analysis and concern that Laurie Lieberman, running for a fifth term, brings to issues the community cares about.

TL;DR:

We so, so desperately need a more serious School Board who will be vigilant about these issues. Even if artificial turf is not your issue, Upton’s behavior is absolutely unethical and unacceptable. And, amazingly, this is the same guy they have overseeing the failing HVAC and the ~$1 billion in construction (which I’ve voted for!). A School Board that allows this behavior, and indeed enables it, is failing to perform its basic oversight role for the community.

Kicker email: https://imgur.com/a/qns2aEK. Maybe, Laurie, people blame Carey because they should? Maybe people blame Carey because the Board isn’t doing its job?

The torn pigeon netting is entangling and killing pigeons under the pier. On my last survey, I counted over 20 dead pigeons in the pedestrian walkway section alone. Entanglement is one of the worst ways an animal can die, as it slowly starves and dehydrates.

An article released in LAist supports that the netting is not working as intended, as birds actively nest and perch on the netting. This is an animal cruelty concern and a public health issue, as the torn netting may encourage even more pigeons to perch and breed under the pier and pollute the water. And it is a bad image for the city to have dead pigeons hanging above pedestrians at a major tourism hotspot.

I think the netting should be removed, and perhaps a non-lethal deterrent (like bird spikes) should be used instead. Netting requires precise installation and maintenance in order to safely exclude pigeons, but the city is clearly incapable of maintaining it. The torn net under the pier has instead become both a breeding and killing ground for pigeons. 

There are already talks about removing the net, due to the pigeons breeding upon it, exacerbating the pollution issue. However, they do not have an actual timeline.

Please email the pier management at [pier.management@santamonica.gov](mailto:pier.management@santamonica.gov) about this, and speak up at city hall to tell them to remove the net ASAP.

I've been corresponding with the City about several parking-related issues lately, and I'm curious whether others are having similar experiences.

1. We have license plate recognition, but parking garages still depend on paper tickets.

On Wednesday, I pulled into the Civic Center parking structure, where the SKIDATA entry terminal displayed an "out of fan-fold tickets" error. I had to contact an attendant, who asked for my name to document my entry.

Oddly enough, almost the exact same thing happened to me in June. At the time, the City's Parking Manager acknowledged that collecting my name was unnecessary.

Santa Monica approved $1.2 million license plate recognition project intended to streamline operations across nine parking structures. The Civic Center structure has already been equipped with LPR, and a $600,000 budget request specifically described the technology as a way to streamline garage entry.

Except running out of paper tickets can still disrupt the entire process.

SKIDATA offers license plate-based entry capabilities, and its equipment can alert operators when ticket supplies are running low. So why isn't LPR being used as a fallback? Are low-ticket notifications being monitored? And how does a public parking garage repeatedly run out of tickets in the first place? Why is it parking fees go up but the level of service goes down?

2. Paying for parking doesn't necessarily prevent you from getting a citation.

In September, I paid for a meter using the City's IPS TXT2PAY system. I have the receipt documenting the meter number, payment, and time period.

Unfortunately due to a radio communications issue the meter didn't reflect the payment, and I received a citation anyway.

I submitted the receipt with my appeal. The City subsequently serviced the meter, but I'm still waiting for a decision on the citation.

Shouldn't the City's enforcement system be able to reconcile a paid meter number and timestamp before issuing a citation? Why should residents and visitors have to prove transactions that the City's own payment processor has already recorded?

3. It can take 4–8 weeks just to get an initial parking citation review.

Parking Operations confirmed that contested citations can take up to eight weeks for an initial decision, despite the City's website indicating three to four weeks. I was also informed that initial reviews are handled by the Police Department.

Why is reviewing a potentially expired parking meter citation a police responsibility in the first place? When you contest an administrative decision the city's file is sent by the City's "revenue division" which is reason enough for some judges to dismiss a ticket. And with SMPD reportedly back to full staffing, why are reviews taking up to four weeks longer than the City's published timeframe? Eight weeks to review a timestamped payment receipt?

How much time is spent reviewing citations that better integration between the City's payment and enforcement systems could have prevented altogether.

Parking operations had also said.. a lot of people are contesting tickets.. probably because a class action is imminent?

4. And introducing yet another parking technology system.

The City announced a new Metropolis pilot that will introduce ticketless, license plate-based entry at three parking structures beginning in November.

According to the Parking Manager, the existing SKIDATA/INEX access-control system is separate from Metropolis, which operates the garages.

Yes, these are different systems, but Metropolis acquired SP+, the City's parking operator AFTER the City already approved the 1.2M budget for LPR upgrades. Is this new pilot being driven by that acquisition and the operator's preferred technology, or because the City's existing LPR infrastructure can't deliver ticketless entry?

Why are we introducing another technology solution when we've already invested substantially in LPR? What functionality is missing from the existing system, and who's accountable for making sure taxpayers actually receive the operational improvements they paid for?

Parking fees have been restructured, substantial amounts of public money are being invested in new technology, and the City regularly talks about operational efficiencies. Yet from the perspective of someone actually using these facilities, some pretty basic things still aren't working.

Why are we spending money on technology versus actually improving operations? Has anyone else experienced malfunctioning parking equipment, citations despite paying, or unusually long review times?