Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, April 12, 2022 (part 7 of 9)

A. PHA Information.

A.1 PHA Name: Santa Monica Housing Authority PHA Code: ___CA 111______ PHA Plan for Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): 07/2020
PHA Plan Submission Type: 5-Year Plan Submission Revised 5-Year Plan Submission Availability of Information. In addition to the items listed in this form, PHAs must have the elements listed below readily available to the public.

A PHA must identify the specific location(s) where the proposed PHA Plan, PHA Plan Elements, and all information relevant to the public hearing and proposed PHA Plan are available for inspection by the public. Additionally, the PHA must provide information on how the public may reasonably obtain additional information on the PHA policies contained in the standard Annual Plan, but excluded from their streamlined submissions. At a minimum, PHAs must post PHA Plans, including updates, at each Asset Management Project (AMP) and main office or central office of the PHA. PHAs are strongly encouraged to post complete PHA Plans on their official websites. PHAs are also encouraged to provide each resident council a copy of their PHA Plans.

PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a Joint PHA Plan and complete table below) Participating PHAs PHA
Code
Program(s) in the
Consortia
Program(s) not in the
Consortia
No. of Units in Each Program
PH HCV
Lead PHA:

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica

Page 2 of 4 ends

5-Year Plan. Required for all PHAs completing this form.

B.1 Mission. State the PHA’s mission for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely low- income families in the PHA’s jurisdiction for the next five years.

The mission of the PHA is the same as that of the Department of Housing and Urban Development: To promote adequate and affordable housing, economic opportunity and a suitable living environment free from discrimination.

B.2 Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of low- income, very lowincome, and extremely low- income families for the next five years. • Expand access to Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) by attaching project-based vouchers to PSH apartments. • Increase voucher applicant diversity by outreaching to the Santa Monica workforce with the goal of reaching employees who work 25 hours a week or more in Santa Monica.
• Apply for mainstream vouchers, as they are available, to assist non-elderly persons living with disabilities. • Continue to serve veterans and individuals experiencing homelessness by applying for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing and Continuum of Care vouchers, as they are available.
• Reduce barriers to housing by establishing a funding source to provide insurance to property owners who lease apartments to voucher holders with poor credit.
• Explore options for outsourcing annual eligibility recertification work and shift staff focus to new admissions with the goal of fully utilizing the PHA’s budget authority and maintaining program quality. • Establish relationships with agencies that provide volunteer opportunities and employment services to assist participants who are unemployed or underemployed..
• Expand opportunities to apply for housing by opening waitlists for the Housing Choice Voucher, Affordable Housing, and Preserving Our Diversity (POD) programs and keeping them open continuously. • Maintain housing of low-income households by using available resources to prevent homelessness and support well-being of participants.
• Coordinate with Human Services and service providers to prevent eviction and displacement. • Conduct extensive marketing of the programs and provide education that reduces the stigma of needs based programs. • Develop a client-focused customer service policy;
• Increase community integration for persons with disabilities; • Promote civic engagement of recipients;
• Reduce barriers to housing by increasing total supply of housing for voucher holders to potentially access.

B.3 Progress Report. Include a report on the progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.

Progress Report attached as a separate document.

B.4 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Goals. Provide a statement of the PHA’s goals, activities objectives, policies, or programs that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of child and adult victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. • The PHA will continue to comply with the updated VAWA Reauthorization Act. • The PHA will offer a preference to families that are victims of domestic violence/familial abuse, sexual assault or stalking, who have been displaced in the City of Santa Monica as a result of the victimization. • The City of Santa Monica provides funding for shelter-based services including social services assistance, resource referral, clinical therapy, peer counseling, and court advocacy to victims of domestic violence. Children Empowerment programming and Youth Violence Prevention and Education Workshops are also provided.

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica

Page 3 of 4 ends

B.5 Significant Amendment or Modification. Provide a statement on the criteria used for determining a significant amendment or modification to the 5-Year Plan.

SMHA defines a “Significant Amendment and Substantial Deviation/Modification” when changes are made to the preferences/priorities on the waiting list (Currently defined in the Administrative Plan), if programs or number of persons to be served is reduced due to the loss of supporting revenue, if changes are made to the FMR but only if it adversely impacts tenants, and changes to the appeals/grievance process if tenants are negatively impacted. When significant changes are proposed SMHA will post a 45-day public review notice (24 CFR 903.17(r)), assure that the amendment is consistent with the Consolidated Plan 24 CFR 903.15 (unless action is taken due to funding reduction of programs) and must be approved by the Housing Commission. HUD approval is required prior to implementation of amendments. An exception to this definition will be made for any of the above changes that are adopted to reflect changes in HUD regulatory requirements and will not be considered significant amendments by HUD.

B.6 Resident Advisory Board (RAB) Comments.
(a) Did the RAB(s) provide comments to the 5-Year PHA Plan? Y N
*Comments provided by RAB will be submitted with the 5-Year Plan. (b) If yes, comments must be submitted by the PHA as an attachment to the 5-Year PHA Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the RAB recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations.

B.7 Certification by State or Local Officials.

Form HUD 50077-SL, Certification by State or Local Officials of PHA Plans Consistency with the Consolidated Plan, must be submitted by the PHA as an electronic attachment to the PHA Plan.

Instructions for Preparation of Form HUD-50075-5Y
5-Year PHA Plan for All PHAs
A. PHA Information 24 CFR §903.23(4)(e)
A.1 Include the full PHA Name, PHA Code, , PHA Fiscal Year Beginning (MM/YYYY), PHA Plan Submission Type, and the Availability of Information, specific location(s) of all information relevant to the hearing and proposed PHA Plan.

PHA Consortia: Check box if submitting a Joint PHA Plan and complete the table.

B. 5-Year Plan.

B.1 Mission. State the PHA’s mission for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely low- income families in the PHA’s jurisdiction for the next five years. (24 CFR §903.6(a)(1)) B.2 Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of lowincome, very low- income, and extremely low- income families for the next five years. (24 CFR §903.6(b)(1)) For Qualified PHAs only, if at any time a PHA proposes to take units offline for modernization, then that action requires a significant amendment to the PHA’s 5-Year Plan.

B.3 Progress Report. Include a report on the progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5- Year Plan. (24 CFR §903.6(b)(2))
B.4 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Goals. Provide a statement of the PHA’s goals, activities objectives, policies, or programs that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of child and adult victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. (24 CFR §903.6(a)(3))
B.5 Significant Amendment or Modification. Provide a statement on the criteria used for determining a significant amendment or modification to the 5-Year Plan.

B.6 Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments.
(a) Did the public or RAB provide comments?
(b) If yes, submit comments as an attachment to the Plan and describe the analysis of the comments and the PHA’s decision made on these recommendations. (24 CFR §903.17(a), 24 CFR §903.19)

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica

Page 4 of 4 ends

This information collection is authorized by Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which added a new section 5A to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, which introduced the 5-Year PHA Plan. The 5-Year PHA Plan provides the PHA’s mission, goals and objectives for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely lowincome families and the progress made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.

Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average .76 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. HUD may not collect this information, and respondents are not required to complete this form, unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Privacy Act Notice. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is authorized to solicit the information requested in this form by virtue of Title 12, U.S. Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder at Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations. Responses to the collection of information are required to obtain a benefit or to retain a benefit. The information requested does not lend itself to confidentiality.

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Streamlined Annual
PHA Plan
(HCV Only PHAs)
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
Expires 02/29/2016

Page 1 of 4 ends

Purpose. The 5-Year and Annual PHA Plans provide a ready source for interested parties to locate basic PHA policies, rules, and requirements concerning the PHA’s operations, programs, and services, and informs HUD, families served by the PHA, and members of the public of the PHA’s mission, goals and objectives for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely low- income families Applicability. Form HUD-50075-HCV is to be completed annually by HCV-Only PHAs. PHAs that meet the definition of a Standard PHA, Troubled PHA, High Performer PHA, Small PHA, or Qualified PHA do not need to submit this form. Where applicable, separate Annual PHA Plan forms are available for each of these types of PHAs.

Definitions.
(1) High-Performer PHA – A PHA that owns or manages more than 550 combined public housing units and housing choice vouchers, and was designated as a high performer on both of the most recent Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) and Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) assessments if administering both programs, or PHAS if only administering public housing. (2) Small PHA - A PHA that is not designated as PHAS or SEMAP troubled, or at risk of being designated as troubled, that owns or manages less than 250 public housing units and any number of vouchers where the total combined units exceeds 550. (3) Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Only PHA - A PHA that administers more than 550 HCVs, was not designated as troubled in its most recent SEMAP assessment, and does not own or manage public housing.
(4) Standard PHA - A PHA that owns or manages 250 or more public housing units and any number of vouchers where the total combined units exceeds 550, and that was designated as a standard performer in the most recent PHAS and SEMAP assessments. (5) Troubled PHA - A PHA that achieves an overall PHAS or SEMAP score of less than 60 percent. (6) Qualified PHA - A PHA with 550 or fewer public housing dwelling units and/or housing choice vouchers combined, and is not PHAS or SEMAP troubled.

A. PHA Information.

A.1 PHA Name: _____Santa Monica Housing Authority___________ PHA Code: ____CA 111_________ PHA Plan for Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): ____07/01/2020___ PHA Inventory (Based on Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) units at time of FY beginning, above) Number of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) _________1508________ PHA Plan Submission Type: Annual Submission Revised Annual Submission Availability of Information. In addition to the items listed in this form, PHAs must have the elements listed below readily available to the public.

A PHA must identify the specific location(s) where the proposed PHA Plan, PHA Plan Elements, and all information relevant to the public hearing and proposed PHA Plan are available for inspection by the public. Additionally, the PHA must provide information on how the public may reasonably obtain additional information of the PHA policies contained in the standard Annual Plan, but excluded from their streamlined submissions. At a minimum, PHAs must post PHA Plans, including updates, at the main office or central office of the PHA. PHAs are strongly encouraged to post complete PHA Plans on their official website.

PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a joint Plan and complete table below) Participating PHAs PHA Code Program(s) in the Consortia Program(s) not in the Consortia No. of Units in Each Program
Lead HA:

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica

Page 2 of 4 ends

B. Annual Plan.

B.1 Revision of PHA Plan Elements.
(a) Have the following PHA Plan elements been revised by the PHA since its last Annual Plan submission? Y N
Housing Needs and Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs.

Deconcentration and Other Policies that Govern Eligibility, Selection, and Admissions.

Financial Resources.

Rent Determination.

Operation and Management.

Informal Review and Hearing Procedures.

Homeownership Programs.

Self Sufficiency Programs and Treatment of Income Changes Resulting from Welfare Program Requirements.

Substantial Deviation.

Significant Amendment/Modification.
(b) If the PHA answered yes for any element, describe the revisions for each element(s):

B.2 New Activities
(a) Does the PHA intend to undertake any new activities related to the following in the PHA’s current Fiscal Year? Y N
Project Based Vouchers.
(b) If this activity is planned for the current Fiscal Year, describe the activities. Provide the projected number of project-based units and general locations, and describe how project-basing would be consistent with the PHA Plan. – The City of Santa Monica has funded, or may be funding, the development of a few special needs housing developments and are evaluating the feasibility of attaching project-based vouchers.

B.3 Most Recent Fiscal Year Audit.
(a) Were there any findings in the most recent FY Audit?

Y N N/A

(b) If yes, please describe:

B.4 Civil Rights Certification
Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations, must be submitted by the PHA as an electronic attachment to the PHA Plan.

B.5 Certification by State or Local Officials.

Form HUD 50077-SL, Certification by State or Local Officials of PHA Plans Consistency with the Consolidated Plan, must be submitted by the PHA as an electronic attachment to the PHA Plan.

B.6 Progress Report.

Provide a description of the PHA’s progress in meeting its Mission and Goals described in its 5-Year PHA Plan.

B.7 Resident Advisory Board (RAB) Comments.
(a) Did the RAB(s) provide comments to the PHA Plan?
Y N
*Comments provided by RAB will be submitted with the Annual Plan. (a) If yes, comments must be submitted by the PHA as an attachment to the PHA Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the RAB recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations.

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica

Page 3 of 4 ends

Instructions for Preparation of Form HUD-50075-HCV
Annual PHA Plan for HCV Only PHAs
___________________________________________________________________________ A. PHA Information. All PHAs must complete this section. (24 CFR §903.23(4)(e)) A.1 Include the full PHA Name, PHA Code, PHA Type, PHA Fiscal Year Beginning (MM/YYYY), Number of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), PHA Plan Submission Type, and the Availability of Information, specific location(s) of all information relevant to the public hearing and proposed PHA Plan.

PHA Consortia: Check box if submitting a Joint PHA Plan and complete the table. (24 CFR §943.128(a)) B. Annual Plan. All PHAs must complete this section. (24 CFR §903.11(c)(3)) B.1 Revision of PHA Plan Elements. PHAs must:

Identify specifically which plan elements listed below that have been revised by the PHA. To specify which elements have been revised, mark the “yes” box. If an element has not been revised, mark “no."
Housing Needs and Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs. Provide a statement addressing the housing needs of low-income, very low-income families who reside in the PHA’s jurisdiction and other families who are on the Section 8 tenant-based waiting list. The statement must identify the housing needs of (i) families with incomes below 30 percent of area median income (extremely low-income), (ii) elderly families and families with disabilities, and (iii) households of various races and ethnic groups residing in the jurisdiction or on the waiting list based on information provided by the applicable Consolidated Plan, information provided by HUD, and other generally available data. The identification of housing needs must address issues of affordability, supply, quality, accessibility, size of units, and location. (24 CFR §903.7(a)(1) and 24 CFR §903.7(a)(2)(i)). Provide a description of the PHA’s strategy for addressing the housing needs of families in the jurisdiction and on the waiting list in the upcoming year. 24 CFR §903.7(a)(2)(ii) Deconcentration and Other Policies that Govern Eligibility, Selection, and Admissions. A statement of the PHA’s policies that govern resident or tenant eligibility, selection and admission including admission preferences for HCV. (24 CFR §903.7(b)) Financial Resources. A statement of financial resources, including a listing by general categories, of the PHA’s anticipated resources, such as PHA HCV funding and other anticipated Federal resources available to the PHA, as well as tenant rents and other income available to support tenant-based assistance. The statement also should include the non-Federal sources of funds supporting each Federal program, and state the planned use for the resources. (24 CFR §903.7(c))
Rent Determination. A statement of the policies of the PHA governing rental contributions of families receiving tenant-based assistance, discretionary minimum tenant rents , and payment standard policies. (24 CFR §903.7(d)) Operation and Management. A statement that includes a description of PHA management organization, and a listing of the programs administered by the PHA. (24 CFR §903.7(e)(3)(4)).

Informal Review and Hearing Procedures. A description of the informal hearing and review procedures that the PHA makes available to its applicants. (24 CFR §903.7(f))
Homeownership Programs. A statement describing any homeownership programs (including project number and unit count) administered by the agency under section 8y of the 1937 Act, or for which the PHA has applied or will apply for approval. (24 CFR §903.7(k)) Self Sufficiency Programs and Treatment of Income Changes Resulting from Welfare Program Requirements. A description of any PHA programs relating to services and amenities coordinated, promoted, or provided by the PHA for assisted families, including those resulting from the PHA’s partnership with other entities, for the enhancement of the economic and social self-sufficiency of assisted families, including programs provided or offered as a result of the PHA’s partnerships with other entities, and activities under section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968 and under requirements for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and others. Include the program’s size (including required and actual size of the FSS program) and means of allocating assistance to households. (24 CFR §903.7(l)(i)) Describe how the PHA will comply with the requirements of section 12(c) and (d) of the 1937 Act that relate to treatment of income changes resulting from welfare program requirements. (24 CFR §903.7(l)(iii)).

Substantial Deviation. PHA must provide its criteria for determining a “substantial deviation” to its 5-Year Plan. (24 CFR §903.7(r)(2)(i)) Significant Amendment/Modification. PHA must provide its criteria for determining a “Significant Amendment or Modification” to its 5-Year and Annual Plan. Should the PHA fail to define ‘significant amendment/modification’, HUD will consider the following to be ‘significant amendments or modifications’: a) changes to rent or admissions policies or organization of the waiting list; or b) any change with regard to homeownership programs.

See guidance on HUD’s website at: Notice PIH 1999-51. (24 CFR §903.7(r)(2)(ii)) If any boxes are marked “yes”, describe the revision(s) to those element(s) in the space provided.

B.2 New Activity. If the PHA intends to undertake new activity using Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) for new Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) in the current Fiscal Year, mark “yes” for this element, and describe the activities to be undertaken in the space provided. If the PHA does not plan to undertake this activity, mark “no.” (24 CFR §983.57(b)(1) and Section 8(13)(C) of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica

Page 4 of 4 ends

Project-Based Vouchers (PBV). Describe any plans to use HCVs for new project-based vouchers. If using PBVs, provide the projected number of project-based units and general locations, and describe how project-basing would be consistent with the PHA Plan.

B.3 Most Recent Fiscal Year Audit. If the results of the most recent fiscal year audit for the PHA included any findings, mark “yes” and describe those findings in the space provided. (24 CFR §903.11(c)(3), 24 CFR §903.7(p)) B.4 Civil Rights Certification. Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulation, must be submitted by the PHA as an electronic attachment to the PHA Plan. This includes all certifications relating to Civil Rights and related regulations. A PHA will be considered in compliance with the AFFH Certification if: it can document that it examines its programs and proposed programs to identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those programs; addresses those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available; works with the local jurisdiction to implement any of the jurisdiction’s initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing; and assures that the annual plan is consistent with any applicable Consolidated Plan for its jurisdiction. (24 CFR §903.7(o)) B.5 Certification by State or Local Officials. Form HUD-50077-SL, Certification by State or Local Officials of PHA Plans Consistency with the Consolidated Plan, including the manner in which the applicable plan contents are consistent with the Consolidated Plans, must be submitted by the PHA as an electronic attachment to the PHA Plan. (24 CFR §903.15) B.6 Progress Report. For all Annual Plans following submission of the first Annual Plan, a PHA must include a brief statement of the PHA’s progress in meeting the mission and goals described in the 5-Year PHA Plan. (24 CFR §903.11(c)(3), 24 CFR §903.7(r)(1)) B.7 Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments. If the RAB provided comments to the annual plan, mark “yes,” submit the comments as an attachment to the Plan and describe the analysis of the comments and the PHA’s decision made on these recommendations. (24 CFR §903.13(c), 24 CFR §903.19) This information collection is authorized by Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which added a new section 5A to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, which introduced the Annual PHA Plan. The Annual PHA Plan provides a ready source for interested parties to locate basic PHA policies, rules, and requirements concerning the PHA’s operations, programs, and services, and informs HUD, families served by the PHA, and members of the public for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely low- income families.

Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 4.5 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. HUD may not collect this information, and respondents are not required to complete this form, unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

3.I.d
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: FY20-25 Santa Monica Housing Authority Public Housing Authority Plan (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica 1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:11 AM
To: David White; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Subject: 3-I: OPPOSE PLANS, please send out notice of first SM RAB meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Executive Director of SMHA, and SMHA Board:

I oppose the approval of the Plans as they have not gone through a legitimate RAB process… yet again.

As you might know by now, SMHA was in violation of the federal regulation that mandates the establishment of a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) for at least twelve years (or possibly decades).

Now we have a RAB on paper, i.e. SMHA sends out notices of the Administrative and Annual Plan’s public comment period to each voucher holder individually, and oddly considers that to be in lieu of RAB meetings.

Since there never was a functioning RAB here before, and voucher holders are uneducated about their rights as RAB members, about the Administrative Plan or the role and process of the RAB in regard to the Administrative Plan, a notice of a RAB meeting needs to be sent out as soon as possible to all voucher holders. The RAB needs to be able to hold their first meeting, but is unable to without staff sending out a notice of such a meeting. Advocates have been asking for this for over TWO YEARS now. We are not asking for the staff to participate in the meeting. We are only asking that an administrative employee schedule and notice a zoom meeting (with the option for people to to call in), and send out a notice of such a meeting to all voucher holders. There are volunteer RAB members willing to run the meeting without staff assistance.

Per HUD guidelines, it is the Housing Authority’s responsibility to make the means to communicate and a meeting space available to the RAB:
 PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Source: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha/about/rab To date SMHA staff has refused to send out a notice of a meeting to RAB members, apparently in an effort to prevent the RAB from communicating and engaging in the deliberative process regarding the Administrative Plan. As you know, Santa Monica Housing Choice Voucher holders live in scattered units and have no way to find one another to communicate.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
1 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 2 Here is a notice of the February 2022 meeting of the Norwalk RAB, where all the voucher holders are RAB members and yet they have an opportunity to have a designated meeting:
https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26305/637769919929900000 Inglewood, where all voucher holders are RAB members, also holds annual RAB meetings: https://inglewoodtoday.com/government/the-inglewood-housing-authoritys-annualplan-aims-to-expand-access-and-programs-for-the-upcoming-fiscal-year/ There are a variety of policymaking and advisory bodies in the City, e.g. the City Council, SMHA Board, Housing Commission and many other boards, commissions and task forces.

They all hold meetings. Staff does not just send individual notices to members of those bodies asking for their ideas or feedback. Those bodies meet and engage in a deliberative process.

The RAB has the right to do same, as engaging in a deliberative process is the best way to formulate feedback or come up with a policy.

If you have any doubts, the proof is in the pudding: at the most recent Housing Commission meeting staff claimed that they had received NO feedback from RAB members. Clearly, simply sending out a notice that asks each RAB member for individual feedback directly to SMHA does not work. I am sure you realize that RAB members in fact have a lot to say about how SMHA is run. They are not saying anything because they do not understand their role in the RAB process (which is brand new here and has never been utilized properly yet), and they often are afraid to individually communicate their feedback directly to SMHA or SMHA Board because they fear retaliation.

Please take care of this without further delay and direct the staff to send out a notice of the first ever, informational meeting of the Santa Monica RAB meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be for RAB members to learn more about the RAB process and to come up with a work plan for a deliberative process in order to most effectively submit feedback to the next Administrative Plan.

Such a meeting will put an end to the disenfranchising of Santa Monica subsidized housing tenants which has been going on for decades now, in a city that claims to care about affordable housing.

Thank you for adhering to the HUD guidelines, and providing an opportunity for RAB members to engage in a deliberative process and have a voice in the SMHA policymaking process.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
——————–––
Item 3.I
04/12/22
2 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 3 * Did You Know?
- The first RAB was established in Baltimore in 1968.
- The Philly RAB was established in 1969.
- The Santa Monica RAB might have been established circa 2020 but we can’t be sure as it was done by staff (not the policymakers), it is not codified anywhere, and to date the RAB has been prevented by staff from holding a meeting. So, does the SM RAB really exist? ৡৢৣ৤ Item 3.I
04/12/22
3 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Date: April 12, 2022
Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting April 12, 2022 Re: Agenda Item 3-I/Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board:

I am submitting this public comment as a Santa Monica Resident and RAB Member regarding Agenda Item 3. I - the Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan and recommended actions to 1. Adopt the FY2022-2023 Santa Monica Housing Authority Annual Plan; 2. Authorize the submission of the FY2021-2023 Annual Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I object to the adoption of these plans for the following reasons:

1. The RAB has had no opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans, which do not include the voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the City. The RAB has never been able to meet in more than 14 years.
a. After 14 years the RAB was finally created in May of 2021. Two RAB representatives were appointed by the Santa Monica City Council in June of 2021. I requested information on how to contact the RAB representatives in or about July 7, 2021, but email addresses were not created for the two RAB members until August 30, 2021. I requested several times via email that the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) assist with scheduling a Zoom meeting for all RAB members to meet with the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran, to discuss the upcoming Annual Plan, but the SMHA never responded to that request. I also emailed Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran several times requesting to speak with them but they never responded. The RAB only exists on paper and continues to be left out of the conversation with regard to making discretionary changes to the Annual, Administrative, and the Five Year Plans.
b. RAB members RAB should be able to meet quarterly to discuss the Annual and Administrative Plans coming up each year, and all housing issues, concerns, or changes recommended by the greater number of active RAB members should be Section 8/HCV holders or RAB
c. Even though email addresses were provided by the City of SM for the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown, and Elizabeth Cochran, they have not responded to my emails requesting to speak with them about the Item 3.I
04/12/22
4 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Annual and Administrative Plan, and therefore request that the Annual and Administrative Plans are not approved before the 45 day review period conducted by HUD of the Annual Plan. (See attached emails regarding the RAB)

2. I request that SMHA Board does not approve the Annual and Administrative Plans until the RAB has had an opportunity to meet. I request that a meeting of the RAB take place within the next 30 days via Zoom or Bluejeans. The SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);"
Examples of urgent needs that need to be discussed with the RAB a. Disparity of treatment of all subsidized tenants preferential treatment as to who gets housing subsidized and/or housing, or who gets rehoused, slow turn around time for reasonable accommodations, and processing of RTA packets when Voucher Holder’s are attempting to “lease-up.”
b. Disparity in treatment of low-income, disabled persons and older females, who need to have a voice to speak about fair housing rights being violated, to advise the RAB to address within the Annual and Administrative Plans each year. c. No real informal review, appeal, or grievance process if SMHA program participants do not agree with a decision made by the SMHA regarding their participation in the program but is required by HUD to ensure due process for participants. d. Lack of transparency in AFF/Subsidized housing; etc. (preferential treatment who gets housing.) The SMHA need to make available a comprehensive list of all shelters, project based housing, deed-restricted/tax credit, and/or affordable housing units in the city. The City and County of San Diego publish such a list for public access. Santa Monica can easily publish a list like San Diego (See attached example of San Diego’s list of housing.)
Link to San Diego Housing List
https://www.sdhc.org/housing-opportunities/affordable-rentals/ e. The City of Santa Monica needs to publish waitlists for Section 8; CCSM; and AFF/Deed restricted; tax credit properties. The Cochise County Housing Authority in Arizona publishes such a list. (See attached example of Housing Waitlist in Cochise County) Item 3.I
04/12/22
5 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) f. No landlord liaison: There are known problems with habitability issues, harassment of long-term tenants, and source of income discrimination against subsidized tenants when applying for rental units. There are numerous stories in the news documenting the harassment and uninhabitable conditions of entire buildings here in Santa Monica. The City is well aware of the problems but does not have funds to protect tenants, specifically the Consumer Protection Unit, overseen by attorney Gary Rhoades, reportedly has not responded to numerous complaints, the complaints that the Consumer Protection does respond to is limited to sending letters to landlords as it has been indicated that the City of Santa Monica does not have the funding to go after bad landlords. g. Legal Aid cannot take legal action against the landlord and will not represent subsidized tenants in any dispute or action needed regarding the SMHA. h. Due to lack of representation for low income and/or susidized tenants, their is a need for HUD experienced legal advisor(s)/advocate(s) to comprehensively advise them of their rights, and to guide/represent them in any informal review or state hearing as provided for in CFR 24
i. There is a need for an ADA Coordinator who does not have conflicts with tenants and is actively responding to complaints and requests for assistance. Reportedly, the current ADA Coordinator has been unresponsive to requests for assistance.

The above is not a complete list but is the most urgent of items that need to be addressed in an official meeting via Zoom, inviting all RAB members. Sadly, this is the same letter I submitted last year, and nothing has changed and continues to a seriously grave problem that is preventing subsidized tenants a right and opportunity to meaningfully participate in the drafting of the Annual, Administrative and Five Year Plans.

I have attached copies of HUD Guidelines and Regulations regarding Resident Advisory Boards and the role of the Santa Monica Housing Authority in ensuring that RAB members are able to have meaningful engagement and input on the very documents that directly impact Section 8/Housuing Choice Voucher and all subsidized SMHA Program Participants.

I have also attached copies of emails showing all the efforts I made to request an official meeting of the RAB
Item 3.I
04/12/22
6 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) LII > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
> Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development
> Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development > CHAPTER IX - OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING,

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
> PART 903 - PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLANS
> Subpart B - PHA Plans and Fair Housing Requirements
> § 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan?
24 CFR § 903.13 - What is a Resident Advisory Board
and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? § 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is
its role in development of the Annual Plan?
(a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA. (1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan. (2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA.

CFR State Regulations
Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
7 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives.
(3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation.
(4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations. (c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
8 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

Try The Purple Grid™ Near You
Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place
CFR Toolbox
Law about... Articles from Wex
Table of Popular Names
Parallel Table of Authorities
Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place
Purple Is In Your Neighborhood
Feel What Makes Purple Different at
Our Store Near You!
Store info Directions

11 Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
9 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place
Shop Now at Our Store Near You
Enjoy the Comfort of Your Mattress and
Wake Up Refreshed.

Store info Directions

ACCESSIBILITY

ABOUT LII

ADVERTISE HERE
HELP

PRIVACY
Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
10 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 466
§ 964.400 24 CFR Ch. IX (4–1–03 Edition)
Subpart E—Resident Board
Members
SOURCE: 64 FR 56879, Oct. 21, 1999, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 964.400 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement section 2(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437).
§ 964.405 Applicability.
(a) General. Except as described in
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to any public housing agency that has a public housing annual contributions contract with HUD or administers tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f).
(b) Exceptions. The requirements of
this subpart do not apply to a public
housing agency that is:
(1) Located in a State that requires
the members of a governing board to be
salaried and to serve on a full-time
basis; or
(2) Not governed by a governing
board.
§ 964.410 Additional definitions.

The following additional definitions
apply to this subpart only:

Directly assisted. Directly assisted
means a public housing resident or a
recipient of housing assistance in the
tenant-based section 8 program. Direct
assistance does not include any State
financed housing assistance or Section
8 project-based assistance.

Eligible resident. An eligible resident
is a person:
(1) Who is directly assisted by a public housing agency; (2) Whose name appears on the lease;
and
(3) Is eighteen years of age or older.

Governing board. Governing board
means the board of directors or similar
governing body of a public housing
agency.

Resident board member. A resident
board member is a member of the governing board who is directly assisted by that public housing agency.
§ 964.415 Resident board members.
(a) General. Except as provided in
§§964.405(b) and 964.425, the membership
of the governing board of each public
housing agency must contain not less
than one eligible resident board member.
(b) Resident board member no longer directly assisted. (1) A resident board member who ceases to be directly assisted by the public housing agency is no longer an ‘‘eligible resident’’ as defined in §964.410. (2) Such a board member may be removed from the PHA board for that cause, where such action is permitted
under State or local law.
(3) Alternatively, the board member
may be allowed to complete his/her
current term as a member of the governing board. However, the board member may not be re-appointed (or reelected) to the governing board for purposes of serving as the statutorily required resident board member. (c) Minimum qualifications for board
membership. Any generally applicable
qualifications for board membership
also apply to residents, unless the application of the requirements would result in the governing board not containing at least one eligible resident as a member. Further, PHAs and localities may not establish eligibility requirements for board membership that are solely applicable to residents.
§ 964.420 Resident board member may
be elected.
(a) General. Residents directly assisted by a public housing agency may elect a resident board member if provided for in the public housing agency plan, adopted in accordance with 24
CFR part 903.
(b) Notice to residents. The public
housing agency must provide residents
with at least 30 days advance notice for
nominations and elections. The notice
should include a description of the
election procedures, eligibility requirements, and dates of nominations and elections. Any election procedures devised by the public housing agency must facilitate fair elections.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 20:43 Apr 25, 2003 Jkt 200078 PO 00000 Frm 00466 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\200078T.XXX 200078T Item 3.I
04/12/22
11 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 467
Office of the Assistant Secretary, HUD Pt. 965
§ 964.425 Small public housing agencies.
(a) General. The requirements of this
subpart do not apply to any public
housing agency that:
(1) Has less than 300 public housing
units (or has no public housing units):
(2) Has provided reasonable notice to
the resident advisory board of the opportunity for residents to serve on the governing board;
(3) Has not been notified of the intention of any resident to participate on the governing board within a reasonable time (which shall not be less than 30 days) of the resident advisory board
receiving the notice described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and (4) Repeats the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section at least once every year.
(b) Public housing agencies that only
administer Section 8 assistance. A public
housing agency that has no public
housing units, but administers Section
8 tenant-based assistance, is eligible
for the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of the number of Section 8 vouchers it administers.
(c) Failure to meet requirements for exception. A public housing agency that is otherwise eligible for the exception described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, but does not meet the three
conditions described in paragraphs
(a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section,
must comply with the requirements of
this subpart.
§ 964.430 Nondiscrimination.
(a) Membership status.—(1) General. A
resident board member is a full member of the governing board. (2) Resident participation must include
matters regarding Federal public housing
and Section 8 tenant-based assistance. A
resident board member must be allowed to take part in decisions related to the administration, operation, and
management of Federal public housing
programs and Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance programs. This rule
does not extend to matters that:
(i) Exclusively relate to other types
of housing assistance (such as State financed housing assistance); or (ii) Do not involve housing assistance
(as may occur where the city or county
governing body also serves as the PHA
board).
(3) Public housing agency may expand
scope of resident participation. A public
housing agency may choose to expand
the scope of resident member involvement to matters not required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(b) Residence status. A governing
board may not prohibit any person
from serving on the governing board
because that person is a resident of a
public housing project or is assisted
under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
(c) Conflict of interest. A governing
board may not exclude any resident
board member from participating in
any matter before the governing board
on the grounds that the resident board
member’s lease with the public housing
agency, or the resident board member’s
status as a public housing resident or
recipient of Section 8 tenant-based assistance, either results or may result in a conflict of interest, unless the
matter is clearly applicable to the resident board member only in a personal capacity and applies uniquely to that
member and not generally to residents
or to a subcategory of residents.

PART 965—PHA-OWNED OR
LEASED PROJECTS—GENERAL

PROVISIONS
Subpart A—Preemption of State Prevailing
Wage Requirements
Sec.
965.101 Preemption of State prevailing wage
requirements.

Subpart B—Required Insurance Coverage
965.201 Purpose and applicability.
965.205 Qualified PHA-owned insurance entity.
965.215 Lead-based paint liability insurance
coverage.

Subpart C—Energy Audits and Energy
Conservation Measures
965.301 Purpose and applicability.
965.302 Requirements for energy audits.
965.303 [Reserved].
965.304 Order of funding.
965.305 Funding.
965.306 Energy conservation equipment and
practices.
965.307 Compliance schedule.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 20:43 Apr 25, 2003 Jkt 200078 PO 00000 Frm 00467 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\200078T.XXX 200078T Item 3.I
04/12/22
12 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) (/) U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Home (/) / Program Offices
(/program_offices) / Public and Indian
Housing
(/program_offices/public_indian_housing)
/ Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plans
(/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha)
/ Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plans
(/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha/about)
/ Resident Advisory Board - Public
Housing Agency (PHA) Plans

RESIDENT ADVISORY

BOARD - PHA PLANS
Forming the Resident Advisory
Board
What is required?
The Resident Advisory Board (RAB)
provides the PHA and the residents
with a forum for sharing information
about the Agency's Annual Plan.

Section 511 of the United States
Housing Act and the regulations in 24
CFR part 903 require that PHAs
establish one or more Resident
Advisory Board(s) (RAB) as part of the
PHA Plan process. RAB membership
is comprised of individuals who
reflect and represent the residents
assisted by the PHA. The role of the
RAB is to assist the PHA in developing
the PHA Plan and in making any
significant amendment or
modification to the Plan.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
13 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) What is the role of the RAB?
The main role of the RAB is to make
recommendations in the development
of the PHA Plan. In order to facilitate
collaboration, PHAs should encourage
the RAB's participation from the
inception of the planning process.

PHAs are also required to request
input from the RAB for any significant
amendment or modification to the
PHA Plan.

When should the RAB be appointed?
The RAB should be appointed well in
advance of the date that the PHA Plan
is due to HUD to ensure effective
resident participation in the
development of the plan.

Who can participate on the RAB?
If a jurisdiction-wide resident council
is in place that complies with tenant
participation regulations at 24 CFR
Part 964, the PHA must appoint this
group or its representatives as the
Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA
does not have a jurisdiction-wide
resident council, then it should
appoint resident councils or their
representatives to serve as one or
more of the RABs. A PHA may require
that the resident councils choose a
limited number of representatives to
serve as RAB members.

Where there are no resident councils
that comply with the tenant
participation regulations, then the
PHA must appoint one or more RABs
or board members as needed to
adequately reflect and represent the
residents assisted by the PHA. The
Item 3.I
04/12/22
14 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) PHA should give adequate notice of its
intentions to the residents and
encourage the residents to form
resident councils that comply with the
tenant participation regulations. PHAs
have discretion in determining the
method of appointment of RABs, as
long as a PHA ensures that its RAB or
RABs reflect and represent all the
residents assisted by the PHA.

What about Section 8 recipients?
Because Section 8 residents do not
have resident councils, PHAs with a
significant sized tenant based
assistance program must ensure that
Section 8 residents are adequately
represented or that reasonable efforts
are made to secure their participation
in the RAB. A significant sized tenant
based assistance program is one
where at least 20 percent of the total
PHA's households receive tenantbased assistance.

Section 8-only PHAs are not exempt
from the RAB requirement and must
also appoint one or more RABs that
adequately represent the population
served. Given that there are no
resident councils that comply with the
tenant-participation regulations
under the tenant-based assistance
program, Section 8-only PHAs have
discretion in the RAB appointment
process. Participation in a RAB is
limited to residents that are assisted
under federally assisted public
housing and the Section 8 tenantbased program.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
15 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) How many RABs are required?
PHAs that do not have a jurisdictionwide RC have discretion to determine the number of RABs that they may
appoint. PHAs are required to
institute at least one RAB; the number
of RABs beyond that number will
depend on the size and the complexity
of the PHA or its developments. In
deciding the number of RABs to be
established, a PHA should consider
how adequate representation of its
entire resident population can be
provided.

How does the PHA fix the term of
service?
There is no fixed term for
membership on a RAB. A PHA has
discretion to establish its own policy
regarding the duration of the
appointments. In determining the
tenure to be adopted, PHAs may
consider the number of RABs and the
number of residents who volunteered
to serve. Greater RAB participation
may be realized by rotating residents'
tenure.

What if the PHA cannot establish a
RAB?
If, after making all possible endeavors,
a PHA is not successful in establishing
a RAB, it may appoint all of the
agency's assisted residents as
members of the RAB. The PHA must
notify all of its members that they
have been appointed as members and
inform them of their role and
responsibilities regarding the
development of the PHA Plan. The
PHA must also provide residents with
Item 3.I
04/12/22
16 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) noti
fication of meetings (at least 48
hours in advance) and provide copies
of any materials for review.

Encouraging Participation in
the RAB
Residents who volunteer to be part of
the RAB can be excellent partners to
the PHA during the development of
the PHA Plan. Although PHAs are
expected to make a significant effort
to ensure adequate resident
representation in the Resident
Advisory Boards, securing
participation by residents during the
planning process may pose a
challenge for some PHAs.

How can a PHA encourage residents to
take advantage of the RAB
opportunity?
Personal appeals are one strategy.

Executive Directors may be more
likely to get commitments from
residents if they personally request
their participation. Residents might
also be hesitant to volunteer to work
with a Resident Advisory Board if they
do not really understand their role as
a member of the RAB. The PHA
provide adequate information to all
residents regarding the RAB. The PHA
should inform residents of the
purpose and role of the RAB, as well as
practical information such as the time
commitment required. The PHA
should make clear to residents and
Section 8 participants that the
partnership between the residents
and the PHA is of benefit to both
parties. The residents are provided
Item 3.I
04/12/22
17 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) with an opportunity to voice their
concerns so that their needs are
addressed and they can become
involved in the planning process. The
PHA also gains essential information
from the residents about the
improvements that need to be made at
the agency's developments and
residents' self-sufficiency needs. This
information helps the PHA to set
priorities for capital improvements
and advises resident services
programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to
ensure that the RAB can adequately
serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs
sufficient time to review and
make recommendations on the
Plan. RABs will be able to
contribute best if they are
provided with adequate
information regarding the PHA's
programs and the policies
included in the Five-Year and
Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs
advance notice of meetings
scheduled to discuss areas of the
Plan (generally, at least 48 hours,
or more depending on the
meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided
with any existing documents that
would assist them to make
Item 3.I
04/12/22
18 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) productive recommendations
during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs
with reasonable means to carry
out their functions such as
making available a meeting place
for discussing programs with the
residents. RABs should also have
access to any other
communication tools such as a
telephone, writing material, or
computers that may facilitate
their contacts with other
resident households or to obtain
further information on the
programs.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) in the process, including some initial
recommendations. A PHA must
consider the recommendations of the
RABs and make revisions to drafts or
to the Plan which it deems
appropriate.

Public Notice and Comment
Period Requirements
The PHA governing body is required
to convene a public hearing to discuss
their Five-Year and/or Annual Plan
and to prompt comments from the
public regarding their proposed
activities. PHAs must consider, in
consultation with the RABs, all the
comments received at the public
hearing.

PHAs are required to carry out the
following steps at least forty-five (45)
days prior to the scheduled public
hearing:

Publish a notice indicating that a
public hearing to present the
Plan and further public
comments will be held including
time, date and location. The
notice should also indicate
where the Plan and pertaining
documents will be available for
their review. The documents
should be maintained at an
accessible place such as the
PHA's central office.

Conduct outreach activities to
promote comprehensive
participation in the public
hearing.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
20 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Any signi
ficant amendment or
modification to the plan is subject to
the public hearing and RABs'
assessment requirements.

Incorporating Comments into
the Plan
PHAs are required to consider the
RAB's recommendations to the Plan
but are not required to agree with
them. The recommendations received
must be submitted by the PHAs as a
required attachment to the Plan. PHAs
must also include a narrative
describing their analysis of the
recommendations and the decisions
made on these recommendations. It is
prudent for PHAs to acknowledge
those recommendations that conform
to the programs and the mission of the
PHA. If the RABs do not provide
recommendations to the Plan, the
PHA must document that in the
attached narrative.

Announcement of Membership
of the RAB
PHAs must provide an attachment to
the PHA Plan listing the members of
its Resident Advisory Board(s). If the
number of participants is too large to
reasonably list, then the attachment
should include a list of the
organizations represented on the RAB
or other description sufficient to
identify how members were chosen.

RAB Notification of Plan Process
To ensure that the RAB is fully
engaged in the full plan process, PHAs
are required to promptly provide a
Item 3.I
04/12/22
21 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) copy of the HUD award letter
(identifying formula share allocations
for Capital Fund and Drug Elimination
Programs), plan approval letter and at
least one copy of the approved plan to
each RAB.

Jump to...

Forming the Resident Advisory
Board
Encouraging Participation in the
RAB
PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
Public Notice and Comment Period
Requirements
Incorporating Comments Into the
Plan
Announcement of Membership of
the RAB
RAB Notification of Plan Process
Related Information
PHA Plan Desk Guide
(/sites/documents/DOC_8904.pdf)
Public Housing Assessment System
(PHAS)
(/sites/documents/DOC_11732.html)
24 CFR 903.13 and 903.17
(https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR2002-title24-vol4/CFR-2002-title24- vol4-sec903-13)
Notice PIH 2000-36
(/sites/documents/DOC_8906.pdf)
Item 3.I
04/12/22
22 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Notice PIH 2001-4
(/sites/documents/DOC_8907.pdf)
Notice PIH 2001-26
(/sites/documents/DOC_8908.pdf)
Agency
Resources
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410
T: 202-708-1112
TTY: 202-708-1455
Find a HUD office near you (/localoffices)
Privacy Policy (/privacy_policy) | Web Policies
(/library/bookshelf11) | Accessibility (/accessibility) | Sitemap (/siteindex)
Item 3.I
04/12/22
23 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved. public housing fact sheet #2: The Resident Advisory Board questions answered in this fact sheet:
• What is a Resident Advisory Board (RAB)?
• How can you get involved?
important terms:
• Resident Advisory Board (RAB): a group of residents that advises the housing authority on the PHA Plan. • Resident Council: a group of public housing residents in your development that meet and talk about issues important to all residents. Sometimes members of the Resident Council are also members of the RAB. • jurisdiction: the area that your housing authority serves. A jurisdiction may be your city, state, or county. For example, the jurisdiction of the New York City Housing Authority is all of New York City. The jurisdiction of the Delaware Housing Authority is the entire state of Delaware.

1. WHAT IS A RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD (RAB)?
A Resident Advisory Board (RAB) is a group of residents that advises your housing authority about its Annual and 5-Year PHA Plans. That means that they look at the Plans and give the housing authority feedback. The law says that your housing authority has to have a RAB for the entire PHA Plan process.

The residents on the RAB should be similar to the residents living in public housing. If the public housing residents are very diverse, the RAB should also be very diverse. Housing authorities sometimes have more than one RAB.

2. WHAT ARE PHA PLANS AND WHAT IS THE PHA PLAN PROCESS? PHA Plans are developed by your housing authority. There is an Annual Plan, which is produced every year at the same time. There is also a 5-Year Plan, which talks about long-term goals. They contain a lot of information about your housing authority’s rules, including:
ü how tenants are admitted and evicted
ü decisions on collecting and raising rents
ü plans for resident programs, such as youth groups and job training seminars ü decisions about spending money on maintenance, repairs, security, and other programs The PHA Plan Process is a step-by-step process that your housing authority must follow each year to produce the annual PHA Plan. The housing authority must follow strict rules—and resident participation is important. The Resident Advisory Board is the key to effective resident participation.

For more information on PHA Plans, see “Public Housing Fact Sheet #1: PHA Annual and Five-Year Plans”.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
24 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved.

3. WHO BELONGS TO THE RAB?
The RAB is made up of public housing residents and resident leaders. The members should come from many different properties. Most housing authorities with a Section 8 voucher program have to choose voucher residents to serve on the RAB.

4. HOW IS A RAB CREATED?
In most cases, the housing authority creates the Resident Advisory Board. There are strict rules that the housing authority must follow in choosing members for the RAB. In some cases, there may be more than one RAB.

The Resident Council can play a very important role in creating the RAB. The Resident Council is different from the RAB. It is a group of public housing residents that gets together to talk about issues important to all residents.

Some Resident Councils are made up of members from just one property. Other Councils are made up of members from many properties—these Resident Councils are known as “jurisdiction-wide” councils.

If the Resident Council follows resident participation rules, then it has the right to select members for the RAB:

1. When the Resident Council is jurisdiction-wide: In this case, members of the Resident Council can become the RAB. This happens when the Resident Council is a jurisdic tion-wide council.

2. When there is more than one Resident Council from different properties: In this case, members from all of these Councils can become the RAB. The housing authority can also choose other public housing residents as additional members.

3. When there is no Resident Council: In this case, the housing authority can select all of the members for the RAB.

5. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RAB? WHAT DOES IT DO?
The purpose of the RAB is to participate in the PHA Plan Process and to represent the views of the residents.

RAB members should find out what issues are important to residents and what issues the housing authority should know about.

Your RAB is responsible for:
• reviewing your housing authority’s PHA Plans
• making comments on the PHA Plans (what’s good, what’s bad, what should be changed) • meeting with housing authority staff to talk about the PHA Plans.

If it wants, the RAB can talk about the PHA Plan without the help of any housing authority staff. The RAB can also meet with residents to get information and pass information along.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
25 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved.

Throughout the PHA Plan Process, your housing authority has to consider and respond to the comments of your RAB. It is the law!

6. WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE RAB?
By law, the housing authority has to provide resources to the RAB. Examples of resources include meeting space, computer access, supplies, and funds. The RAB needs resources in order to:
• understand housing authority policies and programs
• communicate with other residents
• hold resident meetings
• access the Internet
About Resident Participation Funds: In addition, “resident participation funds” may be available to work on the PHA Plan process. Each year, your housing authority receives $25 per apartment just for resident participation activities. If there is a Resident Council, then the Resident Council decides how to use this money.

If there is no Resident Council, then the RAB suggests how to spend it.

Residents might decide to use these funds to help pay for PHA Plan activities. Examples include training, organizing and meeting activities.

7. HOW CAN YOU GET INVOLVED WITH YOUR RAB?
• If there is a Resident Council:
· Talk to the Council members about becoming a RAB representative · Talk to the current RAB representative.
• If there is no Resident Council:
· Tell your housing authority that you want to be a member of the RAB · Think about forming a Resident Council. Talk to your neighbors about joining. • Talk with current RAB members to find out what’s going on. The housing authority should help you by giving you a list of members. A list of members should also be attached to the current PHA Plan. • Ask the RAB if you can attend RAB meetings.
• Find other partners to help you get involved. Examples of partners include local housing advocates, homeless advocates, church groups, unions, fair housing organizations.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
26 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
• 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c–1.
• 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 903 is available at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
• Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan Desk Guide (Sept. 20, 2001), available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/pha/
For additional information on the PHA Plan Process:
• Public Housing Fact Sheet #1: PHA Annual and Five-Year Plans • Residents’ Guide to the New Public Housing Authority Plans (Center for Community Change, June 1999) available at http://www.communitychange.org/publications/housingcommdev.htm (also available in Spanish) • HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (National Housing Law Proje ct, March 2004), Chapter 12 _______________

ABOUT THIS FACT SHEET
Public Housing Fact Sheet #2 was developed by the National Housing Law Project. Public Housing residents, resident groups and nonprofit organizations may reprint this Fact Sheet freely, but must give credit to the National Housing Law Project. All others must request permission to reprint by contacting us at [email protected].

Item 3.I
04/12/22
27 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Response to Your Emails
9 messages
George S. Cardona <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:59 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, OZ <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Denise AndersonWarren <[email protected]> Ms. Zurawska, Ms. Marasco, and Ms. Maggio:

I write in response to your September 14, September 17, September 19, and September 20, 2021 emails, copies of which are attached, and which raise several common issues.

Preliminarily, with respect to the makeup of the Santa Monica Housing Authority (“SMHA”) Resident Advisory Board (“RAB”) and Governing Board (“Board”), I note that the SMHA is a public housing agency that has no public housing units, but rather only administers Section 8 assistance.

Pursuant to the state Housing Authorities Law (Government Code Sections 34200, et seq.):

1. the City Council has appointed itself to serve as the SMHA Board, see Government Code Section 34290(a);

2. the City Council has established a Housing Commission, see Government Code Section 34292; and

3. both because the SMHA does not have tenants (but rather only administers Section 8 assistance) and because the SMHA has a Housing Commission to which tenant appointments are made, the Board is not required to have tenant members, see Government Code Section 34290(b), (c).

Pursuant to HUD regulations:

1. the SMHA must have a RAB, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(1);

2. the SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);

3. the SMHA must consider the recommendations of the RAB in preparing its final Annual Plan and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, see 24 CFR 903.13(c); and

4. unless the RAB is notified of the opportunity for residents to serve on the Board and no resident has indicated an interest in serving, the Board must include at least one eligible resident board member, that is, a member who is directly assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 964.410, 415, 425.

In compliance with these HUD requirements: The SMHA currently has a RAB consisting of all residents assisted under the SMHA’s Section 8 tenant-based program, that is, all SMHA Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) participants. On May 5, 2021, the SMHA sent notices to all SMHA HCV participants advising them of the opportunity to serve on the Board and the process for indicating an interest in serving. Because more than two SMHA HCV participants expressed an interest in serving, on June 29, 2021, a lottery was conducted in public view to select from those who had expressed interest two SMHA HCV participants to serve on the Board. The two SMHA HCV participants selected were: Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran. These two Board members and the email addresses at which they can be contacted are included on the Board’s webpage: https://santamonica.gov/housing-hab. It is up to the two Board members to determine for themselves whether/how to respond to any inquiries directed to them.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
28 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) On or about September 17, 2021, the SMHA circulated to all members of the RAB, that is, all SMHA HCV participants, and to all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, letters advising that SMHA was proposing changes to its Administrative Plan and soliciting comments on those changes. Copies of the letters are attached for your reference. As set forth in the letters, all RAB members, as well as all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, were advised:

1. the redline draft of the Administrative Plan showing the proposed changes, together with a summary of those changes, are available online at https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news;

2. comments on the proposed changes can be submitted through October 31, 2021 by mail or by email to [email protected];

3. the draft Administrative Plan will be considered at the October 21, 2021 meeting of the Hosing Commission, and subsequently at the December 14 , 2021 meeting of the Board, at both of which public input on the proposed changes may be provided; and

4. the contact information for the two RAB members serving on the Board is listed at https://santamonica.gov/ housing-hab.

As these letters indicate, all RAB members, and all Continuum of Care and HOME voucher participants are being provided with opportunities to comment (whether in writing, through public comment at the Housing Commission or Council meetings, or both) on the proposed changes to the SMHA Administrative Plan. Because all HCV participants are members of the RAB and are invited to participate in the Housing Commission meetings where Administrative Plan changes are considered, the meetings provide an opportunity for RAB members to meet with other HCV participants as participating families regarding the Administrative Plan. In addition, in making its recommendations to the SMHA Board regarding the Administrative Plan, the Housing Commission considers written comments as well as oral comments provided by RAB members and other members of the public. Additionally, all written comments submitted by RAB members and other members of the public during the public comment period, as well as the recommendations of the Housing Commission, are provided to the SMHA Board in its consideration of the Administrative Plan. Finally, RAB members, as well as other members of the public, are able to provide oral comments prior to the SMHA Board’s consideration of the Administrative Plan.

Title 24 CFR Section 578.75 sets out general operational requirements for a Continuum of Care program. In particular, Section 578.75(g)(1), captioned “participation of homeless individuals,” provides as follows:

Each recipient and subrecipient must provide for the participation of not less than one homeless individual or formerly homeless individual on the board of directors or other equivalent policymaking entity of the recipient or subrecipient, to the extent that such entity considers and makes policies and decisions regarding any project, supportive services, or assistance provided under this part. This requirement is waived if a recipient or subrecipient is unable to meet such requirement and obtains HUD approval for a plan to otherwise consult with homeless or formerly homeless persons when considering and making policies and decisions.

The City of Santa Monica requires that at least one member of the Housing Commission be a homeless or formerly homeless individual. This requirement is designed to address the HUD requirement by giving the homeless or formerly homeless individual who is a Commission member an opportunity to participate in all aspects of local affordable housing policy, not solely SMHA matters. City staff has consulted with HUD staff regarding this approach, and HUD staff recommended that the City apply for a waiver to ensure express HUD approval of the City’s approach, which is intended to enable broader participation in housing matters. Accordingly, the City will be applying to HUD for a waiver of the requirement that a homeless or formerly homeless individual be on the SMHA Board, and will provide public notice as to whether or not HUD grants the requested waiver.

The Housing Commission conducts its regular meetings at 6:00 pm on the third Thursday of each month. For September, the regular meeting of the Housing Commission was scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2021. That date, however, was Yom Kippur, which is considered the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and involves fasting, prayer, and repentance. The Housing Commission cancelled its regular meeting on that date, and a special meeting was scheduled one week later, at 6:00 pm September 23, 2021. The Chair and Vice-Chair retain broad discretion with respect to scheduling of Housing Commission meetings. It is not an abuse of that discretion to reschedule a meeting based on concern that one or more commissioners or a segment of the public will be unable to attend because of a particular religious holiday (whether or not that religious holiday is one the City recognizes as an official City holiday). Moreover, Item 3.I
04/12/22
29 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) while the September 16 meeting would have been a general meeting at which general public input was required by the Brown Act, and the September 23 meeting is a special meeting at which general public input is not required by the Brown Act, a specific agenda item authorizing general public input has been added to the agenda for the September 23 special meeting.

On July 27, 2021, under Agenda Item 13L, Council voted to direct staff to return with revisions to Board/Commission/Task Force procedures to include a nepotism policy specifying that a person cannot serve on a city board/commission/task force if that person is a close family member (spouse/partner, siblings, children, or parents) of a seated Councilmember and specifying that this restriction would be effective immediately upon its adoption, rather than permitting a person affected to serve out their existing term. Staff has not yet returned to Council for adoption of the proposed policy, with the result that it is not yet in effect. Accordingly, though Council has clearly expressed its desire that such a nepotism policy be adopted, there is currently no adopted nepotism policy in place that would obligate a commissioner to step down from their position. I have copied Denise Andersen-Warren, who is overseeing the revision of Board/Commission/Task Force procedures, so she is aware of your complaint in this regard.

On July 13, 2021, under Agenda Item 13K, Council voted to direct staff to return with a proposed ordinance, similar to that in place in Beverly Hills, that (1) more precisely defines what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate; (2) precludes any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force; and (3) precludes any member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate. Staff has not yet returned to Council with the requested proposed ordinance. As a result, there is no current ordinance defining precisely what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate, or barring such a lobbyist/legislative advocate from serving on a board, commission, or task force. I have copied Denise Andersen-Warren, who is overseeing the revision of Board/Commission/Task Force procedures, so she is aware of your complaint in this regard.

George S. Cardona
Interim City Attorney (310) 458-8375
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Item 3.I
04/12/22
30 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

As you all know, I have been actively trying to communicate and engage with the newly appointed RAB representatives since July 7, 2021, which was one week after the RAB representatives were appointed, in an effort to ensure that the RAB representatives give ALL Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders a voice in the drafting of revisions to the Annual and Administrative Plan (AP) process.

As of today, September 17, 2021, more than 3 months since I first contacted you all about engaging with the RAB representatives, I have not been able to communicate with either Donna Brown or Elizabeth Cochran, who are the current RAB representatives. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) barely contacted me two weeks ago with the email addresses of the RAB representatives, Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown even though they were appointed on June 29, 2021.

Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

To date, NONE of you have ever responded to my request to schedule a Zoom meeting and to notify all HCV holders about the meeting so everyone has a chance to ACTUALLY participate in a meaningful way and as is designed by HUD.

Even though a RAB has always been required per HUD regulations, the SMHA and the SMHAB have failed to meet this requirement since the time that the City of Santa Monica created a Housing Authority. If it had not been for the diligence and hard work of Olga Zurawska over the last two years to force the hand of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

As pointed out in the email I received today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft Administrative Plan, the SMHA officially, for the first time ever, notified HCV holders in March of this year that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

The fact is, any resident of Santa Monica has the opportunity to attempt to participate in the drafting of the AP by submitting public comment. However, without having an official functional RAB, that is comprised solely of HCV holders to discuss and carry forward the policy reccomendations for the draft of the AP, it has been pointless to submit comments. It is a well-known fact that the SMHA and SMHAB never take any of the public comments into consideration. The comment period literally only serves as something the SMHA and SMHAB check off of their list as a requirement you all complied with. At the 4/27/21 SMHAB meeting James Kemper confirmed that the SMHAB’s role is merely to rubber stamp the AP that SMHA staff puts before them.

Today is the first day of the 45 day comment period regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. Again, I am requesting a Zoom meeting be scheduled with the newly appointed RAB representatives and that ALL RAB members be notified. I am also requesting the SMHA and/or the SMHAB contact Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown to notify them that I am trying to contact them. Their sole purpose is to represent the recommendations of the entire RAB/ALL RAB members.

Additionally, It should be noted that RAB's have more function than to just review and agree or disagree with the SMHA's "redlined" revisions of the annual draft AP. RAB's can make policy change recommendations on any part of the more than 600 pages of the AP's. Below are the statements that were made in the email sent to me today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft revisions of the AP:
"SMHA has proposed changes to its Administrative Plan, and the public comment period is open for Item 3.I
04/12/22
31 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) feedback on those changes. As a member of the RAB, we welcome your thoughts on the proposed policy changes.

What’s Needed at This Time:

If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

The RAB is not to be influenced or controlled by either the SMHA or the SMHAB and should serve as a completely separate body to make recommendations for policy changes to the AP. SEE CFR Title 24 Section 903.13 below:
§ 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
32 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) (c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

It is also the role of the SMHA to provide adequate training and outreach activities to ensure participation of the RAB members and how to make AP recommendations that comply with HUD regulations and guidelines. The SMHA and the SMHAB have not conducted the outreach or training and have not disseminated any materials to assist the RAB Representatives and members.

The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Thank you Ann Topolewski for responding to the email that I sent to Andy Agle on August 26, 2021. I requested that Andy Agle respond no later than September 2, 2021. However, the response you sent to me on August 30, 2021, on behalf of Andy Agle, only provided me with the contact information for the newly appointed RAB members but you did not address the entirety of my request.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

September 16, 2021 is when the RAB/SMHAB will begin discussions about the above mentioned proposed changes. Please immediately schedule the requested Zoom meeting. Kindly schedule it at a time that will be convenient for the majority of Section 8 tenants to participate, preferably in the evening, and please notify ALL Section 8 tenants about the meeting, and encourage them to participate.

Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 3.I
04/12/22
34 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Theresa,
You can find information about the Housing Authority Board(HAB) members on the Housing Authority News & Notices page (link below). The most recent notice provides a link to the new HAB webpage. https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news
Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
A picture containing text, sign Description automatically generated From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image removed by sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
35 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring." As you can imagine I am baffled as to why there are so many people involved yet it is taking a very long time to set up simple emails and a Zoom conference call. It is becoming more than apparent that the more than 1,500 Section 8 voucher holders in this city are not a priority to the people who are paid to administer the program - the SMHA.

I have copied all of the SMHAB members/SMCC, the Housing Commission members and chair, James Kemper, and an array of City of Santa Monica staff, as well as several residents regarding the below requests. I am beyond frustrated and dismayed that all I have been provided are empty commitments, stonewalling, and no action. My requests are part of HUD's mandates. You and Mr. Kemper should be Item 3.I
04/12/22
36 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) fully aware of that fact so I am not asking for anything outlandish, or unorthodox, or even difficult.

Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the Item 3.I
04/12/22
37 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below: (hyperlink to HUD mandate re: RAB) "Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provides adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response to this matter by next Thursday, September 2, 2021.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Andy Agle <[email protected]> wrote:

Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members.

Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website.

From: John Jalili <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees Dear Ms. Marasco,
You have reached me on a closed Friday and I am not able to reach out to Mr. Kemper and his supervisor, Andy Agle until next week. I have complete confidence in our staff and suggest you continue to work with them to resolve your issues. Thanks.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
39 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 4:30 PM
To: John Jalili <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <Anna.Topolewski@santamonica. gov>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mr. Jalili:

Please provide me with a material response to my email of 8/6/21 (enclosed).

When responding to that email on 8/6/21 you did not use "reply all,” which is why I have cut, pasted, and highlighted your insufficient response below:

Hello Ms. Marasco:

Thank you for alerting me about your concerns.

I was not "alerting" you, I was requesting that you provide me with the answers to my requests.

My email to you on 8/6/2021 specifically requested that SMHA organize a Zoom meeting for the RAB to be able to meet and communicate with the two individuals who are supposed to represent the RAB on the SMHA Board.

The whole reason for the RAB is to give Section 8 voucher holders a voice and to have RAB representatives on the SMHAB who can speak on our behalf during SMHAB meetings. How can the representatives on the SMHAB represent the RAB if the RAB is deprived of the opportunity to contact snd communicate with its own representatives?
I realize this is a new concept for the City of SM with regard to giving Section 8 voucher holders a voice even though it has been required by federal regulations for decades. It certainly doesn't take months to give the new appointees and the voucher holders a way to communicate and organize a Zoom meeting for them.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) resolving. I have asked you for your assistance in resolving this matter because the other public officials such as Mr. Kemper and others who have been copied on my emails, whose job it is to resolve this issue, have not done so as of the writing of this email even though I have requested the same of them.

Your position with the City is the Interim City Manager. You are also the Interim Executive Director of the SMHA. You are paid to assist residents in this city with the problems and issues we face. I do not get paid to send endless emails that seem to go nowhere in this city. I have complained about the lack of response by the SMHA and other departments in the city many times but still, no change has come about.

This is dysfunctional and unacceptable for the residents. As a resident I should not be put in a position where I have to consider contacting my senator or congressman to resolve a local issue regarding a federal program administered within the City of Santa Monica.

I await your material response to my 8/6/21 email. Please provide it at your earliest convenience.

Image removed by sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:00 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board Item 3.I
04/12/22
41 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members."
I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent. Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Please respond by 5 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Item 3.I
04/12/22
43 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
6 attachments
Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees.eml 284K
item 14 - Fw: A California Bar complaint is about to be filed against you.eml 34K
Cease And Desist - Remove Lobbyists and Adhere to Nepotisim Ban for Commissions NOW.eml 24K
Legality of reason to reschedule HC meeting.eml
114K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to RAB.docx
64K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to Voucher Holders.docx 63K
Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:42 PM To: oz <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]> What is this BS??
[Quoted text hidden]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Item 3.I
04/12/22
44 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

What’s Needed at This Time:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
45 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
Item 3.I
04/12/22
48 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

EXTERNAL
Image removed by sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
49 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
50 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Good afternoon John Jalili:

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members Item 3.I
04/12/22
51 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in ad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

What’s Needed at This Time:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
55 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili, beginning on August 6, 2021, I specifically requested the following:
"...I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
56 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image removed by sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
58 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) "Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on Item 3.I
04/12/22
60 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response to this matter by next Thursday, September 2, 2021.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Andy Agle <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
61 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members.

Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website.

From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 4:30 PM
To: John Jalili <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <Anna.Topolewski@santamonica. gov>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mr. Jalili:

Please provide me with a material response to my email of 8/6/21 (enclosed).

When responding to that email on 8/6/21 you did not use "reply all,” which is why I have cut, pasted, and highlighted your insufficient response below:

Hello Ms. Marasco:

Thank you for alerting me about your concerns.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
62 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) I was not "alerting" you, I was requesting that you provide me with the answers to my requests.

I requested that an answer be provided to me by 8/11/2021. Today is 8/13.2021. You are a public official and you have a duty to resolve issues such as the ones I have brought to your attention and requested assistance in resolving. I have asked you for your assistance in resolving this matter because the other public officials such as Mr. Kemper and others who have been copied on my emails, whose job it is to resolve this issue, have not done so as of the writing of this email even though I have requested the same of them.

I await your material response to my 8/6/21 email. Please provide it at your earliest convenience.

Image removed by sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 3.I
04/12/22
63 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:00 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members."
I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to Item 3.I
04/12/22
64 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

Please see excerpts from HUD below:
"Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provide adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Please respond by 5 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
9 attachments
image001.png
27K
image0.jpeg
69K
image001.png
Item 3.I
04/12/22
66 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 27K
Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees.eml 284K
item 14 - Fw: A California Bar complaint is about to be filed against you.eml 34K
Cease And Desist - Remove Lobbyists and Adhere to Nepotisim Ban for Commissions NOW.eml 24K
Legality of reason to reschedule HC meeting.eml
114K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to RAB.docx
64K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to Voucher Holders.docx 63K
T
From: George S. Cardona <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 10:59 AM
Subject: Response to Your Emails
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, OZ <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Denise AndersonWarren <[email protected]> Ms. Zurawska, Ms. Marasco, and Ms. Maggio:

I write in response to your September 14, September 17, September 19, and September 20, 2021 emails, copies of which are attached, and which raise several common issues.

Pursuant to the state Housing Authorities Law (Government Code Sections 34200, et seq.):

Item 3.I
04/12/22
67 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan)

1. the City Council has appointed itself to serve as the SMHA Board, see Government Code Section 34290(a);

2. the City Council has established a Housing Commission, see Government Code Section 34292; and

Pursuant to HUD regulations:

1. the SMHA must have a RAB, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(1);

3. the SMHA must consider the recommendations of the RAB in preparing its final Annual Plan and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, see 24 CFR 903.13(c); and

On or about September 17, 2021, the SMHA circulated to all members of the RAB, that is, all SMHA HCV participants, and to all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, letters advising that SMHA was proposing changes to its Administrative Plan and soliciting comments on those changes. Copies of the letters are attached for your reference. As set forth in the letters, all RAB members, as well as all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, were advised:

1. the redline draft of the Administrative Plan showing the proposed changes, together with a summary of those changes, are available online at https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news;

2. comments on the proposed changes can be submitted through October 31, 2021 by mail or by email to [email protected];

4. the contact information for the two RAB members serving on the Board is listed at https://santamonica.gov/ housing-hab.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
68 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Title 24 CFR Section 578.75 sets out general operational requirements for a Continuum of Care program. In particular, Section 578.75(g)(1), captioned “participation of homeless individuals,” provides as follows:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
69 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) George S. Cardona
Interim City Attorney (310) 458-8375
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

What’s Needed at This Time:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
73 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image
removed
by
sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
77 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Thanking you in ad

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
78 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

What’s Needed at This Time:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
79 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) § 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
80 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
81 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image
removed
by
sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
83 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
84 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Good afternoon John Jalili:

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response to this matter by next Thursday, September 2, 2021.

Very truly yours,
Item 3.I
04/12/22
86 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Andy Agle <[email protected]> wrote:

Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members.

Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website.

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan)

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mr. Jalili:

Please provide me with a material response to my email of 8/6/21 (enclosed).

When responding to that email on 8/6/21 you did not use "reply all,” which is why I have cut, pasted, and highlighted your insufficient response below:

Hello Ms. Marasco:

Thank you for alerting me about your concerns.

I was not "alerting" you, I was requesting that you provide me with the answers to my requests.

This is dysfunctional and unacceptable for the residents. As a resident I should not be put in a position where I have to consider contacting my senator or Item 3.I
04/12/22
88 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) congressman to resolve a local issue regarding a federal program administered within the City of Santa Monica.

I await your material response to my 8/6/21 email. Please provide it at your earliest convenience.

Image
removed
by
sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:00 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members."
I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general Item 3.I
04/12/22
89 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) public.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with Item 3.I
04/12/22
90 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Please respond by 5 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
Item 3.I
04/12/22
91 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM James Kemper <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Miss Marasco,
City offices were closed on Friday, when you sent your original email, as well as Monday, for the holiday.

Regarding your question about he two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring.

Jim Kemper (he/him)
Housing Program Manager
310-434-2647
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 8:27 AM
To: James Kemper <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]> Subject: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good morning James Kemper:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
92 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) I sent you the below email last week but you did not respond. It is upsetting and disturbing that the Housing Division/Santa Monica Housing Authority does not feel they are obligated to respond to my emails. Ms. Topolewski completely ignores my emails and she is the supervisor. As a client and a longtime voucher holder I find this to be very problematic and is the reason a RAB should have been in place 20 years ago. Section 8 voucher holders need representation and someone to go to when those who get paid fail to respond to important questions or concerns. With that being said, please see the email I sent last week below and respond - it only takes a minute.

I am a Section 8 voucher holder. I submitted my name for the RAB lottery, but unfortunately, my name was not chosen. However, I am still interested in being actively involved, and everyone who is a RAB member, who wants to be involved, should have the ability to do so. With that being said, I would like to know how to contact the newly chosen RAB appointees.

Will they be given official email addresses for RAB members to contact them and will that information be provided to all Section 8 voucher holders? We are coming up on a new cycle to provide input on the Annual and Administrative Plans for the SMHA. There are several of us RAB members that want to work directly with the appointees.

Please advise upon receipt of this email as to how I can contact the new RAB appointees.

Thank you.

Image
removed
by
sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051

EXTERNAL
Please see the enclosed email of 9/13/2021.

Again, I request that Continuum of Care (CoC) representation be immediately established on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board as mandated by 24 CFR 578.75(g)(1).

There are CoC program participants ready to volunteer to serve on the SMHA Board.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
93 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) SMHA's refusal to follow the federal law in this case is reminiscent of their refusal to establish the federally mandated representation of Section 8 tenants on the SMHA Board. It took me almost two years to force the SMHA to finally comply with the federal law: https://www.smobserved.com/story/2020/10/12/opinion/ liberal-city-of-santa-monica-disenfranchises-section-8-tenants/4959.html In a city with two practicing attorneys on the City Council/Housing Authority Board, and where slogans of "equity" and "inclusion" are constantly being thrown around, this is unacceptable.

Unless the equity and inclusion is meant only for people who are NOT low-income or formerly homeless? Ms. Sue Himmelrich, Mayor of Santa Monica and Chair of the SMHA Board, who apparently works for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, should be embarrassed. WCLP Executive Director and staff are copied on this email – perhaps it will be helpful in their policy work.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: OZ <[email protected]>
To: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; George S. Cardona <[email protected]> Cc: Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; oscar.delarorre <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; John Jalili <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; Michael Soloff <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; Carl Hansen <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jorge Casuso <[email protected]>; Santa Monica Observer <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Catanzaro Sam <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021, 03:25:03 PM PDT
Subject: A California Bar complaint is about to be filed against you Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Chair Himmelrich, Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Member Davis and Interim City Attorney Cardona,
Please be advised that a California State Bar complaint will be filed against each of you if you continue allowing the violation of 24 CFR 578.75(g)(1) in Santa Monica.

The above HUD regulation mandates Continuum of Care (CoC) representation on the policymaking entity of the recipient or subrecipient of CoC funding, i.e. the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board.

You have been on notice of the lack of the mandatory CoC representation on the SMHA Board for over a year now, but have neglected to take any steps to remedy the violation.

Such willful negligence is unethical, and therefore unacceptable of city officials and licensed attorneys.

It is also in stark contrast to your stated commitment to advancing equity and inclusion in Santa Monica.

I request to be notified by 5pm on September 17, 2021 that steps are being taken to establish the federally mandated CoC representation in time for the SMHA Board's consideration of the next Item 3.I
04/12/22
94 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) SMHA Administrative Plan.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Sent
from
Mailspring

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Interim City Manager Jalili, Interim City Attorney Cardona, Mayor Himmelrich, City Council Representatives, Housing Commission Chair Buchanan and Housing Commissioner Hamilton, The City Council voted to ban lobbyists from appointed positions on 7/13/21. On 7/27/21 the City Council voted to ban nepotism, effective immediately, for appointees to our city government comittees, commissions, and task forces. The spirit of these actions were intended to eliminate service by potential opportunists and/or those otherwise favored by Council from representing Santa Monicans and our City. Two months have passed and members that fall under the bans are still seated. This letter asks that the City Cease and Desist from engaging in practices that violate the will of the City Council. It is unacceptable for City leadership to turn a blind eye to righteous policy as interpreted and understood by the people of Santa Monica. The City must immediately remove appointees who no longer meet the city criteria for these appointments.

The City Council was supposed to have voted on new appointments to commission/boards/task forces by June 30th. Six City Council meetings later and still the Mayor and City Manager have failed to make an agenda that includes appointments for many vacant seats. It is neither appropriate nor acceptable for so much inaction for such a lenthy period of time and it gives the appearance that the prolonged delay continues in order facilitate recruitment opportunities by elected officials and/or appointed members. Therefore, Mayor Himmelrich and City Manager Jalili, I respectfully ask that you call a Special Meeting of the City Council and complete these appointments without delay. Should this not happen, I'll be asking my representatives to add two ITEM 13's to the next Council agenda. One Item would be to vote on a motion that would send a letter to those seated who no longer fit the council criteria for service, respectfully asking that they immediately resign from their posts. The other Item would be a request for council to swiftly establish a timely deadline to bring appointments to the Council Agenda so these bodies with many holes in them can be filled.

Additionally, it should be noted with great concern that the public has not had a VOICE at a Housing Commission Meeting since JULY 15th! Given the dire situations folks may find themselves in as the Eviction Moratorium is set to expire , this is 100% unacceptable! The Housing Commission Meeting that was supposed to happen last week was cancelled with 48 hrs notice due to the Jewish holiday. This meeting was replaced by SPECIAL Meeting to be held on Sept. 23. SPECIAL MEETINGS prevent GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS according to the commission rules!. Will this meeting include two members who refuse to step down as a result of the July bans? The Housing Commission is no longer a body for the people so any vote taken by this body without first removing the people who no longer qualify to serve can not be acted upon.

The City must follow the will of the city council who were voted in to represent the people.

Please provide a favorable response to my request by 5 pm tomorrow or an explaination as to why you do not believe I am correct in making this request.

Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein

EXTERNAL
Hello Ms. Anderson-Warren and Mr. Cardona,
Item 3.I
04/12/22
95 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) I am writing to inquire as to the legality of the reason for the rescheduling of the regular meeting of the Housing Commission from September 16, 2021 to September 23, 2021 when the meeting will be a “special” meeting, i.e. one that does not allow for general public input.

The reason for the rescheduling, as stated in an email from the Housing Department, appears to be a religious holiday (see the screenshot):

However, upon consulting with the Santa Monica City Hall Calendar, I found no notice of any holiday observed by the municipal government on September 16, 2021 (see the screenshot):

Please provide me with an explanation as to the legality of citing a religious holiday as a reason for the cancellation and postponement of the Housing Commission meeting in light of the fact that the City of Santa Monica does not celebrate any holiday on September 16, 2021.

This request is warranted due to concerns that the cancellation of the September 16, 2021 meeting at the last moment at about 2pm on September 14, 2021 took the community by surprise and deprived it of the opportunity to participate in a long-awaited meeting. Additionally, the postponement to a “special” meeting on September 23, 2021 deprives the public of the opportunity to offer general public input.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
96 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) As you may know, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Housing Commission in recent months, from concerns about a paid Executive Director of a legislative advocacy organization serving on it, to concerns about Mayor Himmelrich’s husband serving on it, to concerns about the apparent coup that Mayor Himmelrich’s husband performed in order to prematurely install new commission leadership prior to the new commissioner appointments having been made by the Council.

Some community members believe that the above are examples of abuse of power, and attempts to hold on to the political control that is slipping away from Mayor Himmelrich and her husband, and from the special interests they represent in Santa Monica’s municipal government.

I am looking forward to your response.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
image0.jpeg
69K
Item 3.I
04/12/22
97 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan)

1. the SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);"
[Quoted text hidden]
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Response to Your Emails
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio Thanawalla <[email protected]> Dear Interim City Attorney,
I am writing to you in response to former Interim City Attorney George Cardona's email to me sent on September 23rd.

I believe Mr. Cardona had taken a position on whether or not Housing Commissioner Camner qualified as a lobbyist based on Camner's own insufficient response from the FPPC since she failed to provide the necessary documentation to make a properly informed decision on the matter.

Please provide any and all documentation of Mr. Cardona's position on this matter. It has been three months now since the City Council agreed to eliminate lobbyists from serving in appointed positions yet staff has not bothered to return with an ordinance for council to approve.

Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 3.I
04/12/22
98 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) [Quoted text hidden]
Item 3.I
04/12/22
99 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 3. 1
Attachments: 2022-04-12_TMARASCO - PUBLIC INPUT-CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. 1..pdf

EXTERNAL
Date: April 12, 2022

Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting April 12, 2022

Re: Agenda Item 3-I/Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan

Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board and City Council Members:

I am submitting this public comment as a Santa Monica Resident and RAB Member and not as the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission, regarding Agenda Item 3. I - the Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan and recommended actions to 1. Adopt the FY2022-2023 Santa Monica Housing Authority Annual Plan; 2. Authorize the submission of the FY2021-2023 Annual Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I object to the adoption of these plans for the following reasons:

1. The RAB has had no opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans, which do not include the voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the City. The RAB has never been able to meet in more than 14 years. a. After 14 years the RAB was finally created in May of 2021. Two RAB representatives were appointed by the Santa Monica City Council in June of 2021. I requested information on how to contact the RAB representatives in or about July 7, 2021, but email addresses were not created for the two RAB members until August 30, 2021. I requested several times via email that the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) assist with scheduling a Zoom meeting for all RAB members to meet with the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran, to discuss the upcoming Annual Plan, but the SMHA never responded to that request. I also emailed Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran several times requesting to speak with them but they never responded. The RAB only exists on paper and continues to be left out of the conversation with regard to making discretionary changes to the Annual, Administrative, and the Five Year Plans.
b. RAB members RAB should be able to meet quarterly to discuss the Annual and Administrative Plans coming up each year, and all housing issues, concerns, or changes recommended by the greater number of active RAB members should be Section 8/HCV holders or RAB c. Even though email addresses were provided by the City of SM for the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown, and Elizabeth Cochran, they have not responded to my emails requesting to speak with them about the Annual and Administrative Plan, and therefore request Item 3.I
04/12/22
100 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 2 that the Annual and Administrative Plans are not approved before the 45 day review period conducted by HUD of the Annual Plan. (See attached emails regarding the RAB)

2. I request that SMHA Board does not approve the Annual and Administrative Plans until the RAB has had an opportunity to meet. I request that a meeting of the RAB take place within the next 30 days via Zoom or Bluejeans. The SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);"
Examples of urgent needs that need to be discussed with the RAB a. Disparity of treatment of all subsidized tenants preferential treatment as to who gets housing subsidized and/or housing, or who gets rehoused, slow turn around time for reasonable accommodations, and processing of RTA packets when Voucher Holder’s are attempting to “lease-up.” b. Disparity in treatment of low-income, disabled persons and older females, who need to have a voice to speak about fair housing rights being violated, to advise the RAB to address within the Annual and Administrative Plans each year.
c. No real informal review, appeal, or grievance process if SMHA program participants do not agree with a decision made by the SMHA regarding their participation in the program but is required by HUD to ensure due process for participants.
d. Lack of transparency in AFF/Subsidized housing; etc. (preferential treatment who gets housing.) The SMHA need to make available a comprehensive list of all shelters, project based housing, deedrestricted/tax credit, and/or affordable housing units in the city. The City and County of San Diego publish such a list for public access. Santa Monica can easily publish a list like San Diego (See attached example of San Diego’s list of housing.)
Link to San Diego Housing List https://www.sdhc.org/housing-opportunities/affordable-rentals/ e. The City of Santa Monica needs to publish waitlists for Section 8; CCSM; and AFF/Deed restricted; tax credit properties. The Cochise County Housing Authority in Arizona publishes such a list. (See attached example of Housing Waitlist in Cochise County) f. No landlord liaison: There are known problems with habitability issues, harassment of long-term tenants, and source of income discrimination against subsidized tenants when applying for rental units.

There are numerous stories in the news documenting the harassment and uninhabitable conditions of entire buildings here in Santa Monica. The City is well aware of the problems but does not have funds to protect tenants, specifically the Consumer Protection Unit, overseen by attorney Gary Rhoades, reportedly has not responded to numerous complaints, the complaints that the Consumer Protection does respond to is limited to sending letters to landlords as it has been indicated that the City of Santa Monica does not have the funding to go after bad landlords. g. Legal Aid cannot take legal action against the landlord and will not represent subsidized tenants in any dispute or action needed regarding the SMHA.
h. Due to lack of representation for low income and/or susidized tenants, their is a need for HUD experienced legal advisor(s)/advocate(s) to comprehensively advise them of their rights, and to guide/represent them in any informal review or state hearing as provided for in CFR 24 Item 3.I
04/12/22
101 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) 3 i. There is a need for an ADA Coordinator who does not have conflicts with tenants and is actively responding to complaints and requests for assistance. Reportedly, the current ADA Coordinator has been unresponsive to requests for assistance.

I have attached copies of HUD Guidelines and Regulations regarding Resident Advisory Boards and the role of the Santa Monica Housing Authority in ensuring that RAB members are able to have meaningful engagement and input on the very documents that directly impact Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher and all subsidized SMHA Program Participants.

I have also attached copies of emails showing all the efforts I made to request an official meeting of the RAB.

Thank you.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
Item 3.I
04/12/22
102 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

3.I.e
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Written Comment (4952 : Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan) Housing Authority
Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022
Agenda Item: 3.J
1 of 1
To: Housing Authority
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Approval of minutes for Housing Authority meeting Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Housing Authority approve the minutes of the February 8, 2022 meeting.

Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes

3.J
Packet Pg. 1146
1 February 8, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica Housing Authority was called to order by Chair Himmelrich at 10:02 p.m., on Tuesday, February 8, 2022, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361 signed by, Governor Gavin Newsome at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.

Roll Call: Present: Chair Sue Himmelrich
Vice Chair Kristin McCowan
Commissioner Phil Brock
Commissioner Gleam Davis
Commissioner Lana Negrete
Commissioner Oscar de la Torre
Commissioner Christine Parra
Also Present: Secretary David White
Interim Authority Attorney Joseph Lawrence
Authority Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE On order of the Chair, the Housing Authority convened to a joint meeting with the City Council and the Parking Authority at 10:02 p.m., with all members present.

REPORT ON MEETING

COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, Authority Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren announced that the members will receive $50 compensation for meeting as the Housing Authority.

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

FY 2021-22 MIDYEAR
BUDGET

8.A. Financial Status Update and FY 2021-22 Midyear Budget and Adoption of Resolutions, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council, Housing Authority and Parking Authority:

1. Appropriate FY 2021-22 midyear revenue and expenditure budget adjustments and approve corresponding adjustments to the FY 2022-23 budget plan (Attachment A);
Staff also recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the FY 2021-22 through FY 2027-28 Five Year Financial Forecast;

2. Direct staff to set aside $11 million in unprogrammed revenue to Assigned General Fund Reserves;

3.J.a
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes (5081 : HA Minutes-Keep w/ HA Item (1 min)) 2 February 8, 2022

3. Adopt Resolution No. 11400 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ESTABLISHING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADOPTING

SALARY RATES FOR THE FOLLOWING NEW OR EXISTING
CLASSIFICATIONS: ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE,

ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN, ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN II,

BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR, CROSSING GUARD,

EQUITY AND INCLUSION MANAGER, FACILITIES

ATTENDANT, LABORER TRAINEE, LIBRARY LITERACY

PROGRAM ASSISTANT, LIBRARY PAGE, PRINCIPAL

BUDGET ANALYST, PRINCIPAL BUYER, PRINCIPAL

PROCUREMENT ANALYST, POLICE CADET, PRODUCTION

ASSISTANT, SAFETY AND TRAINING SUPERVISOR, VIDEO

INTERN, VIDEO TECHNICIAN I, AND VIDEO TECHNICIAN
II” (Attachment B) and approve the position and classification changes (Attachment C);

4. Adopt Resolution No. 11401 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SETTING FORTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE

SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE, SETTING CIVIL

PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS AND FOR THE

LATE PAYMENT OF PENALTIES, SETTING FINES FOR

POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSES TO

EXCESSIVE FALSE ALARMS, AND SETTING FINES FOR
THE SANTA MONICA PUBLIC LIBRARY” (Attachment D);

5. Direct staff to proceed with research and analysis on various potential tax revenue measures;

6. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10929 with Moss Adams LLP, a Washington-based company, for internal auditing services for the City Manager’s Office. The modification would increase the third year amount by $240,000 for a new amended total not to exceed $931,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval, to complete a homeless services delivery audit and the Human Services Grants Program grantee monitoring; and

7. Approve a relocation allowance up to $25,000 for the Police Chief, effective retroactively to October 18, 2021.

Members of the public Denise Barton and Zina Josephs, spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: is it correct that the funding for the Pier Task Force is not included in this mid-year budget; can it be confirmed that those positions being filled are being filled with

3.J.a
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes (5081 : HA Minutes-Keep w/ HA Item (1 min)) 3 February 8, 2022
previous employees as part of the COVID layoffs; when does the 2-year retention deadline expire, and will previous employees be able to fill some of these positions; are we looking at federal funding to help some of the transportation initiatives and staffing; does Transportation have the staffing to take advantage of the Dept. of Transportation grants and funding, for example vision zero; is there any time when Council will be able to have a discussion about the Civic Auditorium, given the proposed CIP projects; is this taking into consideration things that have come up recently, like the Pier Task Force; was the small business liaison considered with the permit specialist position; why the increase now in HR and how does it encourage employee retention, and are these positions for recruitment; what would it cost to bring in an outside recruiter instead of hiring full-time employees; how much would it take to open Fairview Library a few days a week; how is the Ocean Park library drop off program working; what is the average transient occupancy tax (TOT) for neighboring cities; is there a point when visitors start to decline due to the high TOT rate; what’s the average parking fees for local areas and are we at the top of the scale; what is the business license modernization; will we go back to paying PERS the way we were before COVID; by adding the staff for Workers Comp, is it actually saving the city money; and, why is it necessary to add the Executive staff person in the City Attorney’s Office.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
concerns about the services that directly impact residents; would like to wait to hire staffing in the City Attorney until the new City Attorney is hired; we need more traffic and community officers and more public safety officers in the parks and streets; for all of the proposed taxes, can all of the neighboring cities be included and shared in the polling analysis; neighborhood funding and the newsletter should be included in the mid-year budget; frame the budget discussion by reflecting where we were before budget and where we would like to move forward with efficiencies; as part of the addition to the Police budget, include there is a need to support small businesses with safety and cleanliness; maybe coordinate city services to support small businesses; a good strategy to leverage city staff to receive grants; good that the city is looking into diversity and equity in procurement for underserved businesses; potentially increase the position in Finance that is being proposed; support a vendor cart coordinator for a future budget consideration; anything to support youth, seniors, and disabled in the city is a benefit, especially after COVID; microgrant programs should be incorporated in an upcoming budget.

Motion by Mayor/Chair Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by
Council/Authority Member Negrete, to adopt the staff recommendation to Appropriate FY 2021-22 midyear revenue and expenditure budget adjustments and approve corresponding adjustments to the FY 2022-23

3.J.a
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes (5081 : HA Minutes-Keep w/ HA Item (1 min)) 4 February 8, 2022
budget plan. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Council/Authority Members de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor/Chair Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor/Chair
Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT None
Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to receive the FY 2021-22 through FY 2027-28 Five Year Financial Forecast; and, to direct staff to set aside $11 million in unprogrammed revenue to Assigned General Fund Reserves. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt Resolution No. 11400 (CCS) establishing new classifications and adopting salary rates for various positions (Attachment B) and approve the position and classification changes (Attachment C). The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember de la Torre, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt Resolution No. 11401 (CCS) of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica revising the City’s master fine schedule for certain violations of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, eliminate overdue fines for adult cardholder accounts for the Santa Monica Public Library and to establish new non-standard fines for violations of the Second Shared Mobility Pilot Program Administrative Regulations. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Parra, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to

3.J.a
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes (5081 : HA Minutes-Keep w/ HA Item (1 min)) 5 February 8, 2022
direct staff to proceed with research and analysis on various potential tax revenue measures. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10929 with Moss Adams LLP, a Washington-based company, for internal auditing services for the City Manager’s Office. The modification would increase the third-year amount by $240,000 for a new amended total not to exceed $931,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval, to complete a homeless services delivery audit and the Human Services Grants Program grantee monitoring. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to approve a relocation allowance up to $25,000 for the Police Chief, effective retroactively to October 18, 2021. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MINUTES 8.B Approval of minutes for Housing and Parking Authority meetings, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the:

1. Housing Authority approve the minutes of the October 26, 2021 and November 23, 2021 meetings; and

2. Parking Authority approve the minutes of the October 26, 2021 meeting.

There was no public comment for this item.

3.J.a
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes (5081 : HA Minutes-Keep w/ HA Item (1 min)) 6 February 8, 2022
Motion by Authority Member Davis, seconded by Authority Member Negrete, to approve the minutes. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Authority Members Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Chair Pro Tem McCowan, Chair Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT: On order of the Chair, the special Housing Authority meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
Authority Clerk Chair

3.J.a
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: February 8, 2022 Housing Authority minutes (5081 : HA Minutes-Keep w/ HA Item (1 min)) 1 March 8, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2022
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:34 p.m., on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361signed by, Governor Gavin Newsome at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
Interim City Attorney Joseph Lawrence
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:34 p.m., with all members present. Councilmember Brock led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
The Mayor announced that the City has been advised that there is a settlement between the parties involved in the appeal scheduled for tonight.

Item 6.A. has been taken off the agenda and will not be heard tonight pending written withdraw of the appeal.

CLOSED SESSIONS There was no public comment on closed sessions.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:36 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 6:41 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

1.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Santa Monica Bayside Owners Association v.

City of Santa Monica and the California Coastal Commission, Los Angeles Superior Court 21SMCP00269

3.K
Packet Pg. 1153 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 March 8, 2022
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Wolfgang Mountford v. City of Santa Monica, U.S. District Court Case No. 2:20-CV-07220-MCS (Ex)
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

1.C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Anthony Echevarria v. City of Santa Monica, U.S. District Court Case No. 2:21-CV-05603-SVW (AGR)
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

1.D Public Employee Appointment:

Title – City Attorney
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS:

2.A. City Manager Report, was presented.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
Councilmember Brock reported that he traveled to Universal City for the League of CA Cities LA County Membership meeting where there was a presentation on district and redistricting battles over the past year in LA County and the State Legislator. He spoked with Mayors and Councilmembers about the state mandate Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) within the Southern California Association of Governments territory as well as ways to craft reasonable solutions.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

There was no public comment on the Consent Calendar.

At the request of Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Item 3.J was removed from the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 3.J, reading resolutions by

3.K
Packet Pg. 1154 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 March 8, 2022
title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

TRANSPORTATION

SOFTWARE

3.A. Approval of First Modification to Contract with Swiftly, Inc. for Software Service Solution for Department of Transportation, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11000 with Swiftly, Inc., for the Department of Transportation (DOT) Big Blue Bus (BBB) Division:

1. To add two additional customer-facing Swiftly Software as a Service (SaaS) modules, Service Adjustments and Rider Alerts, for the remainder of the contract term including all option years;

2. To extend the contract term of Swiftly’s cloud-hosted Software as a Service (SaaS) solution for customer-focused real-time schedule information and service performance metrics for staff by one additional option year through June 30, 2025; and,

3. To adjust the annual contract year-end from May 20 to June 30 to align with the fiscal year by making a one-time payment for 41 days of service in FY2021-22.

This will result in a five-year agreement ending June 30, 2025 with a new total amount not to exceed $1,373,304 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

WATER SYSTEM

PROCESS

IMPROVEMENTS

3.B. Approval of Second Modification to Agreement #10613 with Vertech Industrial Systems LLC for Programming Water,
Wastewater, Recycled Water and Storm Water Control System Process Improvements, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a second modification to agreement #10613 in the amount of $198,650 with Vertech Industrial Systems, LLC for programming water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm water control system process improvements for the Public Works Department. This will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $759,400, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1155 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 March 8, 2022
RECYCLING SERVICES 3.C. Award RFP #297 to Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services, for Organics Processing and Recycling Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP# 297 to Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services for organics processing and recycling services for the Public Works Department; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11244 (CCS) with Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services, in an amount not to exceed $4,280,000 (including a 10% contingency) for two years, with three additional one-year renewal options in the amount of $9,920,000 on the same terms and conditions for a total amount not to exceed $14,200,000 over a fiveyear period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

WATER

WELL/BOOSTER PUMP

MAINTENANCE

3.D. Approval of First Modification to Agreement #10692 with General Pump Company Inc. for Water Well and Booster Pump Maintenance Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #10692 CCS in the amount of $515,000 with General Pump Company Inc. for water well and booster pump maintenance services for the Public Works Department. This will result in a five-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $2,695,000, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

SEISMIC MANAGEMENT

SERVICES

3.E. Award Request For Proposal to Engineering Solutions Services, Inc. for Seismic Grant Management Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP #299 to Engineering Solutions Services, Inc. for grant management services for the Community Development Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11245 (CCS) with Engineering Solutions Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $669,330 (including a $66,933 contingency) for a total amount not to exceed $736,263 over a three-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1156 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 March 8, 2022
COVID-19 3.F. Adoption of Resolution No. 11403 (CCS) Ratifying entitled “AN

EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE SANTA

MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF

EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PROCLAMATIONS THERETO”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the city of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.

HUMAN RESOURCES 3.G. Approval of Reinstatement and Third Modification of Agreement with Governmentjobs.com dba NEOGOV for Legally Required Job Applicant Tracking Software, Remote Testing Integration, Job Posting Website, and System Training, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a reinstatement and third modification of agreement #10257 with Governmentjobs.com dba NEOGOV, to extend the term of the agreement for an additional five years and increase the total compensation by $192,224, for the continuation of job applicant tracking software, remote testing integration, job posting website, and system training services. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.080(b).

This will result in a reinstated and amended agreement for five years with a new total amount not to exceed $357,293, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

CAL/OSHA TRAINING 3.H. Award Request For Proposal and enter into Agreement No. 11246 (CCS) with EHS International, Inc. (EHS) for Cal/OSHA Safety Training, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP# 8421 to EHS International, Inc. (“EHS”) for required Cal/OSHA safety training;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with EHS to provide safety training services, in an amount not to exceed $534,545 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1157 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 March 8, 2022

TELECONFERENCE

MEETINGS

3.I. Adoption of Resolution No. 11404 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361 TO PERMIT

COUNCIL AND CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, AND TASK FORCE

MEETINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE CONDUCTED BY
TELECONFERENCE WHILE THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY
REMAINS IN PLACE”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces through April 7, 2022.

COUNCIL RULES 3.K. Adoption of Resolution to No. 11405 (CCS) entitled “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 11360 (CCS)”, was
adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached proposed resolution amending the City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure.

RESIDENT SURVEY 3.L. Approval of Reinstatement and Seventh Modification with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research (GSSR) to Conduct Resident Polling Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a reinstatement and seventh modification to agreement #10141 increasing the term of the contract with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research (GSSR) to June 30, 2024 and adding additional services to conduct resident polling related to Santa Monica’s potential revenue measures. This will result in a reinstated and amended agreement with a new total term of eight years and four months. The total amount of the contract will be unchanged at not to exceed $385,800 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

MINUTES 3.M. Regular and Special Joint Meeting - February 22, 2022 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 3.N. City Council - Special Meeting - March 4, 2022 11:00 AM, were approved.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1158 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 March 8, 2022
2022 ALL STAR EVENT
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
was excused at 6:54 p.m.

3.J. Accept Proposal and Enter into Agreement No. 11247 (CCS) with Major League Baseball for 2022 All Star Event, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a license agreement with Major League Baseball for use of the Pier Deck (Newcomb) Parking Lot and adjacent beach area from July 12-18, 2022 for the “MLB All-Star Oceanfront” Festival.

Mayor Pro Tem McCowan pulled this item to recuse herself due to her employment with the Los Angeles Dodgers, which could be a potential conflict of interest.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
CONTINUED ITEMS:

DISABILITIES

COMMISSION

5.A. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Disabilities Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2022, was continued to a future meeting due to the lack of applicants.

HOUSING COMMISSION
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
returned at 6:57 p.m.

5.B. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Housing Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2025, was presented.

Members of the public Olga Zurawska, Michelle Gray, Denise Barton, and Theresa Marasco spoke on the appointment.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations to the Housing Commission.

Councilmember Parra nominated Michelle Gray
Councilmember Davis nominated Lydia Garcia
Michelle Gray was appointed by the following vote:

Gray: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
Garcia: Councilmember Davis, Mayor Himmelrich
Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Davis changed their votes to Gray, thereby appointing Michelle Gray by acclamation to the Housing Commission, with all members present.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1159 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 March 8, 2022

PUBLIC SAFETY

REFORM AND

OVERSIGHT

COMMISSION

5.C. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2023, was presented.

Members of the public Joanne Berlin and Meredith Coon, spoke on the appointment.

On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.

Councilmember Negrete nominated Jasmine Mercado
Councilmember Davis nominated Adya Mohanty
Adya Mohanty was appointed by the following vote:

Mercado: Councilmembers Parra, Negrete, Brock
Mohanty: Councilmembers Davis, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan Mayor Himmelrich
Councilmembers Parra and Negrete changed their votes to Mohanty for appointment to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission for a term ending June 30, 2023.

ADMIN. PROCEEDINGS:
1243 20th STREET

6.A. Appeal 21ENT-0254 of Planning Commission approval of Development Review Permit 16ENT-0048, Major Modification 18ENT-0382, and certification of Final Environmental Impact Report 17ENT-0011 for the property located at 1242 20th Street to allow the retention and partial rehabilitation/adaptive reuse of an existing Tudor-style commercial building and the construction of a new Tier 1 three-story (45 feet) research/development and medical clinic facility (“Wellness Center”) consisting of approximately 76,167 square-feet and a five-level subterranean parking garage. A Major Modification is requested to consider Arizona Avenue, the parcel line separating the narrowest street frontage of the parcel from the street, as the side parcel line, was not heard, pending a written withdrawal from the applicant.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council, based on the findings and analysis outlined in this report:

1. Deny Appeal 21ENT-0254;

2. Adopt a Resolution (CCS) Certifying Final EIR 17ENT-0011;

3. Approve Development Review Permit 16ENT-0048 and Major Modification 18ENT-0382; and

4. Adopt the draft Statement of Official Action.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1160 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 March 8, 2022
ORDINANCES:

PIER DECK PARKING
LOT

7.A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2696 (CCS) entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 3.04.030 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO

ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE SANTA
MONICA PIER PARKING DECK LOT”, was presented
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council waive reading in full and adopt the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS

7.B. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 4.85.010 and 4.85.015 Related to Lobbying Activity and Participation of Lobbyists on City of Santa Monica Boards and Commissions, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance, which does the following:

1. Amends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.85.010 to define “lobbying activity”;

2. Creates Section 4.85.015 to prohibit any individual from serving on a City board, commission, task force, or advisory board if that individual is currently registered as a lobbyist in the City of Santa Monica or registered as a lobbyist in the two years prior to appointment; and,

3. Provides certain other options concerning when lobbying activities occur.

Members of the public Joe Antognini, Denise Barton, Leonora Camner, Olga Zurawska, and Michelle Gray spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: if this is approved today, when would it take affect; would a current person who is registered as a Lobbyist have to wait two years after they leave their current position before they could serve on a board or commission; is there a way to change the language to exclude the person if the board or commission is not in

3.K
Packet Pg. 1161 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 March 8, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich was
excused at 9:00 p.m.
their subject matter jurisdiction; if somebody receives any compensation, are they considered a paid lobbyist; if someone is an architect, and they’re receiving compensation for services as an architect, and they appear on behalf of a client who has a project residential or commercial in Santa Monica, they accept a variance from a zoning commissioner, as part of their job as a architect, for which they are receiving compensation, are they considered a lobbyist; if someone is the Executive Director of a non-profit who consults with city staff on various subjects, but they are not doing it at a public meeting, but they are doing it as the Executive Director of their organization, are they a lobbyist; if a person speaks as the Executive Director of a non-profit, and they attempt to influence city policy, but they do so in a public media, for example submitting letters or written policy, are they considered a lobbyist; if you’re not paid in cash, but paid in kind when lobbying at a state level, do you need to register as a local lobbyist; what if you’re an employee of a lobbyist organization, but you personally are not involved in the lobbying activity, are you considered a lobbyist; what if you’re an Attorney for a lobbyist organization, and you’re only hired to give advice, are you considered a lobbyist; have any of the other city’s lobbyist regulations been subject to first amendment challenges; what constitutes a public meeting, and is that the only type of public meeting that is being addressed in this ordinance; where is it in the ordinance that says a person who is compensated for influencing a city action; explain how the $5,000 dollar amount came to be; in other cities has it been noticed that adding expenditure lobbyist are causing confusion to understand, or is it pretty cut and dry; does this ordinance only apply to those lobbying in Santa Monica, but not somebody lobbying the state or other jurisdiction; does this exclude PTA members because they legislate and advocate for their schools, as they receive reimbursement for advocating activities; can it be very clear in the ordinance that volunteers who receive reimbursement are not considered part of compensation; and, does a person who gets paid in their everyday job advocate for their interest at a public meeting need to register as a lobbyist.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: city staff reaching out to individuals on specific topic, but may not realize that person is serving on city boards and commissions; concerns that this ordinance may be going too far penalizing individuals who advocate for their causes; concern that this ordinance is not clear and easy to understand; in order to have transparency in our government, we need to have a clean, simple or ordinance that everyone can understand; concerned about adding the new definition for Lobbying Activity, and it would increase the number of people who will need to register as a lobbyist; concerned that the boards and commissions will be losing some experts in certain fields because they receive payment for doing what they love; bothered by the lack of cut outs; not sure that this ordinance is clean and clear and doesn’t serve the purpose that was intended, but will end up removing a lot of good people from

3.K
Packet Pg. 1162 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 March 8, 2022
boards and commissions; this goes from an administrative penalty to the ability to remove some valuable board and commission members; Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to table this item and bring it back addressing all of the comments and concerns raised during this session. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Himmelrich

WATER RECYCLING
Councilmember Parra was
excused at 9:30 p.m.

7.C. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying SMMC 7.12.170 to Add Water Recycling Requirements, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance to modify Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

7.12.170 to add water recycling requirements.

There was no public comment on this item.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: is an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) exempted in all circumstances; what does dual plumbing mean; this causing additional steps to get permits, has staff thought about ways to mitigate getting through this process quicker; do we plan to build out the water delivery lines to distribute recycled water to all residents in the area; are there plans to extend the service area, or is this all that the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) can do; is there a target date for when the SWIP will be 100% complete; are there ways for a small business to get subsidized for the additional cost; will the city be lobbying the county or state laws regarding exempting ADUs; is there a way to bring recycled water up at San Vicente; does this ordinance address that the building officer could make extensions, given approval needs to go through other agencies; is this only for new buildings and not for remodeling; confirmation that Section (d) (4) addresses new development; what are the exceptions/exemptions; and, is the water to be used on construction sites exclusive or is the use on a case by case basis.

Discussion ensued on topics including, make sure the city is able to provide leniency to developers who may run into issues with delivery of pipes in a timely manner and may not be able to meet our deadlines.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and

3.K
Packet Pg. 1163 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 March 8, 2022
waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmember Parra

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSIONS:

UKRAINE

13.A. Request of Councilmember Brock and Councilmember Negrete that the Santa Monica City Council fully condemns the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Government and their dictator, Vladimir Putin. This is not an invasion by the Russian people. It is a culmination of a years’-long harassment by a dictatorial tyrant of a border nation whose people have their own culture and language, and it is reminiscent of the power-grabbing that initiated the horrific events of World War II. The Council urges all citizens of the world to take notice and call for an end to the barbaric and tragic violence that is being waged on the peaceful nation of Ukraine. The Council hereby offers the heroic Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy the title of Honorary Citizen of the City of Santa Monica. The Council directs the City Manager to research any sanctions or steps that Santa Monica might take to deplete the power of Mr. Putin and any Russian Oligarchs, including to divest of any city fund possessing Russian assets, and lobby CalPERS in favor of divesting any state funds possessing Russian assets and termination of state contracts with Russian firms. The Council calls on cities around the world to take similar action. The Council stands behind President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine, was presented.

Member of the public Jonathan Foster, spoke in support of the recommended action.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to approve the recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Parra, Mayor Himmelrich
PUBLIC INPUT: Members of the public Denise Barton and Jonathan Foster, and Harvey Eder commented on various local issues.

3.K
Packet Pg. 1164 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 March 8, 2022
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. in memory of Catherine Eldridge.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor

Kristin McCowan
Mayor Pro Tem

3.K
Packet Pg. 1165 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 8, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 March 22, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 4:32 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2022, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361signed by, Governor Gavin Newsome at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra (arrived at 5:21 p.m.)
Also Present: City Manager David White
Interim City Attorney Joseph Lawrence
Assistant City Clerk Nikima Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 4:32 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Parra.

CLOSED SESSIONS There was no one present for public comment on closed sessions.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 4:36 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 5:36 p.m., with Councilmember Parra absent, to report the following:

1.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Initiation of litigation pursuant to § 54956.9(d)(4): One Matter The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was not heard.

1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Alejandra Garcia, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV07940 The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

3.L
Packet Pg. 1166 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 4:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 March 22, 2022
Councilmember Parra
arrived at 5:21 p.m

1.C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation:

Anticipate significant exposure to litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was not heard.

1.D. Conference with Real Property Negotiator: Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 380 Santa Monica Pier, Santa Monica, CA.

City Negotiators: Elana Buegoff, Pier and Beach Administrator, and Allan Kotin, Allan D. Kotin and Associates. Under Negotiation:

Interests in Real Property, ground lease. Owner: EPR Parks, LLC.

Owner’s Negotiators: Kieran Burke of Premiere Parks, LLC, and Jeff Klocke, Vice President/General Manager, Pacific Park
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

1.E. Conference with Real Estate Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: Barnard Park Villas, 3356 Barnard Way, Santa Monica, California;
City Negotiators: Andy Agle, Director of Community Services; Tim Bretz, Keyser Marston Associates;
Owner of Record: Barnard Park Villas, Ltd.;
Under negotiation: Option to Purchase.

The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

1.F. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Wolfgang Mountford v. City of Santa Monica, U.S. District Court Case No. 2:20-CV-07220-MCS (Ex)
The Interim City Attorney advised that this litigation relates to a police officer-involved shooting involving a 28-year-old man who received a gunshot wound to the head. It was determined that the officer involved should be terminated. Police were called to a scene near Lincoln Blvd. for a man who was causing a disturbance. The City does not admit liability but to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation, the City Attorney’s Office recommended settlement in the amount of $1,750,000.

Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to approve Settlement Agreement No. 11249 (CCS), in the amount of $1,750,000.

3.L
Packet Pg. 1167 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 4:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 March 22, 2022
AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Parra

1.G. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Unfair Practice Charge, Municipal Employees Association v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations Board, Case No. LA-CE-1510-M.

The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was not heard.

1.H. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Unfair Practice Charge, Administrative Team Associates v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations Board, Case No. LA-CE-1495-M.

The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was not heard.

1.I. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Unfair Practice Charge, Administrative Team Associates v. City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations Board, Case No. LA-CE-1507-M.

The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was not heard.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima Newsome Sue Himmelrich
Assistant City Clerk Mayor

3.L
Packet Pg. 1168 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 4:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 March 25, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 25, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 9:18 a.m., on Friday, March 25, 2022, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361 signed by, Governor Gavin Newsome at https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/ejwfqbjh. .

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
Assistant City Manager Susan Cline
Special Counsel Alan Seltzer
Assistant City Clerk Nikima Newsome
CONVENE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 9:18 a.m., with all members present.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, to hear public comment first and then hear Item 4.A. before Closed Sessions.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
STUDY SESSION:

COUNCIL RETREAT

4.A. Council Retreat, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and discuss the City Council Rules of Order and Procedure; and

2. Collaboratively develop agreements for implementing rules for meetings.

3.M
Packet Pg. 1169 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 25, 2022 9:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 March 25, 2022
There was no one present for public comment on this item.

CLOSED SESSIONS
(Councilmember Brock was
excused at 1:24 p.m.)
There was no one present for public comment on closed sessions.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 1:00 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 1:39 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Brock, to report the following:

1.A. Public Employee Appointment:

Title – City Attorney
The Interim City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:39 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Sue Himmelrich
Assistant City Clerk Mayor

3.M
Packet Pg. 1170 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 25, 2022 9:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 March 29, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 29, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 5:34 p.m., on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, via teleconference pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361 signed by, Governor Gavin Newsome at https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/uheduqhq.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan (arrived at 5:43 p.m.)
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete (arrived at 5:46 p.m.)
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
Interim City Attorney Joseph Lawrence
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:34 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember Negrete and Mayor Pro Tem McCowan.

CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem McCowan
joined at 5:43 p.m.

Councilmember Negrete
joined at 5:46 p.m.

Councilmember de la Torre
excused at 6:13 p.m.

There was no public comment on closed sessions.

On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:36 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 6:14 p.m., with all members present, except Councilmember de la Torre, to report the following:

1.A. Public Employee Appointment:

Title – City Attorney
The Mayor advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor

3.N
Packet Pg. 1171 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 29, 2022 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for Expansion of Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente Blvd (CONTINUED FROM 3/15/2022)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Deny Appeal 20ENT-0275 and approve Conditional Use Permit 19ENT-0250 and Minor Modification 20ENT-0066 for a 7,187 square foot expansion to the Carlthorp School, rooftop playcourt, and 0.29% increase to the allowable ground floor parcel coverage, based upon the findings and analysis outlined in this report.

2. Adopt the CEQA Findings in this Staff Report under “Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.”
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 1172
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to Extend Interim Zoning Regulations Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.39 and Section 9.40.020 to Increase Thresholds for Review of One Hundred Percent Affordable Housing Projects and Certain Tier 2 Housing Projects Subject to the Housing Accountability Act by Administrative Approval Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance to extend interim regulations established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2633 (CCS) and amended and extended by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Numbers 2645 and 2692 (CCS) to increase thresholds for review of one hundred percent affordable housing projects and certain Tier 2 housing projects subject to the Housing Accountability Act by Administrative Approval.

Summary
On January 25, 2022, Council adopted Interim Zoning Ordinance 2692 (“IZO”) extending interim procedures authorizing an administrative process with no public hearing for 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 housing projects compliant with the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) on parcels of 43,560 square feet (1 acre) or less that meet all objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the project application is deemed complete.

Supporting housing production, particularly affordable housing, has long been a core policy focus for the City and is embedded in the City’s adopted land use plans including the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), 2013 Bergamot Area Plan (“Bergamot Plan”), and 2017 Downtown Community Plan (“Downtown Plan”). These

7.A
Packet Pg. 1173
2 of 5
plans have been implemented through the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update and subsequent amendments. The most recently adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element was transmitted to California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on November 10, 2021. The adopted Housing Element demonstrated that Santa Monica can accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,895 units (of which 69 percent must be affordable) for the 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle. The City received comments from HCD on February 8, 2022 with a determination that the City’s adopted Housing Element needs further revision and therefore, the City is currently determined to be out of compliance.

As a result, staff proposes to extend the IZO until March 31, 2023 to provide the time necessary to accomplish the entire Housing Element certification and initial phase of zoning changes. With the economic challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is even more need to ensure that affordable housing and housing production continues to be supported through a streamlined process. Within the context of California’s housing crisis and the continued urgent need to produce affordable housing, staff recommends extension of the IZO until March 31, 2023 to continue to support housing production while providing the time necessary to accomplish the entire Housing Element certification and initial phase of zoning changes.

Background
Table 1: Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
July 6, 2010
(Attachment B)
Adoption of Land Use and Circulation Element
September 11, 2013
(Attachment C)
Adoption of Bergamot Area Plan
June 23, 2015
(Attachment D)
Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Update
July 25, 2017
(Attachment E)
Adoption of Downtown Community Plan
December 10, 2019
(Attachment F)
Council study session on housing policy
March 10, 2020
(Attachment G)
Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance

7.A
Packet Pg. 1174
3 of 5
Meeting Date Description
August 25, 2020
(Attachment H)
Extension of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
January 25, 2022
(Attachment I)
Extension of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
On December 10, 2019, Council held a study session regarding housing policy in light of State and Regional directives regarding housing production. Council directed staff to proceed with efforts to support housing production, particularly 100% affordable housing.

The IZO was first introduced and adopted on March 10, 2020. The IZO was extended on August 25, 2020. Also on August 25, 2020, the Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to establish residential leasing regulations (SMMC Chapter 6.22), which were adopted on September 8, 2020 and subsequently amended on October 27, 2020, primarily to allow for certain exceptions and to expand the documentation that may be used to demonstrate primary residence. On January 25, 2022, Council extended the IZO with amendments to remove the deed restriction requirement to avoid inconsistency with Chapter 6.22 and to limit the applicability of the Administrative Approval process to housing projects on parcels of 43,560 square feet or less.

Discussion
The Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code Section 65589.5) (“HAA”) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1982 and prohibits cities from denying or placing conditions on housing development projects to reduce the project’s density if the housing development project complies with a city’s “objective” general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design review standards (e.g., height, floor-area-ratio (FAR), density).

The HAA defines “housing development project” as: (a) residential units only; (b) mixeduse developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least twothirds of the square footage designated for residential use; and (c) transitional housing or supportive housing. The stated intent of the HAA is to ensure that local governments do not reject or make infeasible housing development projects that contribute to meeting their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA is a state7.A Packet Pg. 1175
4 of 5
mandated process that determines the amount of future housing growth each city and county must plan for in its Housing Element.

Given the very limited discretion afforded to cities for projects qualifying for protection under the HAA, and the need to create better housing affordability in Santa Monica, on March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted an emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”) authorizing 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 21 housing projects compliant with the HAA, to be reviewed and approved without a public hearing through an Administrative Approval process. A public hearing by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for design review is still required. The IZO was extended on August 25, 2020 and January 25, 2022. On January 25, the City Council amended the interim zoning regulations to: 1) remove the deed restriction requirements to avoid inconsistency with the City’s residential leasing regulations; and 2) limit eligibility to Tier 2 projects located on parcels of 43, 560 square feet (one acre) or less to increase community input opportunities for larger projects, and extended the interim zoning regulations to May 31, 2022.

The May 31, 2022 termination date was intended to coincide with the effective date of planned the zoning changes to implement the Housing Element. However, on February 8, 2022, the City received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) which determined that the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element met many statutory requirements, but further revisions would be necessary, an additional extension of the IZO is necessary to provide additional time to respond to HCD’s comments, re-adopt the Housing Element, transmit to HCD for a 60-day review period, and if certified, implement permanent zoning changes that would streamline review of housing projects in addition to other housing programs. 1 The Land Use and Circulation Element created a tiered land use system based on increments of height and floor area ratio (FAR). Tier 1 establishes a base height and FAR while Tier 2 establishes additional height and FAR that can be requested if community benefits are provided.

7.A
Packet Pg. 1176
5 of 5
Environmental Analysis
The proposed extension of the Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance establishing application process thresholds for 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 housing projects on parcels of 43,560 or less that are compliant with the Housing Accountability Act are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed changes may have a significant effect on the environment. The recommended amendments represent procedural changes in how projects are reviewed and do not substantively affect the policy decisions with respect to development standards or land use regulations made with the City Council’s adoption of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update. Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action.

Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 B. Written Comments

7.A
Packet Pg. 1177
1 City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO EXTEND INTERIM ZONING REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 2633 (CCS) AND

AMENDED AND EXTENDED BY EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES 2645 AND 2692 (CCS) AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

9.39 AND SECTION 9.40.020 TO INCREASE THRESHOLDS FOR REVIEW OF ONE

HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND HOUSING

PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BY

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the State is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita; and
WHEREAS, housing crisis has particularly exacerbated the need for affordable homes at prices below market rates; and
WHEREAS, the housing crisis has resulted in increased poverty and homelessness, especially first-time homelessness, forced lower income residents into crowded and unsafe housing in urban areas, and forced families into lower cost new housing at the urban-rural interface with longer commute times and a higher exposure to fire hazard; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 2 WHEREAS, California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over the next 7 years; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element is an allocation of approximately 8,800 units, of which 69% would be affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan (“LUCE”) which designates the proposed general distribution, location and extent of land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, the LUCE was adopted after an extensive planning process, and addresses neighborhood conservation and enhancement; integrated land use and transportation; proactive congestion management; complete neighborhoods with increased open space; community benefits; quality urban character and form; preservation of historic resources; and growth management; and WHEREAS, the LUCE differs from prior Land Use and Circulation elements, in part, by establishing a direct link between land use and transportation policies and programs and the establishment of new development policies and standards which ensure that quality development contributes to the character of the City; and WHEREAS, the LUCE establishes a base height for each land use as a baseline, and proposed development which seeks additional height above the base height is subject to discretionary review and must meet additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social, environmental, and circulation goals – an approach defined in three tiers; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 3 WHEREAS, the LUCE provides certain bonuses, concessions and incentives for one hundred percent affordable housing projects, including a provision that allows for ministerial approval for projects of up to 50 units in size; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the Bergamot Area Plan (“BAP”), which provides policies and standards to transition 142.5 acres of former industrial lands into an arts-focused, transit-oriented, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood anchored by the Bergamot Exposition Light Rail Station; and WHEREAS, the BAP envisions creating the City’s most sustainable neighborhood—one that both conserves the authentic, industrial character that has fostered a creative community in the area and removes barriers to housing, local restaurants and services to take full advantage of the arrival of the Exposition Light Rail; and
WHEREAS, the BAP encourages and creates opportunities to develop appropriate housing for all members of the community, with a target of at least 30% of housing affordable to people earning between 30% and 180% of the area median income; and WHEREAS, the BAP sets forth certain thresholds for processing development projects, including housing projects, in the plan area; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council adopted the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) which sets forth the City’s vision of the Downtown as a high quality, mixeduse district offering opportunities for housing for people across the income spectrum, jobs, arts and culture, local serving retail, and community and visitor gathering places; and WHEREAS, in the DCP, Downtown housing projects are encouraged to support a strong and economically diverse residential neighborhood component; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 4 WHEREAS, the DCP supports that encouragement by differentiating between housing projects and commercial projects and provides for various incentives for housing projects, including streamlined processing by allowing for ministerial review of all one hundred percent affordable housing projects and any other housing project up to 75,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance implements the process thresholds for review of housing projects consistent with the LUCE, BAP, and DCP by requiring projects subject to ministerial review to be reviewed by the Administrative Approval process and projects that exceed ministerial review process thresholds to be reviewed by the Development Review Permit process; and
WHEREAS, a RHNA allocation of 8,880 units with 69% affordability in the 6th Cycle Housing Element will require the City to permit approximately 1,000 housing units a year between 2021 and 2029, 700 of which each year are required to be affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, 100% affordable housing projects, with challenges in available funding, are turning to financing sources such as tax credits, which establish a strict schedule for obtaining entitlements and building permits which are more easily met with a ministerial, rather than discretionary, review process; and WHEREAS, the Housing Accountability Act, California Government Code Section 65589.5 (the “HAA”), places strict limitations on the City’s discretion to deny, reduce the density of, or place conditions on a housing project that complies with objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards in effect at the time the application is determined complete; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 5 WHEREAS, requiring discretionary review for housing projects that comply with objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards in effect at the time the application is determined complete, adds time and expense to housing production without providing any meaningful benefit to the community; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, the City Council conducted a study session on housing policy in part to discuss options for increasing housing production throughout the City with a particular emphasis on incentivizing one hundred percent affordable housing projects, and considered whether increasing the thresholds for ministerial review of certain housing projects would further stimulate housing production; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 20-002 (PCS), declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the LUCE, the BAP, and the DCP to increase the thresholds for ministerial review of one hundred percent affordable housing projects and housing projects subject to the HAA; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering oral and written testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the text of the LUCE, BAP, and DCP, adopted a Resolution of Recommendation, Resolution Number 20-005 (PCS) recommending to the City Council that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, adopted Resolutions Numbers 11237 (CCS),

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 6 11238 (CCS), and 11239 (CCS) to amend the LUCE, BAP, and DCP to increase the thresholds for ministerial review of one hundred percent affordable housing projects and housing projects subject to the HAA; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2633 (CCS) (“Interim Zoning Ordinance 2633”), which immediately permitted one hundred percent affordable housing projects and housing projects subject to the HAA that do not exceed Tier 2 maximums to be processed by Administrative Approval rather than a Development Review Permit under certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.090(C), Interim Zoning Ordinance 2633 was set expire sixty days after its effective date, or on May 9, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, (“Director of Emergency Services”) proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and an effective the City’s response to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (the “Executive Order”); and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Revised Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order (the “Revised Fourth Supplement”) which, in part, extended all Interim Zoning Ordinances in effect during the term of the Order; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 7 WHEREAS, on August 25, 2020, the City Council adopted emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2645 (CCS), which extended the interim zoning regulations adopted by Interim Zoning Ordinance 2633 (the “interim zoning regulations”) to December 31, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Interim Zoning Ordinance 2645 also amended the interim zoning regulations to accord with the ordinance the City Council introduced for first reading on August 25, 2020 to add Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.22: Residential Leasing Requirements, and provide more certainty for landlords and tenants, amended the interim zoning regulations to require that all leases be made to tenants who will use and occupy the rental housing unit as the tenants’ “primary residence” rather than “domicile” as that term is defined by Elections Code Section 349(b) and that all leases be in writing and provide for a minimum initial term of one year; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2650 (CCS), adopting Chapter 6.22, Residential Leasing Requirements (“Chapter 6.22”), which requires that all residential housing units must be leased to natural persons, tenants leasing residential housing units must use and occupy the residential housing unit as the tenant’s primary residence, all residential housing units must be leased for an initial lease term of at least one year, and all residential housing units must be delivered unfurnished; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2655 (CCS), which amended Chapter 6.22 to: expand options to demonstrate proof of primary residence to ensure undocumented students have access to rental housing; exempt certain leases of owner-occupied single- and multiple-unit dwellings, and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 8 accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units located on parcels with owner-occupied single-unit dwellings, and leases that provide for temporary relocation housing for tenants who are subject to temporary relocation under Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 4.36.100 or 8.100.030 from the residential leasing requirements; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.22.130, the Director of the Community Development Department has promulgated administrative regulations, which were most recently updated on January 29, 2021, related to noticing procedures and requirements and to further clarify applicability of Chapter 6.22; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle (2021- 2029) Housing Element, which, pursuant to Program 1A, requires the City to make permanent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the interim zoning regulations, with revisions, no later than March 31, 2022, and extend the interim zoning regulations pending full implementation of Program 1A; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2021, the Director of Emergency Services issued a Forty-First Supplement to the Executive Order to extend certain provisions of the Executive Order, including Section 6 of the Revised Fourth Supplement extending all Interim Zoning Ordinances, through January 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2692 (CCS), which: extended the interim zoning regulations until May 31, 2022, in anticipation of enactment of permanent changes to the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Program 1A of the 6th Cycle Housing Element; removed the deed restriction obligations in order to avoid inconsistency with the provisions of

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 9 Chapter 6.22; and, limited eligibility under the interim zoning regulations to Tier 2 projects located on parcels that do not exceed 43,560 square feet, or one acre, in order to increase opportunities for community input for larger projects; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65585(h), the City received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which determined that the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements but that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of HCD’s February 8, 2022 letter, the City began the process of reviewing which revisions to the 6th Cycle Housing Element may be necessary to comply with State Housing Element law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend the interim zoning regulations to allow the City adequate time to review and revise the 6th Cycle Housing Element as necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law and to subsequently implement programs set forth in the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, there exists an immediate and continuing threat to the public health, safety and welfare due to the State’s ongoing and unprecedented housing crisis, which has resulted in the City’s anticipated RHNA allocation; and WHEREAS, extending the streamlined process created by the interim zoning regulations will support the City’s urgent need to produce housing and the City’s efforts to create a long-term housing strategy through the 6th Cycle Housing Element; and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 10 WHEREAS, adoption of this emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety and welfare as it will remove barriers to production of housing, particularly one hundred percent affordable housing projects.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Applicability. The interim regulations set forth in Section 2 shall apply to any project for which a planning entitlement application is received after the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Interim Zoning Regulations. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

9.39 and Section 9.40.020 shall be revised as follows:

Chapter 9.39 Administrative Approval

9.39.010 Purpose
Administrative Approval is intended to allow for the approval of projects which conform to the standards established for the Zoning District and do not require discretionary review or approval by the Director, Planning Commission, or City Council.

Administrative Approval provides for an administrative review and assessment of the proposed development project in light of explicit standards contained in the Chapter which have been designed to ensure that the completed project will be in harmony with existing or potential development in the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.

9.39.020 Applicability
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), an Administrative Approval shall be required prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the development for:

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 11 1. Any project of more than 1,000 square feet of floor area for all new construction and new additions to existing buildings located in Residential and Nonresidential Districts not otherwise subject to Zoning Conformance Review or discretionary review;

2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects; and

3. Any project that:
a. Meets the definition of “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, (“Housing Accountability Act”), and that, consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, complies with all applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the project application is deemed complete;
b. Does not exceed Tier 2 maximums; and
c. Is located on a parcel that does not exceed 43,560 square feet.

B. No Administrative Approval shall be required for:

1. New construction and new additions to existing buildings located in the Multi-Unit Residential Districts, Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts; or

2. For any new single-unit dwellings or additions thereto in any zoning district.

9.39.030 Application

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 12 Application for an Administrative Approval shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in 9.37.020, Application Forms and Fees.

9.39.040 Procedures
A. For projects eligible for an Administrative Approval under 9.39.020(A)(2) or (3), an applicant shall conduct a community meeting to receive community input on the proposal, which meeting shall be conducted prior to submitting an application and with noticing and reporting on the community meeting as required in guidelines adopted by the Director.

B. Upon receipt in proper form of an Administrative Approval Application, a meeting with the Architectural Review Board shall be set to receive a recommendation on the design of the proposal, which shall be conducted prior to the Director’s determination.

9.39.050 Review and Decision
A. The Director shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed development conforms precisely to applicable development standards, and does not require discretionary review or approval as outlined in this Chapter.

B. The Director shall deny the Administrative Approval only if the development is not in compliance with the applicable development standards as outlined in this Chapter.

C. The Director shall prepare a written decision which shall contain the findings of fact upon which such decision is based.

D. Within 14 calendar days after the decision is made:

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 13 1. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application; and

2. For 100% affordable housing projects, and housing projects subject to Administrative Approval under Subsection 9.39.020(B)(3), a copy of the written decision and project plans shall be posted on the City’s website.

9.39.060 Term, Extension, and Revocation
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, and revocation for Administrative Approvals shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures.

Chapter 9.40 Development Review Permit

9.40.020 Applicability
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), a Development Review Permit approved by the Planning Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any building permit for the development for:

1. Any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits;

2. All new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 10,000 square feet of floor area located in Residential Districts or more than 7,500 square feet of floor area in Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts;

3. All new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 15,000 square feet of floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2);

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 14 4. Notwithstanding subsection (A)(3) above, all new construction of more than 30,000 square feet of floor area of a development project containing no more than 15% of commercial floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2);

5. Notwithstanding subsections (A)(2)—(4) above and until the adopting of a Pico Neighborhood Plan, all new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 7,500 square feet of floor area located in the Pico Neighborhood Area.

B. The following types of projects are exempt from Development Permit Review requirements:

1. Single-unit dwellings;

2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects; and

3. Any project that:
a. Meets the definition of “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, (“Housing Accountability Act”) and that, consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, complies with all applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the project application is deemed complete;
b. Does not exceed Tier 2 maximums; and
c. Is located on a parcel that does not exceed 43,560 sf.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 15 SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any appendix thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety or welfare, adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 615 of the Santa Monica City Charter. As set forth in the findings above and in the March 10, 2020, August 25, 2020, January 25, 2022 and April 12, 2022 staff reports, this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. As an emergency measure, this Ordinance will be effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 16 SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or as of March 31, 2023, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

9.46.090(C).

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
SUSAN Y. COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Housing Process Thresholds 3d IZO Extension 04.12.2022 [Revision 1] (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2022 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting April 12, 2022-Item 7.A. Please oppose Proposed Extension of Interim Zoning Regulations

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose the Proposed Extension of the Interim Zoning Regulations.

First Administrative Approval of these projects I believe is unconstitutional and illegal. Unconstitutional under the U.S.

Constitution because it abridges the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances since appeal to the Planning Commission and the City Council is not possible with administrative approval. Illegal under California law because it prevents the people of Santa Monica from having a referendum as was done for the Hines Project since no legislative action will be taken, and a referendum cannot be done for administrative approval.

Therefore, Administrative Approval disenfranchises the people of Santa Monica who have legitimate concerns about these projects and how they undermine their quality of life.

Next Administrative Approval would be allowed for projects of less than one acre. This would include almost all new projects since very few projects will be more than one acre. More than one acre would include a future project like the Gelson's Project (but not the Gelson's Project itself) but it wouldn't include the projects at 19th and Wilshire, 20th and Wilshire, 25th and Wilshire, and 4th and Colorado, etc. All of these smaller projects will be less than one acre and all will have no City public hearings with no possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council and with no possibility of a referendum as was done for the Hines Project. Furthermore these projects at 19th and Wilshire, 20th and Wilshire, 25th and Wilshire, and 4th and Colorado are just the tip of the iceberg. Soon these administratively approved projects will be all over Santa Monica including on Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Pico Blvd, Ocean Park Blvd, etc. The Santa Monical Coalition for a Livable City has previously warned that administrative approval of Tier 2 projects can result in massive sized buildings.

I therefore am requesting that ALL projects regardless of size use standard City processes with the possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission and the City Council and with the possibility of a referendum as was the case when I built my two‐story house on a lot of 35 feet by 50 feet. Since that was the case for my two‐story house, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't also be the case for other projects. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. Daniel Galamba

Item 7.A
04/12/22
1 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter Altschuler <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject: Tuesday's agenda item 7. (A)

EXTERNAL
The IZO extension, as described in the report accompanying the published agenda, reinforces the validity of several considerations that apply to projects, such as Lincoln Center, already in the pipeline for approval.

Two statements stand out.
“...Santa Monica can accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,895 units (of which 69 percent must be affordable)…”
“The Housing Accountability Act... prohibits cities from denying or placing conditions on housing development projects to reduce the project’s density if the housing development project complies with a city’s “objective” general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design review standards (e.g., height, floor‐area‐ratio (FAR), density).” Lincoln Center allocates only 10% of its proposed 521 units to affordable housing. Yet the developer is citing provisions in SB330 that do not apply to the project but are being used to justify height and density modifications.

At 10%, Lincoln Center’s number of affordable apartments comes nowhere near the 69% required under the RHNA.

Without providing a much higher percentage of units that fit the budgets of very low, low, and moderate incomes residents, Lincoln Center does not comply with the applicable zoning and design standards that would justify the height variance and density bonus. Even if the development were 100% affordable, the current MUBL zoning of the site does not allow either modification.

The housing market in 2022 is significantly different than it was when the HCD numbers were determined and before the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Residents have left the urban core for more affordable suburban and exurban/rural locations. Santa Monica rents declined, indicating an increase in supply, and those rents have not entirely recovered to pre‐2020 levels. The City already ranks among the most expensive housing markets in the State, and the new market‐rate units are likely to match or, because they’re new, exceed current rents. That will not help low income renters, but it may create a glut of new apartments that no one wants or can afford.

There is, among the Sunset/Ocean Park communities’ residents, a feeling that the City has no will to object to Lincoln Center, though it is clearly out of alignment with State requirements and City objectives. If that’s true, and the Council, City Manager, and City Attorney are unwilling to defend the characteristics that help make Santa Monica a desirable place to live and to give residents the voice that the State denied them when it created its mandates, the City’s elected and appointed officials are not upholding their own mandate to protect the best interests of Santa Monica and its residents.
p
Item 7.A
04/12/22
2 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) 2 Item 7.A
04/12/22
3 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 7a: Interim Housing Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Summary: Tone‐deaf at best. Opposed.

After widespread public furor over the process and outcome of the Gelson’s/Lincoln/Ocean Park monstrosity, a poll showing overwhelming opposition to this monstrosity, the State’s own Auditor challenging the State’s housing arithmetic, and major lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions—some on the Council might conclude it’s time to extend this failed “no public hearing” process for another year? Really? What is the harm in allowing the sunshine‐cloaking interim ordinance to expire and then revisiting it when there is more clarity on the true housing numbers and/or the legal challenges? Absent such a common‐sense resolution, I hope the Council meeting will produce a robust discussion on this Item so members of the public and the media can fully understand where each Councilmember stands and why.

Thank you,
Peter DiChellis ‐ Unaffiliated moderate
Santa Monica ‐ 90403
(In addition to copies noted above, copy via contact form to Northeast Neighbors Group) Item 7.A
04/12/22
4 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) Item 7.A
04/12/22
5 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) Item 7.A
04/12/22
6 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) Item 7.A
04/12/22
7 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) Item 7.A
04/12/22
8 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) Item 7.A
04/12/22
9 of 9 Item 7.A
04/12/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Written Comments (5001 : IZO for Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (15 min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.48 of the SMMC consolidating the Commission on the Senior Community, Commission on the Status of Women, and the Social Services Commissions into a newly named Commission and repealing Chapters 2.56 and 2.60
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.48 of the SMMC consolidating the Commission on the Senior Community, Commission on the Status of Women, and the Social Services Commissions into a newly named Commission, determined by Council, and repealing Chapters 2.56 and 2.60.

Discussion
At the December 14, 2021 City Council meeting, the ad hoc committee for boards and commissions reported to City Council its recommendation to consolidate the Commission for the Senior Community, the Social Services Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, and the Disabilities Commission into one new Commission. City Council approved the consolidation of the Commission for the Senior Community, the Social Services Commission and Commission on the Status of Women into one commission, but decided the Disabilities Commission should remain a standalone commission due to the specific needs it fulfills for the community it serves. The new commission is recommended to have a new name to distinguish it from the previous commission. One Council Ad Hoc member recommended the “People Commission.” Staff recommends the “Human Services Commission” to reflect the City’s organizational structure and mission of the commission (i.e. the Housing and

7.B
Packet Pg. 1203
2 of 3
Human Services Division would then be responsible for staffing the Housing Commission and the Human Services Commission).

Powers and Duties
The new Human Services Commission (HSC) would focus on all matters pertaining to the social, economic, and wellness needs of vulnerable community members, including marginalized populations, low-income households, older adults, women and girls (including transgender women and girls), people of color, and people experiencing homelessness. As the current commissions sunset, Sections 2.48 (Commission for the Senior Community), 2.56 (Commission on the Status of Women), and 2.60 shall be retired from the Municipal Code. The new ordinance provides an opportunity to update pertinent activities of these three commissions (e.g., tracking regional, state, and national legislation, inviting community and stakeholder input on social services, providing input to City Council on budget items), and reimagining their purpose in a more holistic manner. These specific duties can be found in the proposed draft ordinance for the newly formed Human Services Commission (Attachment A).

The new commission will be tasked with soliciting community input regarding focused areas and developing an overall work plan for the commission, making use of timelimited ad hoc committees to address discrete work efforts and emerging community needs.

Structure
The new commission shall consist of nine members, with priority being given to existing members of the three commissions who wish to apply for the new commission. The new commission shall be structured as a working commission, with commission members expected to lead temporary ad hoc committees. Each ad hoc committee would consist of one or two commissioners as well as non-commissioners with subjectmatter expertise, lived experience, or a strong interest in the ad hoc committee’s focus.

City Council liaisons and emeritus members could also assist with ad hoc committees.

Ad hoc committees will prepare recommendations for the commission’s consideration.

7.B
Packet Pg. 1204
3 of 3
Transitioning Provision
The proposed ordinance contains transition provisions to allow for staggered terms of Commissioners following their initial appointment. The nine commissioners shall classify themselves by lot, such that four shall serve terms expiring on the second succeeding July 1st and shall serve terms expiring on the fourth succeeding July 1st. The current bodies will cease to exist as separate bodies after June 30, 2022. The new Human Services Commission would become effective on July 1, 2022.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of adoption of the proposed ordinance.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Written Comments

7.B
Packet Pg. 1205
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA TO CREATE THE HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION; REPEAL SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 2.48, 2.56 AND 2.60, AND

SUNSETTING THE COMMISSION FOR THE SENIOR COMMUNITY, THE SOCIAL

SERVICES COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

UPON EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, at the December 14, 2021 City Council meeting, the ad hoc committee for boards and commissions reported to City Council its recommendation to consolidate the Commission for the Senior Community, the Social Services Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, and the Disabilities Commission into one new Commission; and
WHEREAS, City Council approved the consolidation of the Commission for the Senior Community, the Social Services Commission and Commission on the Status of Women into one commission, but decided the Disabilities Commission should remain a stand-alone commission due to the specific needs it fulfills for the community it serves; and

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) WHEREAS, staff recommends naming the new commission the “Human Services Commission” to reflect the City’s organizational structure as it relates to the mission of the new commission; and
WHEREAS, the new commission will solicit community input regarding focus areas and develop an overall work plan for the commission, and will make use of time-limited ad hoc committees to address discrete work efforts and emerging community needs; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to give every resident of Santa Monica equitable social and economic opportunities and to provide equitable services.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 2.62 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

CHAPTER 2.62 HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION

2.62.020 Creation of the Human Services Commission
(a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the Santa Monica City Charter, a Commission on Human Services is hereby established. The membership of said Commission shall be appointed by the City Council and shall consist of nine members chosen from the residents of the City. None of the members shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government.
(b) The nine commissioners shall classify themselves by lot such that two shall serve terms expiring on the next succeeding July 1st, two shall serve terms

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) expiring on the second succeeding July 1st, two shall serve terms expiring on the third succeeding July 1st, and one shall serve a term expiring on the fourth succeeding July 1st.
(c) The Commission shall meet on a quarterly basis with the option to meet more frequently, when necessary, via designation of a special meeting and in accordance with the Brown Act. Further, the Commission may establish ad hoc or standing committees that may meet more frequently than quarterly.

2.62.040 Powers and duties of the Commission
The Human Services Commission shall have the power and be required to:
(a) Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the social, economic, and wellness needs of vulnerable community members including, but not limited to, marginalized populations, low-income households, older adults, women and girls (including transgender women and girls), people of color, and people experiencing homelessness, specifically maintaining but not limiting its focus on the former Commission for the Senior Community, the former Social Services Commission, and the former Commission of the Status of Women, including the responsibility to:

1. Disseminate City-endorsed educational and informational material regarding human service resources that may benefit the Santa Monica community

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions)

2. Review and recommend to the City Council national, state, and local legislation which may have an impact on vulnerable communities in Santa Monica

3. Consult and maintain contact with groups and individuals who are concerned with the challenges and opportunities of vulnerable City residents, and hold meetings as necessary to receive input from these groups and individuals

4. Recommend to the City Council specific human service programs necessary to serve the unmet needs of residents of the City, including reviewing and making recommendations on the City’s Human Services Grants Program

5. Review the City Manager’s proposed budget for human services and make recommendations to the City Council; and
(b) support City efforts to advance social, economic, and racial equity.

2.62.070 Reports
The Human Services Commission shall render written reports on its activities to the City Council on an annual basis.

SECTION 2. The Commission for the Senior Community, the Social Services Commission, and the Commission on the Status of Women shall all sunset on June 30, 2022.

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 2.48, 2.56 and 2.60 are hereby repealed in their entirety.

SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

SUSAN COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions)

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: oz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; David White
Subject: 7-B: new commission must meet monthly, not quarterly

EXTERNAL
You are consolidating three city commissions into the Human Services Commission, which might not be a bad idea. But now you also want for this new commission to only meet quarterly?… Is this a joke?
This shows how much the Santa Monica Council cares about the vulnerable populations including the unhoused community in the City: you want to further marginalize them. This proves again you have no interest in addressing homelessness whatsoever.

Occasional Special meetings (which usually do not allow public input) and Ad Hoc meetings (which are rarely held publicly) will not make up for much if the Commission must only meet quarterly. You might as well have dismantled these three commissions altogether instead of consolidating them. Why pretend?… This is the opposite of progressive.
#HostileCity
Shame on you, Santa Monica Council members!
At least it’s election year and we will remember this in November.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
P.S.

You might as well change the name of the new commission to better reflect how the City treats vulnerable communities:

InHumane DisServices Commission.

Item 7.B
04/12/22
1 of 3 Item 7.B
04/12/22

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Written Comments (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public comment on 12 Apr 22 City Council meeting item 7B

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
I object to the newly consolidated Human Services Commission meeting on a quarterly basis with additional special meetings when necessary. The consolidation of three important areas of concern into a single commission is already an ambitious undertaking. Limiting that commission to only four regular meetings per year is a planned abdication of commitment to those component groups before the commission even begins.

We're in the middle of a homelessness crisis, a pandemic, and a climate crisis, all of which disproportionately impact the most marginalized individuals in society, whose welfare is squarely in the newly formed commission's jurisdiction. The Human Services Commission has an enormous amount of work to do. And it requires public input regarding that work every step of the way, not just four times a year. The option to omit general public comments from special meetings makes reliance on such meetings for business exceeding quarterly meetings unacceptable.

Give the Human Services Commission a chance to succeed in meaningfully addressing the multiple and compounding crises we face. Santa Monica demands the Human Services Commission's attention and action—its time—more than ever.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Please amend the proposed ordinance accordingly.

Sincerely,
Michelle Gray
Item 7.B
04/12/22
2 of 3 Item 7.B
04/12/22

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Written Comments (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; David White
Subject: 7-B: Oppose quarterly meetings for consolidated commissions

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
This is absurd. Three commissions consolidated into one and now staff wants to cut the meetings so they only meet four times a year?
We can assume now that the job of the Social Services Commission, which included annual reports on the successes and failures of the grantees, will never happen. How wrong! Keep the meetings and ensure they are properly staffed.

And form a transparency and accountability committee that supports the audit committee.

Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein Item 7.B
04/12/22
3 of 3 Item 7.B
04/12/22

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Written Comments (4890 : Ordinance Consolidating Certain Boards & Commissions) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.C
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) 11.04.050 Adjusting the City's Campaign Contribution Limit
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance adjusting the City’s Election Code section on limitations on contributions from persons.

Summary
SMMC 11.04.050 requires an adjustment of the City’s contribution limit from individuals every five years to reflect inflation. This amendment would increase the limit from $340 to $410 to any candidate for the Santa Monica City Council and the Santa Monica Rent Control Board and for each election in which they are on the ballot.

Discussion
The contribution limit was first established in 1992. Over the years, its application was adjusted to reflect changes in case laws. The new limit would apply to the November 8, 2022 Municipal Election, but would not apply to candidates for the Santa Monica Community College and Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Districts. The adjustment is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area and rounded to the nearest five dollars. The previous limit of $340 commenced on July 1, 2016, and this adjustment

7.C
Packet Pg. 1215
2 of 2
should have occurred 2021 but was not presented until now. The next increase will occur on July 1, 2026.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action.

Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Proposed Ordinance

7.C
Packet Pg. 1216
1 City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTION 11.04.050 OF THE CITY ELECTIONS CODE TO ADJUST

LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CITY CANDIDATES
WHEREAS, the City desires to adjust the limits on campaign contributions to City candidates to keep pace with the consumer price index (CPI).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Chapter 11.04.050 is hereby amended to read as follows:

11.4.50 Limitations on contributions frompersons.
(a) No person shall make to any candidate for office or to the controlled committee of such a candidate, a contribution or contributions totaling more than three hundred twenty five four hundred ten dollars for each election in which the candidate was on, is on, or is likely to be on the ballot or in which the candidate sought or seeks write-in votes.
(b) No candidate for office or the controlled committee of such a candidate shall accept from any person a contribution or contributions totaling more than three hundred twenty five four hundred ten dollars for each election. (c) The limitations imposed by this section shall be adjusted every five years, commencing on July 1, 2016 2026, by an amount equal to the percentage change in the CPI-W Index for the Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County Los

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (5067 : Adjustment on Limits on Election Contributions (5 mins)) 2 Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics rounded to the nearest five dollars. (d) This section shall not be interpreted or applied to violate the right of association or the right to express views through expenditures. Rather, it is intended to be and shall be applied solely as a limit on campaign contributions to individuals and committees.

Section 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of thisOrdinance.

Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid orunconstitutional.

Section 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________

SUSAN COLA
Interim City Attorney

7.C.a
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance [Revision 3] (5067 : Adjustment on Limits on Election Contributions (5 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: April 12, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 17
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward F King, Director, Department of Transportation, Transit Planning & Performance
Subject: Approval of Proposed Changes to the Big Blue Bus Fare Policy Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed changes to the fare policy for Big Blue Bus, Department of Transportation.

Summary
Big Blue Bus (BBB) is recommending changes to its fare policy, including adjustments to the mix of fare products offered, the prices of fare products, and the fare media accepted on BBB buses (cash, mobile tickets, TAP passes, etc.) as well as associated policy changes to support equitable and convenient fare access. The goals of the proposed changes are to:
• Promote equitable and inclusive public transportation to our community through lower fares to our customers and increase BBB ridership; • Align fare products with customer preferences;
• Simplify fare structure;
• Maintain customer safety; and
• Improve route on-time performance.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1219
2 of 17
Over the past year, BBB has piloted some of the proposed fare changes, initiated and studied a contactless fare program, and sought customer and community feedback on the program through public outreach, a public hearing, and community surveys. The proposed recommendations have been analyzed regarding their impacts on low income and minority communities, following the guidance established under the Counciladopted Service Design Performance and Evaluation Guidelines approved in October 2018. The new fare policy also reinstates the acceptance of cash fares on board BBB buses.

Background
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, BBB customers paid their fares using one of four fare media: cash (coins, bills, and tokens), paper passes, TAP cards, or mobile tickets. Cash and paper passes have long been staples of the BBB fare choices. TAP (LA Metro’s regional contactless RFID technology fare card) was adopted by BBB in 2015, and mobile ticketing was added in 2017. TAP was introduced to enable BBB customers to use a single regional fare card across multiple systems, and later allowed our customers to gain the benefits of regional fare discounts only available on TAP. With the adoption of TAP, BBB could also dispense with paper interagency transfers, thereby lowering waste and trash, and introduce the option of purchasing BBB passes online.

Mobile ticketing was added to keep pace with broader consumer preferences for convenient fare payment that could be purchased from one’s smartphone and used immediately.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, BBB shut down bus fare collection completely on March 20, 2020, and invited all customers to board and exit through the rear door of the bus for a period of roughly eleven months. This was done to protect motor coach operators from infection and eliminate the need to touch “high touch” surfaces like the farebox to protect customers. During this period of suspended fare collection, staff examined more sustainable ways to protect motor coach operators and customers from the risks of close contact with infected persons and of contacting high touch surfaces.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1220
3 of 17
When fare collection resumed in February 2021, BBB implemented changes to the fare collection process, some intended to be permanent, and some on a pilot basis. Motor coach operators were now separated from customers by tempered glass and metal barriers to minimize extended close contact. In addition, a contactless fare pilot was implemented to eliminate the need for customers to touch the farebox (a high touch surface), and to speed up the fare payment process. The pilot included no longer accepting paper passes and cash payment on board and using only contactless products to pay fares when boarding. This moved all cash transactions off the bus to other locations.

Contactless fare payment brought multiple benefits to both customers and BBB. It is significantly faster than cash and paper pass fare payment and the reduction of time spent at the farebox reduced Covid-19 exposure time for motor coach operators and customers. Paying fares with contactless media also had the adjunct benefit of speeding up boarding, which reduced time spent at each bus stop and provided customers with faster overall travel time. Accepting only contactless fares introduced many of our cash paying customers to the TAP system, and TAP fare payment currently constitutes 85% of all fare payments on BBB buses. This introduction to TAP has increased customer access to regionally funded discounts based on income, age, disability, and school enrollment status. Lastly, contactless fare payment provided economic efficiencies that could be reinvested into the system for the benefit of customers. Other elements of the contactless fare pilot included initiatives designed to enable customers to adjust to contactless fares and various ways to measure the impacts of the pilot. A full list of those initiatives is included as an attachment.

Discussion
The contactless fare pilot provided extensive data for analysis and approximately 94% of customers adapted to the contactless fare system. While, at the beginning of the pilot, more than 12 percent of customers were unable to pay their fare, by the third month of the pilot, that percentage had declined to 6 percent, where it remains currently.

This is comparable with pre-pilot trends, with approximately 6 to 7 percent of customers refusing to pay any fare or paying only a fraction of the fare.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1221
4 of 17
The original fare proposal for public hearing and public input that was developed by staff in February 2022 generated strong responses from the public. More than 700 people filled out an online survey or attended a public hearing on the proposals. Some proposals were well received, and others generated a strong negative response. The final recommendation of staff for permanent changes to the fare proposal considers public input on the proposals and is substantially different from what was presented at the public hearing and on the survey. In short, staff listened to the public, and removed many unpopular proposals from the final recommendation.

The fare policy recommended by staff seeks to retain some benefits provided by contactless fares and to share those benefits with customers by lowering prices of some fares. The recommendation also seeks to continue the development of robust fare distribution systems to ensure contactless fares are convenient, practical, and accessible to all customers. Finally, the recommended fare policy allows customers to pay their fare with cash upon boarding.

Public Response to Proposed Fare Policy Recommendations The following tables note each fare proposal originally presented to the public in February 2022, the public response to the proposal, and the final staff recommendation.

Proposals recommended for implementation are listed first, then proposals not recommended for implementation. A general discussion of the recommendations follows the tables:

Recommended
Original Fare Proposal
Public
Response
Reason(s) for
Recommendation
Percent of boardings
during Pilot
Provide a free BBB to BBB
transfer within 2 hours on
contactless single ride &
multi-ride passes (like
Metro policy)
Favorable Favorable public response,
rewards users of our most
popular fare options,
impacts the 62% of
customers who report
transfer activity on some
trips.

23.0%

8.A
Packet Pg. 1222
5 of 17
Recommended
Original Fare Proposal
Public
Response
Reason(s) for
Recommendation
Percent of boardings
during Pilot
Replace the $14 Regular
13-Ride Pass ($1.07 per
ride) with a 10-Ride Pass
at $9 ($.90 per ride)
Favorable Favorable public response,
popular fare product with
vulnerable populations,
lower price encourages
use of contactless fares.

2.3%
Replace $6 Senior,
Disabled, & Medicare 13-
Ride Pass ($.46 per ride)
with a 10-Ride Pass at
$4.50 ($.45 per ride)
Favorable Favorable public response,
popular fare product with
vulnerable populations,
lowered price encourages
use of contactless fares.
<1%
Make permanent the
current temporary price of
Youth 30-Day Unlimited
Pass at $19
Favorable Favorable public response,
makes current condition
permanent.

1.4%
Raise the age for children
to ride free, from 4 years
old and under to 5 years
old and under
Favorable Favorable public response,
closes gap between small
child free ride, & K-12 ride
free through Metro GoPass
program.
<1%
Accept Metro Regular 1-
Day Pass on BBB
Favorable Favorable public response,
solves confusion among
tourists who purchase
Metro Day passes at Santa
Monica E-Line stations, but
which are not currently
accepted on BBB.

Not applicable
Accept Metro Senior,
Disabled, & Medicare 1-
Day Pass on BBB
Favorable Favorable public response,
solves confusion among
tourists who purchase
Metro day passes at Santa
Monica E-Line stations, but
which are not currently
accepted on BBB.

Not applicable
No longer accept paper
passes on board, moving
all pass sales to
contactless fares
Favorable Favorable public response,
reduces waste, increases
travel speed & efficiency,
lowers costs of fare
collection.
0%
(14.3% pre-COVID,
before pilot)
No longer accept BBB
tokens on board
Favorable Favorable public response,
council previously
approved ending of token
sales.
0%
(<1% pre-COVID,
before pilot)

8.A
Packet Pg. 1223
6 of 17
Recommended
Original Fare Proposal
Public
Response
Reason(s) for
Recommendation
Percent of boardings
during Pilot
Continue to allow
customers with no fare or
partial fare to ride anyway
Favorable Favorable public response,
continues long-standing
policy of not refusing
service based on not
having proper fare.

5.0%
Make BBB contactless fare
passes available at more
locations. Recommend
paying 3.75% commission
(same as Metro) to TAP
retailers who carry BBB
passes.

Favorable Favorable public response,
assists with challenge of
getting more local retailers
to carry BBB passes.

Currently no commission
on BBB pass sales.

Not applicable
Make more pass vending
machines available at more
locations.

Recommendation to
pursue solutions that allow
customers to enjoy
contactless fare
advantages (machines or
technologies)
Favorable Favorable public response.

Metro machines do not sell
BBB passes. BBB to
explore technologies &
systems to make
contactless fares more
convenient, i.e., fare
capping, open payment, &
others.

Not applicable
Create a program to
identify & address the
transit fare needs of
vulnerable populations
Favorable Favorable public response,
37% of BBB customers are
unbanked or without smart
phone. Contactless fare
collection offers access to
county-sponsored reduced
fares. Program seeks to
close the reduced fare
access gap.

Not Applicable
Not Recommended
Original Fare Proposal Public
Response
Reason(s) for Not
Recommending
Percent of Boardings
during Pilot
No longer accept cash on
board BBB
Un-favorable Approximately 2/3 of
customers recommend
cash acceptance on
board. Recommend
continued cash collection
for single fare regular,
senior, disabled &
Medicare rides.
0%
(32.8% pre-COVID,
before pilot)

8.A
Packet Pg. 1224
7 of 17
Not Recommended
Original Fare Proposal Public
Response
Reason(s) for Not
Recommending
Percent of Boardings
during Pilot
Reduce single ride regular
contactless fare from $1.10
to $1.00
Favorable Retention of the expense
of cash collection on
board makes some fare
reductions financially
infeasible currently.

However, the proposed
free BBB to BBB transfer
will reduce costs by as
much as 50% for those
who transfer.

47.1%
Discontinue selling
Regular 1-Day Pass
Mixed
response
Some customers
earnestly requested
retention of this pass.
<1%
Discontinue selling Senior,
Disabled, & Medicare 1-
Day Pass
Un-favorable Unfavorable public
response. Recommend
retaining pass.
<1%
Discontinue selling 7-Day
Pass
Mixed
response
Some customers
earnestly requested
retention of this pass.

1.1%
Discontinue selling Annual
Pass
Mixed
response
Some customers
earnestly requested
retention of this pass.
<1%
Reduce price of Regular
30-Day Unlimited Pass
from $50 to $30
Favorable Retention of the expense
of cash collection on
board makes some fare
reductions financially
infeasible currently.

5.7%
Reduce price of Senior,
Disabled, & Medicare 30-
Day Unlimited Pass from
$24 to $20
Favorable Retention of the expense
of cash collection on
board makes some fare
reductions financially
infeasible currently.

2.1%
Final Recommended Fare Proposal after Public Engagement Process The final recommended fare proposal has three distinct elements.

1. Changes to fare products, including resuming accepting cash payments

2. Reducing the types of fare media accepted on board

3. Increasing convenient access to contactless fares, especially amongst unbanked customers and those without smart phones

8.A
Packet Pg. 1225
8 of 17
These three elements are designed to make bus riding safer, more attractive, and ultimately easier to use. Factors affecting each are interrelated, and the elements work together to produce a better outcome for customers.

Changes to Fare Products
While BBB has restored service to 81% of pre-pandemic levels, only 46% of prepandemic ridership has returned. As staff looks toward a fare policy specifically designed to attract ridership, it has been well documented in the transit industry that lower fares attract more customers.

The proposed changes to fare products include structural changes to passes, as well as recommendations to accept two new Metro-issued passes. The new fare policy also provides for the acceptance of cash fares on board BBB buses. The proposed fare policy recommends the following changes to passes accepted on board BBB:
• Free BBB to BBB transfer – Currently, customers must pay for each ride on BBB, even if they need to take two buses to complete a single trip. This proposed free transfer would provide a free ride on a second BBB if it is within two hours of boarding the first bus, and if the fare is paid using contactless technology. This brings BBB fare policy into alignment with Metro fare policy, which also provides free same-agency transfer using contactless fares. Free transfers cut costs by as much as 50% for those who must take two buses each way and are proposed for single ride and multi-ride pass purchases.
• 10-Ride Regular Pass – This pass will replace the current 13-Ride Regular pass. The price per ride is being reduced 16% from $1.07 per ride ($14 divided by 13 rides) to $.90 per ride ($9 divided by 10 rides). The ride count on the pass is being changed from 13 rides to 10 rides to simplify the mathematical equation for customers attempting to determine if this pass is the best option for their needs. These passes are particularly useful for customers who regularly use BBB, but not often enough to make a 30-Day Pass an economical choice for their needs. Each ride will include the free BBB to BBB transfer within two hours.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1226
9 of 17
• 10-Ride Senior, Disabled & Medicare (SDM) Pass – This pass will replace the current 13-Ride Senior, Disabled & Medicare Pass in the same fashion as the 13-Ride Regular Pass. The price per ride is being reduced from $.46 per ride ($6 divided by 13) to $.45 per ride ($4.50 divided by 10 rides). This pass will include the free BBB to BBB transfer within two hours on all 10 rides. • 30-Day Youth Pass – Over the last few months, use of this pass has generally been overtaken by distribution of GoPass, Metro’s free pass program for students introduced in October 2021. GoPass has been adopted by Los Angeles Unified Schools, Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District, and many other public and private institutions serving K-12 populations. However, for students at schools that have not adopted GoPass, the 30-Day Youth Pass remains a good option. The proposed pricing of $19 makes permanent a discount fare put in place several years ago.
• Free Rides for children five and under – This change in policy increases the age at which children must begin to pay a fare from their fifth birthday to their sixth birthday. This aligns with recent changes at other Los Angeles County transit providers as they seek to develop a seamless transition from riding free as young children to riding free on GoPass when they enter kindergarten. The prior age cutoff created a brief period of required fare payment for certain prekindergarten age children, which caused confusion. • Metro 1-Day Pass – This Metro fare is recommended for acceptance on BBB.

Tourists are inclined to purchase 1-Day passes for convenience. However, with Metro offering only Metro 1-Day Pass and no BBB passes at all train stations on the E-Line, there has been considerable confusion among tourists and other infrequent BBB users as to why this pass does not work on BBB, even when purchased at a train station in Santa Monica. Metro’s plan to eliminate their Metro 1-Day pass in the future and replace it with a regional 1-Day pass will resolve this

8.A
Packet Pg. 1227
10 of 17
dilemma. In the meantime, this proposal recommends acceptance of the Metro 1- Day pass on BBB as an intermediary solution until such time as the regional 1- Day pass is introduced. Metro is supportive of this proposed change. • Metro 1-Day Senior, Disabled & Medicare (SDM) Pass – BBB recommends acceptance of the SDM version of the 1–Day Metro pass for the same reasons noted in the above section.

A note on “Refused to Pay” - BBB has had a long-standing policy of allowing customers who do not pay a fare or who pay a partial fare to ride regardless of fare payment. A variety of circumstances can result in non-payment of fare including lack of money, lack of exact or near exact change (only having big bills), damaged or lost fare cards, confusion, language barrier, cognitive disability, or phone battery not charged (mobile ticketing). This proposed fare policy does not recommend changes to that policy. However, during the contactless fare pilot, bilingual signage stating the policy was added to all buses to ensure the existing policy was widely understood by customers. As noted above, this did not result in a measurable change in the number of customers who paid no or partial fare.

Following is the proposed fare table of BBB fare products under this recommendation:

Proposed Fare Table
Ride/Pass Type Regular Senior/ Disabled/
Medicare (SDM)
Youth
Single Ride cash $1.25 $0.50
Single Ride contactless* $1.10 $.50
1-Day $4 $1.50
7-Day $14
10-Ride* $9 $4.50
30-Day $50 $24 $19
Annual $500
* Single Ride and 10-Ride passes include a free BBB to BBB transfer within 2 hours - Children 5 and under ride free.
- Courtesy rides offered to customers who don’t have appropriate fare.

BBB will continue to participate in regional fare programs and accept regional passes.

The recommendation allows for two additional Metro passes (1-Day and SDM 1-Day passes) to be accepted as fare on BBB. However, the recommendation does remove

8.A
Packet Pg. 1228
11 of 17
the Blue to Business pass, which has been replaced by the regional Employer Pass Program (E-Pass).

Currently, all passes below except the Metro 1-Day Regular and Senior/Disabled pass are accepted on board BBB. This proposal recommends that the complete list of regional passes accepted on BBB include:
• Metro 1-Day Pass, Regular and Senior/Disabled
• EZ Pass, Regular and Senior/Disabled
• Interagency Transfers, Regular and Senior/Disabled
• Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) Program
• Access Services Free Fare Program
• Santa Monica College Any Line, Any Time
• Universal College Student Transit Pass (U-Pass)
• UCLA Copay Pass
• GoPass (Fareless System Initiative for participating K-12 and community colleges)
• Employer Pass Program (E-Pass)
Reducing the types of fare media accepted on board
The original fare proposal presented at the public hearing and through the public survey contained a provision to eliminate all cash acceptance on board. Eliminating cash acceptance on board is not recommended for implementation at this time. A transition to contactless fares would benefit many customers through access to reduced fares not available with cash fares and overall reduction in travel time on the bus impacting all customers. Accepting only contactless fares would also benefit both the operational efficiency and cost efficiency of the transit agency. However, for a contactless fare system to be effective and convenient, it must cater to the most vulnerable customers,

8.A
Packet Pg. 1229
12 of 17
including those who depend solely on cash, are unbanked, and/or don’t have a smart phone. While BBB has made great strides in increasing access to contactless fares and while smart phone usage has risen precipitously, there is more work to be done before most unbanked customers can conveniently access BBB pass sales or TAP stored value loading venues.

This proposal does recommend the elimination of the sale and acceptance of paper passes. Paper passes create a paper and magnetic stripe waste stream, slow down boarding when compared with contactless passes, and are operationally less efficient and more expensive to use than contactless passes. Lastly, paper passes require customers to touch the farebox, increasing the possibility of exposure to pathogens on a high touch surface. The public response to the elimination of this type of fare media was favorable and, as such, elimination of paper passes is recommended under this proposal. Likewise, tokens will no longer be accepted.

All BBB passes will continue to be available on TAP and mobile ticketing.

Increasing Access to Contactless Fares
As noted above, 94 percent of BBB customers were successfully able to utilize the contactless fare options. However, closing the gap of the remaining six percent is a vital piece of BBB’s commitment to providing reliable safe transit for all. Through insights gleaned from contactless fare pilot and analysis of fare product usage, public hearing feedback, public surveys, and a Title VI fare equity analysis, staff recommends additional policy changes to ensure the advantages of contactless fares and access to contactless fares are made fully available to all customers:
• Maintain an accurate searchable map of TAP sales locations for unbanked people to use to load passes and stored value.
• Expand access to TAP reload locations, especially for unbanked customers or those without the ability to reload their TAP card online. • Develop an in-house program to identify and address the fare needs of

8.A
Packet Pg. 1230
13 of 17
vulnerable populations (such as seniors, people experiencing homelessness, veterans, etc.) and dedicate resources to ensuring those populations’ fare needs are met.
• Pay 3.75% commissions to retailers selling BBB passes on TAP cards to incentivize retailers to offer BBB products for sale, thereby expanding access to contactless fares.
• Promote reduced fare options in BBB communications and at the BBB store, and accept applications where permitted for regional reduced fare options (such as reduced fare TAP cards for seniors/people with disabilities). • Be a leader in LA County in participating in regional fare programs, assisting Metro in working to ensure new programs are successful such as “best fare” or fare capping options, and offering more regional fare product choices. • Replace the current one-ride ticket sold to social service agencies with a new one ride ticket that better meets their needs (no expiration date) and is priced the same as the single ride.
• Add Wi-Fi on all new buses and configure it to ensure adequate bandwidth for customers who use mobile ticketing. Currently 15% of the bus fleet has Wi-Fi. • Continue to explore additional contactless fare technologies, policies, and options, especially those that address questions of equity and inclusion.

By implementing these policies, staff seeks to achieve increased awareness and utilization of regional reduced fare programs, as TAP is the only means of accessing these programs. In a recent customer survey, 86 percent of seniors, 70 percent of persons with disabilities, and 27 percent of low-income customers were aware of the reduced fare programs available to them. Staff’s goal is to raise awareness amongst these cohorts to 90 percent. During the contactless pilot, 85 percent of customers paid their fare on board with TAP. Prior to the pilot, 36% of customers paid their fare on board with TAP. This introduction to TAP was a significant achievement in that it has opened a pathway towards greater utilization of regional reduced fares.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1231
14 of 17
Summary of Contactless Pilot
The contactless fare pilot was initiated to test whether such a payment system could make riding BBB safer and faster. Eliminating the need for customers to touch the farebox (a high touch surface) and speeding up the fare payment process (minimizing exposure) potentially reduced transmission of Covid-19 and possibly saved lives, but that is impossible to determine. The pilot did confirm that a contactless fare system could make riding BBB faster. Staff found that currently, about 15,000 service hours annually are added to the schedules to accommodate the extra time it takes to pay by cash or paper pass on board. In a fully contactless payment system, these service hours would be reallocated in the form of higher service frequency (i.e., reallocation could add 56 more bus trips daily).

Other accomplishments and lessons learned from the pilot included the significant adoption of contactless payment options like TAP and mobile tickets. The impact of this is that many more people now have access to reduced fare programs. Another lesson learned is that gaps currently exist in the fare distribution network for customers who need to reload their TAP cards in person. Transitioning to a fully contactless payment system is a worthy long-term goal but it requires a more thorough fare distribution network and communication structure. To get there, staff may need to explore alternative fare collection technology. Staff have begun looking at the gaps and what can be done with a strong focus on equity, efficiency, and finding a balance that works for both BBB passengers and the operation. Staff will return to Council in 2023 with an update on these efforts.

Ridership & Fare Revenue Impacts
In order to grow ridership, it has been well documented in the transit industry that lower fares attract more customers. More specifically, according to industry research, it has been documented that for every 1% decrease in fares, ridership is estimated to increase between 0.25% and 0.4%.

8.A
Packet Pg. 1232
15 of 17
The projected impacts of the recommended fare policy are an increase of 150,000 customers annually directly attributable to the new fare policy, and a projected reduction of fare revenue of $431,000 below what would have been expected from the previously approved fare structure.

Public Surveys, Public Hearing, and Comments
BBB conducted significant public outreach on both the contactless fare pilot and the proposed fare structure, engaging members of the public through surveys, outreach events, a public hearing, and acceptance of feedback through the 311 system. A total of 9,179 public interactions and responses were recorded as part of this project. See attached Survey documents from March 2021, October 2021, and January/February 2022, and Public Hearing presentation and comments received from February 2022.

Findings of Title VI Fare Equity Analysis
The following is the results of the analysis performed regarding the Title VI civil rights implications of the proposed changes on low income and minority populations. • Since most of the proposed changes involved lowering fares, the effect on lowincome populations was beneficial rather than resulting in a disproportionate burden. No proposed changes exceeded the threshold for negative disproportionate burden on low-income populations.
• Regarding impact on minority populations, elimination of the 13-Ride pass in its entirety would have constituted a negative disparate impact on minority populations. However, the replacement of the 13-Ride Pass with a new 10-Ride Pass at a lower price per ride mitigates the negative impact of the pass elimination. With this mitigation in place, there were no proposed changes that caused a disparate negative impact on minority populations.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
10/10/2017
(Attachment A)
BBB Fare Restructure

8.A
Packet Pg. 1233
16 of 17
10/27/2015
(Attachment B)
BBB Fare Restructure
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The proposed changes to fares will reduce customer generated revenue (60600002.409830) by approximately $431,000 in FY 2022-23. The change driving this reduction in revenue is offering free BBB to BBB transfers within two hours for contactless fare users. The other proposed changes (e.g. changing the 13-Ride pass to a 10-Ride pass; updating the policy to provide rides for free to children five and under; and accepting Metro 1-Day passes) are less impactful. The reduction in revenue will be offset by one-time federal funding received from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSAA). Beyond FY 2022-23, as ridership increases, the impact of the fare change will decrease. The operating subsidies the department receives through Metro is projected to increase as the funding allocation is partly reliant on ridership. The anticipated increase in subsidies is projected to offset any ongoing impacts.

The benefit of this proposal is lower fares for customers, elimination of expense and operational procedures involved with paper pass distribution and collection, increased availability of contactless fares, and the corollary increased access to regional reduced fare programs.

Prepared By: Timothy McCormick, Transit Planning and Performance Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. October 10, 2017 Staff Report - Big Blue Bus Fare Restructure (Web Link)

8.A
Packet Pg. 1234
17 of 17
B. October 27, 2015 Staff Report - BBB Fare Restructure (Web Link) C. June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot D. 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 E. 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 F. Title VI Fare Equity Analysis - December 2021
G. Proposed Fare Structure Public Hearing Presentation - February 2022 H. Survey responses to Proposed Fare Structure - February 2022 I. List of Contactless Fare Pilot Initiatives - FY2021-22 J. Written Comments

8.A
Packet Pg. 1235
Date: June 24, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward F. King, Director, Department of Transportation Subject: Contactless Fare Pilot
Introduction
On July 12, 2021, the Department of Transportation, Big Blue Bus (BBB) Division will begin a six-month pilot of a completely contactless fare payment system. BBB customers will be able to pay their fare using either the regional TAP fare payment system or mobile ticketing. Cash, tokens, and paper magnetic fare cards will not be accepted on board on a pilot basis.

Customers will have a variety of options for obtaining TAP fares, and cash-paying customers who are unbanked and/or non-smartphone users will be able to replenish their TAP balances using ticket vending machines available along every BBB route, at Blue: The Transit Store, or at the nearly 900 retail TAP vendor locations located across the county. Smartphone users will be able to choose between the TAP app, or two different BBB-specific mobile ticketing apps (Transit and Token Transit), depending on their preferences.

Background
Prior to 2015, all BBB customers paid their fare with either cash (coins, bills, and tokens), or paper magnetic fare cards that were inserted or swiped in the fare box.

These two fare systems have significant downsides for both customers and BBB, and BBB has sought to promote other fare payment solutions as a result.

Information Item

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cash fare payment is much slower on average than contactless fare payment. For example, on a trip dedicated exclusively to the cash payment process, forty people boarding a bus trip with cash fares can add up to 13 additional minutes. These delays cause slower service that decreases ridership, increases costs, and makes transit less attractive. Additionally, cash and the farebox are known vectors for disease transmission for customers, operators, and those assigned to count and process cash. Finally, farebox maintenance and cash counting incur significant costs for BBB.

While paper magnetic fare card boardings are faster than cash boardings, and they eliminate the process of counting cash, customers are still required to touch the farebox when paying. Paper magnetic fare cards also suffer three additional negative traits when compared to contactless fare payments: (a) magnetics have a high failure rate; (b) magnetics are not integrated into TAP (the regional fare system for Los Angeles County) prohibiting the provision of discount interagency transfers; and (c) magnetic cards are not account-based so fare media cannot be recovered if the pass is lost or stolen.

Discussion
Since the adoption of the regional TAP fare system using radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology in 2015 and mobile ticketing using smartphone apps in 2017, BBB has encouraged customers to move away from using cash and paper magnetic fare cards to pay their fares, and instead to use these two new “contactless” fare payment systems. The advantages of TAP or mobile fare systems are overall faster travel times, fully contactless payment (no touching of high-touch surfaces), access to regional interagency discount fares, lower fares, and convenience. Since the introduction of each system, BBB has worked to continuously improve the availability, access, and convenience of the fare products.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly half of customers had already migrated from

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) cash and paper magnetics to contactless fare payment over the five years since the introduction of TAP. There was a willingness by many customers to switch due to the cumbersome burden of having to carry exact change for the bus. To encourage other customers to try contactless fares, BBB discounted the base fare on TAP to $1.10, providing a savings of $0.15 from the cash $1.25 base fare. Mobile ticketing was integrated with real-time bus arrival information via the Transit app, adding to the convenience. Just prior to the pandemic, fare payment by contactless fare media (TAP and mobile ticketing) accounted for 47% of all boardings.

As a result of the pandemic, starting on March 20, 2020, fare collection was not enforced on BBB to slow the spread of COVID-19 and to distance customers from the operator by having them enter and exit through the back door only. The pandemic led BBB staff to reexamine strategies for shifting customers more quickly to contactless fare media. Additionally, a plan was created to pilot the elimination of cash and paper magnetic fare card usage altogether after the planned resumption of fare collection. This plan was referenced in the FY2021 budget staff report to Council on June 23, 2020.

During the period of COVID-19 fare suspension, several measures were taken to encourage the use of contactless fares when fare collection resumed in February 2021.
• BBB purchased ticket vending machines for two key BBB transit hubs, where the machines had not previously been made available.
• Staff worked closely with Santa Monica College to shift their pass holders from paper magnetic fare cards to contactless fares, moving 11% of pre-COVID ridership to contactless fares in the process.
• The base fare on TAP and mobile ticketing was further reduced from $1.10 to $1.00, and a new lower Senior/Disabled/Medicare (S/D/M) fare of $0.40 was introduced on TAP and mobile ticketing (versus $0.50 cash).

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) • S/D/M customers were enabled to “self-declare” eligibility for a reduced fare mobile ticket, rather than having to go to the Transit Store to certify eligibility prior to obtaining the discount.
• Staff worked with the TAP program to create a new 90-day eligible S/D/M fare card on TAP so that senior and disabled visitors would continue to enjoy discounted transit fares, without having to apply for a regional discounted fare eligibility card from TAP.
• Staff began to issue bilingual Low Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) program applications at the Transit Store. LIFE, funded by Los Angeles County, provides free fares to low-income people using contactless fares (TAP). • Paper magnetic fare product sales were suspended, and systems and policies were created that allow customers who have unused paper magnetic cards to exchange them for an equivalent contactless fare.
• Staff created a digital searchable map of all physical locations where customers can add Stored Value to a TAP card, specifically so that unbanked customers could easily and conveniently find a place to obtain TAP fares. A bilingual printed version of this resource is available for added access. • BBB hired a contactless fare Customer Service Assistant (CSA) to work specifically on assisting vulnerable and federally protected populations in adapting to contactless fares. In conjunction, a reservation system was introduced to facilitate one-on-one customer education appointments with the new CSA in addition to walk-in appointments.
• A bilingual multi-media outreach campaign communicating how to access contactless fares and extolling their benefits to passengers was developed and implemented.
• An outreach consultant has been hired to conduct more than 2,000 hours of bilingual in-person customer education on board BBB routes and at high-volume bus stops.

With the reintroduction of fare collection, staff sought to quickly convert as many customers as possible to contactless fares prior to the beginning of the contactless

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) fares pilot on July 12, 2021. In support of this goal, beginning April 19, 2021, BBB began to distribute a free 30-Day pass to any customer who pledged to use contactless fares. These passes are available on a free TAP card through the Transit Store and on mobile ticketing through the Token Transit and Transit mobile app ticketing platforms. There is a limit of one promotional pass per customer and the passes are available only through July 22, 2021. There is no cost to participate, and no one is excluded.

The introduction of this program to distribute free passes is an opportunity to engage BBB customers in a dialogue regarding the benefits of contactless fares, and to address any concerns or questions. Cash usage started to decline within the first two weeks of free pass distribution and continues to decline as of this writing.

The Contactless Fare Pilot
The Contactless Fare Pilot is set to begin on July 12, 2021 and will run for six months. BBB has created the following goals for the project:
• Convert 85% of customers to contactless fares prior to the start of the pilot. • Raise awareness of available fare discounts to 90% among seniors, disabled, youth, and transfer customers.
• Raise participation in the LIFE (Low Income Fare is Easy) to 10% of BBB customers.
• Trim 15,000 hours of fare payment time from existing schedules annually, which can then be reinvested in running buses more frequently. • Increase average bus speed by 1 mile per hour with the elimination of cash fare payment.
• Save approximately $93,000 annually on cash handling cost reimbursements to the General Fund.
• Save approximately $274,000 annually in reduced farebox and cash handling equipment repair costs.
• Receive a favorable rating from more than 90% of passengers during the pilot regarding contactless fares and their implementation.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Title VI Analysis and Mitigations of Negative Impacts
The proposal to pilot an exclusively contactless fare system was analyzed for Title VI impacts in April 2021, using data collected in March 2021 by an outside surveyor (Maroon Society) from 550 BBB customers on board the BBB system. There were no negative disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens on protected populations as defined by the Federal Transit Administration. However, it was noted that while the impacts did not meet the federally prescribed thresholds, the survey provided additional demographic insights and offered opportunities to further lessen the challenges of adaptation to contactless fares.

Among the key findings of the survey were the following:
• The BBB system ridership now has a higher incidence of low-income status than was noted pre-pandemic.
• Prior to March 2020, people 24 years old and younger had made up 27% of ridership. However, with colleges, universities, and high schools closed, that percentage had sunk to 10%.
• BBB customers are now living in more concentrated areas of high poverty than in the past.
• BBB customers are also more likely to live in concentrated areas of recent past COVID-19 infection.
• Large numbers of both Seniors and Interagency Transfer customers are not taking advantage of their available fare discounts, due to either unawareness or confusion about the fare systems.
• A large percentage of contactless fare customers use ticket vending machines at train stations and bus transit centers to reload their TAP fare cards. • A majority of customers prefer to purchase single rides rather than a 1-Day, 7- Day, 30-Day, Annual, or 13 Ride passes.

Equity and Fairness
Using the information gleaned from the survey and the Title VI analysis, BBB is

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) working with vulnerable populations to address concerns, remove barriers, and to create communications and programs that empower all users to embrace contactless fares.
• All communications regarding the pilot are delivered in English and Spanish and across a wide variety of platforms.
• With more than 900 TAP vendor/reload locations countywide, phone and online options, BBB is intent on making contactless fares work for all customers, especially those who are unbanked.
• The savings in travel time will be of significant benefit to all customers and allow BBB to offer more service, more efficiently.
• The opportunity to bypass cash and contact with the farebox and the associated health risks will be a benefit to both customers and staff.

BBB is committed to caring for the most vulnerable through this process and learning as we go, to ensure a fair and equitable system that benefits everyone.

Timeline (calendar year)
2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
$1 Regular & $0.40 S/D/M
contactless fare
Free 30-Day pass to contactless
users
Title VI Evaluation of change to
fares
Pilot period of contactless fares only
Survey of customers regarding pilot

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
Public hearings
Final recommendation to council
regarding fare structure
Summary
BBB will survey passengers during the contactless fares pilot and will hold public hearings this fall to gather information on customer experience. In late fall, staff will return to Council with recommendations for a long-term fare structure and new fare policy, updates to fare media, and the future of contactless fares.

Prepared By: Tim McCormick, Manager of Planning and Performance

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: June 24, 2021 Information Item - Contactless Fares Pilot (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Report: APRIL 2021

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Title VI Survey:

Customer Readiness for
Contactless Fares

FINAL REPORTT

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) i
Executive Summary
Over half of BBB customers live in areas with a disproportionately high number of COVID-19 cases. In the coming months, Big Blue Bus will become the first transit agency in the United States to implement a 100% contactless fare payment system.

This change promises to minimize interactions between passengers and motor coach operators, which helps prevent the spread of pathogens like COVID-19. Contactless fares will improve on-time bus performance, reduce fuel consumption, and eliminate costs associated with collating and transporting cash fares to banks. This operational change brings forth the need for a similarly large behavioral change from passengers.

Approximately 57% of Big Blue Bus (BBB) customers will need to transition from cash to a contactless fare method. Low-Income customers and Hispanic customers may benefit from targeted outreach that educates them about Metro’s Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) program, as well as how to initiate and effectively use TAP. This may include an introduction to available tools, like Metro’s TAP phone number useful to identify locations to purchase and load fares on TAP cards and check TAP card balance.

To support the transition to contactless fares, BBB should also have a broader messaging campaign that provides customers information to overcome challenges some customers experience with TAP: identifying locations to purchase fares, how to load fares, check balance, and promote confidence that the loaded value will not be lost if the TAP card is misplaced or stolen.

BBB customers may also benefit from education about discount fares. Twenty percent (20%) of Seniors are not utilizing the discounted Senior fare, and 40% of customers making interagency transfers are not receiving the $0.50 fare available with TAP.

It is anticipated that, as college campuses reopen, college students will return to BBB.

To support that transition, BBB may consider working with partner campuses to highlight the measures taken to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, and improve on-time performance, which have previously been important factors for student customers making the choice between bus and ride-share.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares | Final Report Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... i Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 1 BBB Routes Represented by Survey ...................................................................................... 2 Results ...................................................................................................................... 3 Section Description............................................................................................................3 Demographic Profile of BBB Customers ............................................................................4 Age of BBB Customers .......................................................................................................... 5 Race/Ethnicity of BBB Customers .......................................................................................... 6 Household Size ...................................................................................................................... 6 Household Income................................................................................................................. 7 Neighborhood of BBB Customers ......................................................................................... 8 Neighborhoods of BBB Customers & Percent living below Poverty ..................................... 9 Neighborhood of BBB Customers & COVID-19 Cases ....................................................... 10 Ridership and Payment Methods .....................................................................................11 Frequency of Riding BBB..................................................................................................... 12 Frequency of Riding by Continuous vs. New BBB Customers............................................. 12 Fare Media Pre-COVID-19................................................................................................... 13 Fare Media Post-Covid-19 ................................................................................................... 14 Location to Purchase Fare Products .................................................................................... 15 Discount Fare Payers vs. Self Reported Discount Eligible ................................................... 15 Fares Category..................................................................................................................... 16 Interagency Transfers – Frequency & Fare Type ................................................................. 17 Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares ......................................................................18 Cash Use .............................................................................................................................. 19 Smartphone and Credit Card Access by Income................................................................. 20 Smartphone and Credit Card Access by Race/Ethnicity...................................................... 21 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22 Appendix ................................................................................................................ 23 BBB - Fare Use Survey ......................................................................................................... 24 Title VI – Low-Income Definition.......................................................................................... 29

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares | Final Report List of Figures
Figure 1: BBB Riders by Age.............................................................................................5 Figure 2: Race/Ethnicity of BBB Riders..............................................................................6 Figure 3: Number of People in Household .......................................................................6 Figure 4: Household Income (N=382)...............................................................................7 Figure 5: Map of BBB Customers by Home Zip Code ......................................................8 Figure 6: Map of BBB Customer’s by Home Zip Code .....................................................9 Figure 7: Map of BBB Customer Zip Codes by Poverty....................................................9 Figure 8: Map of BBB Riders by Zip Code ......................................................................10 Figure 9: COVID-19 Cases in Los Angeles County - April 2021 .....................................10 Figure 10: Frequency of BBB Ridership ..........................................................................12 Figure 11: Frequency of BBB Ridership by Continuous & New Customers ....................12 Figure 12: Fare Media & Categories – Pre-COVID-19: All vs. Continuous Customers ...13 Figure 13: Payment Type by All, Continuous Customers & New Customers..................14 Figure 14: Purchase Location ..........................................................................................15 Figure 15: Discount Fare Payers vs. Self Reported Discount Eligible .............................15 Figure 16: Fare Category by Total, Regular and Discount Fare Payers ..........................16 Figure 17: Frequency of Interagency Transfers...............................................................17 Figure 18: Fare Media by Interagency Transfers Customers...........................................17 Figure 19: Cash Fare – Income Status, Race & Ethnicity.................................................19 Figure 20: Smartphone and Credit Card Access - Higher vs. Lower Income..................20 Figure 21: Smartphone and Credit Card Access – Race/Ethnicity ..................................21 List of Tables
Table 1: Surveys Completed by Route and Routes Boarded per Week ...........................2 Table 2: Low-Income Qualified: People in Home by Household Income .........................7 Table 3: Top 10 Home Zip Codes for BBB Customers .....................................................8 Table 4: Customers with Smartphones and Credit Cards ...............................................18 Table 5: Title VI - Low-Income Qualification ...................................................................29

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Contactless Fares Survey | Introduction & Methods
1 Introduction
Big Blue Bus is making the transition to a 100% contactless fare payment system. The purpose of this shift is to save on operations costs, improve on-time performance, and increase the safety of passengers and motor coach operators from possible exposure to pathogens like COVID-19. In connection with this significant operational enhancement, BBB would like to know how passengers currently pay their fares, and what tools, like smartphones and credit cards, customers have available to make the transition to contactless fare payments. To answer these questions, Big Blue Bus commissioned Maroon Society to conduct customer surveys, and develop the following report on customer readiness for the transition to contactless fares.

Methods
We conducted 550 intercept surveys with BBB customers at high volume bus stops. 1 Table 1 on page 2 displays surveys conducted per BBB route. Surveys were administered to collect a representative sample of customer feedback from all 16 BBB routes by day type and time of day. This included conducting surveys between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM over a 12-day period, March 19 to March 30, 2021. Surveyors wore personal protective gear and approached BBB customers using hand-held digital tablets to complete the survey. All surveyors were English-Spanish bilingual, and completed surveys in the preferred language of the customer. Customers were offered a $15.00 gift certificate for their participation. The gift certificates are cash value equivalent administered by the Award of Choice program, which allows customers to select from hundreds of vendors to spend the money.
1 Note: 12 surveys were conducted either over the phone or online.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Contactless Fares Survey | Introduction & Methods
2 BBB Routes Represented by Survey
The following table lists surveys completed by route, and the variety of routes boarded by passengers each week. For example, a customer who conducted a survey prior to boarding the 1-Santa Monica may have listed a variety of other routes s/he rides each week. Those additional routes are collated in the column “Routes/Week.” Table 1: Surveys Completed by Route and Routes Boarded per Week BBB Route Route2 Routes/Week
1 - Santa Monica 105 204
2 - Wilshire 12 59
3 - Lincoln 115 212
5 - Olympic 11
7 - Pico 119 203
7 - Rapid Pico 26 75
8 - Ocean Park 9 31
9 - Pacific Palisades 113 143
10 - Rapid Downtown LA 1 6
12 - Westwood/UCLA 3 18
14 - Bundy 3 30
15 - Barrington 2
17 - UCLA - VA Medical 4 18
18 - UCLA - Abbot Kinney 28 63
41 - 17th St. - SMC 5
43 - 26th St/San Vicente 6
Total 538 1,086
2 In-person surveys totaled 538 and an additional 12 surveys were conducted by phone or Internet.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Contactless Fares Survey | Results
3 Results
Section Description This section offers summary findings from the survey in three sections:

1. Demographic Profile of BBB Customers

2. Ridership and Payment Methods

3. Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
4 Demographic Profile of
BBB Customers
BBB customers are linguistically diverse, range in age from youth to seniors, and live in different areas of Los Angeles County:

LANGUAGE – Forty-one percent (41.5%) of customers
surveyed preferred to conduct the survey in Spanish. Fiftyeight percent (58.5%) conducted an English language survey.3

GENDER – The majority of BBB customers surveyed are
female (62.4%), 37.5% are male, and 0.4% non-binary.

AGE – The age of BBB customers skews older as a result of the loss of most college pass holders aged 18-24 years old.

RACE/ETHNICITY – Hispanic/LatinX are the largest ethnic group (60%) of BBB customers.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME – Nearly half (48.6%) of BBB customers live in households with one to two people, and 78% of have an annual household income less than $40,000.

TITLE VI – 84% of BBB customers qualify as racial minorities, and 86.6%% qualify as Low-Income.

COVID-19 – It is estimated over half of BBB customers live in communities with a disproportionately high number of
COVID-19 cases based on the poverty-COVID-19 nexus.
3 “Language” is based on the language in which the survey was completed. The default language was English. Surveys were conducted in Spanish when customers indicated a desire to participate in Spanish.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
5 Age of BBB Customers
In May 2017, 27% of Big Blue Bus customers were aged 18-24 years old. A year after the onset of COVID-19, only 9% of BBB customers are 18-24 years old. This 67% drop in 18-24 year olds can be explained by the closure of college campuses in response to the pandemic. One month prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 23% of customers paid their fare with a college pass. As of April 2021, none of the BBB customers surveyed used college passes.4 The loss of 18-24 year olds has resulted in a customer base that skews older. In the months ahead, as college campuses reopen, it is anticipated the age distribution of customers will normalize with the return of student pass customers.

Figure 1: BBB Riders by Age
(N=550)
4 This result is consistent with actual fare product use, which verifies only 3% of customers use college passes. This within the 5% margin of error of the survey results. 2%
27%
20%
15%
14%
9%
12%
1%
9%
19% 19%
21%
16% 15%
16-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-61 62+
May 2017 March 2021

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
6 Race/Ethnicity of BBB Customers
The majority of BBB customers (60%) identify as Hispanic/LatinX. Among these customers, 69% conducted the survey in Spanish (N=227) and, 1/3 spoke “Little to No English.” Eighty-four percent of BBB customers surveyed qualify as racial minorities under Title VI. Figure 2 shows the race/ethnicity of BBB customers.

Figure 2: Race/Ethnicity of BBB Riders
(N=550)
Household Size
Nearly 1/3 of BBB customers live in a house with four or more people (31%). Figure 4 illustrates the number of people in the household.

Figure 3: Number of People in Household
(N=550)
2%
5%
17%
20%
60%
Native American
Asian
Black
White
Hispanic
26%
22%
20%
17%
14%
One Two Three Four Five or More

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
7 Household Income
Ninety-three percent (93%) of BBB customers live in a household below the median household income ($68,093) of Los Angeles County. Eighty-six percent (86.6%) qualify as Low-Income under Title VI (See definition in Appendix, Table 5 page 29). Table 2 shows the number of people in BBB customer households and the corresponding household income. Shaded cells qualify as “Low-Income” households.5 Figure 4: Household Income
(N=382)
Table 2: Low-Income Qualified: People in Home by Household Income People
in
Home
Household Income – Number of BBB Customers/Income Category Total
Less than
$20,000
$20,000-
$39,999
$40,000-
$59,999
$60,000-
$79,999
$80,000-
$99,999
$100,000
or More
1 62 22 12 4 2 1 103
2 25 36 12 4 2 3 82
3 23 36 11 6 0 0 76
4 27 22 15 1 0 0 65
5 14 18 4 4 0 0 40
6 3 6 1 0 0 0 10
7 2 2 1 0 0 0 5
10 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
LowIncome 156 142 32 1 0 0 331
% 40.8% 37.2% 8.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 86.6%
Total 156 142 56 20 4 4 382
5 Note, 165 (30.2%) of BBB customers declined to answer the household income question. 2%
5%
15%
37%
41%
$80,000-or More
$60,000-$79,999
$40,000-$59,999
$20,000-$39,999
Less than $20,000

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
8 Neighborhood of BBB Customers
BBB customers travel from various regions of the County, often corresponding with Metro’s Blue line, Expo, and Gold line rail. Figure 5 illustrates the zip codes where BBB customers live. Darker shaded areas represent larger concentrations of riders. Table 3 lists the Zip codes with the greatest concentration of customers.

Figure 5: Map of BBB Customers by Home Zip Code
Table 3: Top 10 Home Zip Codes for BBB Customers
Rank Neighborhood Zip Code Frequency (N) Percent (%)
1 Santa Monica 90405 48 8.7%
2 South Central LA 90011 32 5.8%
3 Santa Monica 90401 28 5.1%
4 Mid Wilshire 90019 24 4.4%
5 Santa Monica 90404 23 4.2%
6 South LA 90003 21 3.8%
7 Pico Union 90006 20 3.6%
8 West Adams 90016 18 3.3%
9 Venice 90291 16 2.9%
10 Westwood 90025 15 2.7%

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
9 Neighborhoods of BBB Customers & Percent living below Poverty Over half (51.5%) of BBB customers live in communities with medium to high rates of poverty.6 Figure 7 shows concentration of poverty across LA County and Figure 6 shows the proportion of BBB customers living in each zip code. 6 LA County has a poverty rate of 13.4%. Low poverty is defined as communities with 0%-14% living below the poverty line, medium is 14.1%-23.99%, and high poverty is 25%-50%.

Figure 6: Map of BBB Customer’s by Home Zip Code
Figure 7: Map of BBB Customer Zip Codes by Poverty

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
10 Neighborhood of BBB Customers & COVID-19 Cases
COVID-19 cases are more abundant in areas with higher poverty. Given that over half of customers reside in communities with greater rates of poverty, these customers experience a higher risk for acquiring and transmitting COVID-19. Figure 9 shows the distribution of COVID-19 cases across LA County as of April 23, 2021.

Figure 8: Map of BBB Riders by Zip Code
Figure 9: COVID-19 Cases in Los Angeles County - April 2021 Map generated by the LA County COVID-19 Surveillance Dashboard 4/22/2021

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
11 Ridership and Payment
Methods
This section details how customers travel on BBB, pre COVID-19 pandemic and currently. This includes frequency of use and payment methods.

FREQUENCY USE – Fifty percent (50%) of customers ride BBB at least 4 days per week; and, 79% started riding BBB prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

PAYMENT TYPE – Fifty-seven percent (56.9%) pay their fare with cash. This increase in cash use is driven primarily by the loss of college student pass users and the introduction of new customers, among whom 74% pay with cash.

OPPORTUNITY – Seniors and Interagency Transfer customers are not taking full advantage of the discounts available to them. BBB has an opportunity to increase the proportion of customers benefiting from available discount fares via
targeted messaging to educate customers how to apply for relevant discounts and use TAP for Interagency transfers.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1258 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
12 Frequency of Riding BBB
Fifty percent (50%) of customers ride BBB 4 or more days each week. Among these high frequency riders, 89.7% started riding before the COVID-19 Pandemic. Overall, 21% of all BBB customers started riding after the pandemic.

Figure 10: Frequency of BBB Ridership
(N=550)
Frequency of Riding by Continuous vs. New BBB Customers New customers ride BBB less frequently than Continuous Customers (i.e., those who rode BBB before COVID-19 and continue riding BBB) - 76.9% ride less than 1 day/week to 3 days/week versus 43.5% of Continuous Customers.

Figure 11: Frequency of BBB Ridership by Continuous & New Customers (N=550)
15%
36%
29%
21%
Less than 1 day/week 1 to 3 days 4 to 5 days 6 days or more 10%
33% 33%
24%
32%
44%
13% 11%
Less than 1 day/week 1 to 3 days 4 to 5 days 6 days or more Continuous New

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
13 Fare Media Pre-COVID-19
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, cash, as a fare media, comprised 32.8% of all fares.

With the onset of COVID-19, BBB witnessed an exodus of college pass holders.

Among Continuous Customers, 50.7% (n=220) paid their fare with cash before the pandemic. Figure 12 shows the distribution of fares by All vs. Continuous customers before the pandemic. As can be seen, Continuous customers were much more likely to pay their fare with cash Pre-COVID-19 compared to the average BBB customer; and, most (184/220) of these cash paying customers continue to pay their fare with cash.

UCLA and SMC passes are almost non-existent among Continuous customers.

Figure 12: Fare Media & Categories – Pre-COVID-19: All vs. Continuous Customers

0.5%

1.4%

1.6%

6.9%

38.0%

50.7%

12.2%

6.3%

1.5%

14.3%

1.3%

5.1%

44.8%

32.8%
SMC Pass
UCLA Pass
Smartphone App
BBB Paper Pass
7-Day BBB Paper Pass
Access TAP Card
TAP Card
Cash on Bus
All
(Farebox Count,
Pre-COVID-19)
Continuous
(Survey Count,
N=434)

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
14 Fare Media Post-Covid-19
Cash is the most frequently used fare type among customers. 7 The increase of cash
fares Pre-to-Post COVID-19 outbreak resulted from the loss of college pass customers and the addition of new customers who primarily use cash (74.1%) to pay their fare.8 Figure 13: Payment Type by All, Continuous Customers & New Customers 7 The survey results are consistent with the fare categories obtained from fare box data in April 2021. 8 New customers are those who started riding BBB after March 20, 2020 – onset of COVID-19 pandemic.

0.0%

1.7%

24.1%

74.1%

1.8%

6.9%

38.9%

52.3%

1.5%

5.8%

35.8%

56.9%
Smartphone App
Access
TAP
Cash
All - Surveyed
(N=550)
Continuous Customers
(N=434)
New Customers
(N=116)

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
15 Location to Purchase Fare Products
Most non-cash paying customers purchase fare products at Ticket Vending Machines (41%). Thirty percent receive their fare products from Access or a Social Services Agency (91% Access TAP, 9% TAP); and, 14% purchase fares at the BBB Transit store.

Figure 14: Purchase Location
(N=237)9
Discount Fare Payers vs. Self Reported Discount Eligible Twenty-one percent of BBB customers (N=117) report paying their fare with a discount.

However, slightly more (25%; N=137) report being eligible for a discount. Eighty percent (80.5%) of Seniors (62 years +; N=83) pay with one of the discount categories listed in Figure 15, while an additional 20.5% of eligible seniors report paying full price.

Figure 15 compares BBB customers who self-report eligibility for a discount and those who report paying with discount (Actual).
9 The percent of usage was imputed based on reports from 116 participants. This resulted from a lack of responses from other respondents who otherwise could, but did not, respond to this question. 41%
30%
14%
9% 6% 5% 3%
Ticket
Vending
Machine
Access or
Social
Service
Agency
BBB Transit
Store
TAP Website
or Call
Center
TAP app Smartphone
app
TAP retail
location
Figure 15: Discount Fare Payers vs. Self Reported Discount Eligible (N=137)
62%
19%
2% 0%

83.9%

24.8%

2.9% 0.7%
Senior Disability Medicare Youth
Actual Self-Reported Eligible

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
16 0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

19.7%

4.3%

23.1%

15.4%

46.2%

0.2%

0.5%

0.7%

1.6%

7.2%

2.1%

7.2%

4.4%

7.2%

13.9%

59.8%

0.2%

0.4%

0.5%

1.3%

1.5%

5.6%

5.8%

6.5%

8.4%

8.9%

14.2%

56.9%
TAP U-Pass
TAP Interagency Transfer
BBB Annual Pass
TAP E-Pass
Youth 30-Day Pass
UCLA Pass
13-Rides Pass
7-Day Pass
Access TAP Card
Day Pass
EZ Pass
30-Day Pass
TAP - Single Ride
Cash - Single Ride
Total
(N=550)
Regular
(N=433)
Discount
(N=117)
Fares Category
Prior to COVID-19, cash use was at 32.8%. After the COVID-19 Pandemic, college pass use nearly vanished. As a result, cash is now the most frequently used fare media.

Figure 16 compares fare categories by total, discount, and regular fare payers.

Figure 16: Fare Category by Total, Regular and Discount Fare Payers

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
17 Interagency Transfers – Frequency & Fare Type
Fifty one percent (51%) of customers transfer between BBB and other agencies. Onethird (33.6%) transfer Rarely or Sometimes, and 16.9% transfer Usually or Always.

Twenty-two percent (21.9%, 61/278) making interagency transfers report receiving the discounted fare with TAP.
10 However, the proportion of customers making interagency transfers who receive a discount is likely 62% (61+111/278). As Figure 18 highlights, among customers who report “not” receiving an interagency discount, a combined 51% (n=111) use TAP or Access to pay their fare on BBB; and, each of these fare categories automatically provide the discounted $0.50 transfer fare.

Figure 17: Frequency of Interagency Transfers
(N=550)
Figure 18: Fare Media by Interagency Transfers Customers who Report Not Receiving the Discount Fare
(N=217)
10 This is consistent with those who transfer “Usually or Always,” among whom 17% report receiving a discount.
49%
15% 19%
9% 8%
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

2.3%

8.3%

42.9%

46.5%
Smartphone App
Access
TAP
Cash

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares 18 Customer Readiness for
Contactless Fares
Over half of BBB customers (56.9%) pay their fare with cash. During the next few months, BBB will support customers as they transition from cash to the most convenient fare media for them. This includes a thoughtful examination of how the shift toward contactless fare payments may impact groups protected by Title VI – Low-Income and racial minority customers.

This section details customer readiness for transitioning to contactless fares. “Readiness” is explored by examining customers who currently pay their fare with cash, identifying those who have access to smartphones with Internet access and credit cards, and those who do not. Table 4 shows customers with a smartphone by customers with credit cards. An estimated 37% of customers fall into the groups with possibly greater support needs (i.e., those who have a phone but no credit card, a credit card but no phone, or neither a phone nor credit card).

Low-Income customers and Hispanic customers may need more support making the transition from cash to contactless fares.

Table 4: Customers with Smartphones and Credit Cards
Have Credit Card
Yes No Total
Have Smartphone
with Data or WiFi Yes 63% 22% 85%
348 119 467
No
4% 11% 15%
23 60 83
Total 371 179 550

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares 19 Cash Use
Cash is most heavily used by two communities protected by Title VI: Low-Income customers and Hispanic/LatinX customers. Over half (55.5%) of Low-Income customers use cash to pay their fare, compared to 41.2% of higher income customers.

Additionally, 62.5% of Hispanic customers use cash to pay their fare. Each of these results are statistically significant. Black and Asian customers use cash slightly more than their White counterparts; however, the differences are no statistically significant.

Native American customers use cash less than all other groups. BBB can help LowIncome customers and Hispanic customers transition to contactless fares by introducing them to the Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) program. This may include working with an agency that conducts customer outreach, and possibly support customers to navigate the LIFE application. In addition, Low-Income and Hispanic customers may benefit from an introduction to available tools, like Metro’s TAP phone number, they can use to identify locations to purchase and load fares on TAP cards.

This outreach requires bilingual content and navigation support to be most effective.

Figure 19: Cash Fare – Income Status, Race & Ethnicity
(N=381)

41.2%

55.5%

48.1%

62.5%

56.2% 53.6%

0.0%
High Low Income White Hispanic Black Asian Native
Indicates difference is statistically significant.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares 20 Smartphone and Credit Card Access by Income
The majority of customers (88.5%) have smartphones. Eighty-four percent have a smartphone with a data plan; and, an additional 0.9%, who do not have a data plan, report using WiFi on their phone to access the Internet. Among all customers, 67.5% have a credit card, check card or pre-paid visa card. There is an unmistakable digital divide in both smartphone Internet access and digital payment methods by customer income levels. Lower-Income customers are less likely than Higher-Income customers to posses both a smartphone with Internet access and a credit card. Customers with Low-Income are also more likely than customers with Higher-Income to have an Internet accessible smartphone without a credit card, or have neither a credit card or Internet accessible smartphone.

Figure 20: Smartphone and Credit Card Access - Higher vs. Lower Income (N=550)

82.4%

15.7%

2.0% 0.0%

54.8%

30.3%

3.3%

11.5%
Phone & Card Phone & No Card Card & No Phone No Card & No Phone High-Income Low-Income
Indicates difference is statistically significant.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares 21 Smartphone and Credit Card Access by Race/Ethnicity
Asian customers are much more likely than all other race/ethnic groups to have a smartphone with Internet access and a credit card. Differences between other racial groups, related to possessing phones and credit cards are not statistically significant. This means no racial group is more or less likely to have the combined access gap to phones and credit cards, which might necessitate a mitigation strategy. Instead, all race/ethnic groups have relatively equal access to credit cards and phones, except for Asian customers who have greater access than all other groups.

Figure 21: Smartphone and Credit Card Access – Race/Ethnicity (N=550)
66%
21%
6% 7%
62%
24%
3%
11%
59%
21%
4%
16%
89%
4%
7%
0%
54%
15% 15% 15%
Phone & Card Phone & No Card Card & No Phone No Card & No Phone White Hispanic Black Asian Native
Indicates difference is statistically significant.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Conclusion
22 Conclusion
In the months to come, Big Blue Bus will transition to a 100% contactless fare payment system to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, improve on-time performance, and improve motor coach operator and customer safety. Over half of BBB customers will need to adopt a contactless fare media.

Customers who have smartphones with a data plan and a credit card can transition by adopting an electronic payment method, if they are not already using one. Customers who have an Internet accessible smartphone but no credit card, a credit card but no smartphone, or neither credit card nor smartphone can initiate TAP. Our analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences when it comes to the combination of smartphone and credit card access and fare media used. This suggests that with clear and targeted messaging, all customer segments, regardless of phone and credit card access, can successfully transition to contactless fare payments.

Low-Income customers and Hispanic/LatinX customers may benefit from a strategy unique to each group. Low-income customers lack access to both smartphone based Internet and credit cards. Low-Income customers and LatinX customers are also most likely to pay with cash. There is a nexus between these two groups – 69% of LowIncome customers are Hispanic (228/330) and 93% of Hispanics are Low-Income (228/244). These groups should be encouraged to adopt TAP cards, and apply for the LIFE program. This will likely require a bilingual English/Spanish campaign that provides in-person education. The in-person outreach is critical, especially for Spanish speaking Latinos. Many of these customers experience a digital divide related to Internet access, webpage navigation, and comprehension given the ubiquity of English language websites and resources in comparison to the often difficult to locate and comprehend Spanish language options. Messaging targeted at Low-income and Hispanic customers should highlight the benefits and security of TAP, the ability to check on fare balances, and the variety of community retail locations to load fares.

BBB may also consider informing customers about their eligibility for discounts.

Approximately 20% of Seniors who are eligible for a discount do not take advantage of it. Additionally, approximately 40% of customers who make interagency transfers do not use TAP to receive the discounted fare. An outreach campaign with customerspecific education about contactless fare payment options and discounts will promote the Big Blue Bus brand as a transportation leader that fulfills its commitment to serve the needs of all its customers, especially in critical times of transition.

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Appendix
23 Appendix

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 24 BBB - Fare Use Survey

1. Enter Survey Invitation Code____________

2. Are you at least 14 years old?
a. Yes
b. No ! TERMINATE SURVEY

3. How many days a week do you ride on BBB buses?
a. Don’t ride BBB ! TERMINATE SURVEY
b. Less than 1 day/week
c. 1 to 3 days
d. 4 to 5 days
e. 6 days or more

4. BBB route(s) you ride on a weekly basis
(SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
a. 1 Santa Monica Blvd.
b. 2 Wilshire Blvd.
c. 3 Lincoln Blvd.
d. 5 Olympic Blvd.
e. 7 Pico Blvd.
f. 7 Rapid Pico Blvd.
g. 8 Ocean Park
h. 9 Pacific Palisades
i. 10 Rapid Downtown LA
j. 12 Westwood/UCLA/Culver City
k. 14 Bundy Dr.
l. 15 Barrington Ave.
m. 17 UCLA - VA Medical – Palms
n. 18 UCLA - Abbot Kinney
o. 41 - 17th St. - SMC – Montana
p. 43 - 26th St. & San Vicente Blvd.

5. Did you ride BBB before the COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Yes, started riding before March 20th, 2020.
b. No, started riding after March 20th, 2020. ! SKIP TO Q.8

6. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, How did you USUALLY pay for your BBB fare? a. Cash on the bus
b. BBB Paper Pass (magnetic)
c. TAP card
d. Access TAP card
e. 7-Day BBB Paper Pass
f. Santa Monica College Pass
g. UCLA Pass
h. Smartphone app (Transit app, Token Transit app)
i. BBB employee/retiree/dependent pas

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 25 IF “PAPER DAY PASS” OR “PAPER 7-DAY PASS” IS SELECTED, CONTINUE TO Q.7, OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.8

7. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Where did you usually purchase your Paper Pass?
a. On the bus
b. BBB Transit Store
c. Santa Monica public library

8. How do you usually pay for your BBB fare now?
a. Cash on the bus ! SKIP TO Q.11
b. TAP card
c. Smartphone app (Tap, Transit app, Token Transit app) d. Access TAP card
e. BBB employee/retiree/dependent pass
f. Paper pass that I had left over.

ANSWER Q.9 IF “C.” SELECTED ABOVE, OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.10 .

9. Which Smartphone App do you usually use to pay your BBB fare? a. TAP app
b. Transit app
c. Token Transit App
d. Other
IF CASH SELECTED AT Q.8, SKIP TO Q11.

10.Where do you typically get your BBB fare products (tickets/passes)? ( Select All That Apply)
a. A ticket vending machine (TAP Stored Value)
b. TAP website
c. TAP call center
d. TAP retail location (Ralph’s, 7-Eleven, etc.)
e. TAP app
f. BBB Transit Store
g. Smartphone app (Token Transit app, Transit app)
h. Pass is provided by Employer or School
i. Pass is provided by Access or Social Service Agency

11.Do you usually pay your fare with a Senior, Disabled or Medicare discount? a. Yes
b. No ! SKIP TO Q. 13

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 26 IF CASH SELECTED AT Q.8, SKIP TO Q14.

12.Which fare(s) do you normally choose now? (choose one or two) a. TAP (Value) Single Ride
b. Day Pass
c. 13-Rides Pass
d. 30-Day Pass
e. EZ Pass
ANSWER Q.13 ONLY IF “NO” SELECTED AT Q.11, OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.14.

13.Which fare(s) do you normally choose now? (choose one or two)? (choose one or two)
a. TAP (Value) Single Ride
b. Day Pass
c. 7-Day Pass
d. 13-Rides Pass
e. 30-Day Pass
f. EZ Pass
g. Youth 30-Day Pass
h. BBB Annual Pass
i. Blue to Business Pass
j. Access TAP Card
k. TAP Interagency Transfer
l. UCLA Pass
m. SMC Pass
n. TAP U-Pass
o. TAP E-Pass

14.Thinking about 1-way trips on the Big Blue Bus, how often do you transfer to or from Big Blue Bus from or to another bus or rail provider? a. Never !SKIP TO Q.16
b. Rarely
c. Sometimes
d. Usually
e. Always

15.When you transfer to other transit providers (not BBB), do you use TAP Stored Value to purchase the discounted $0.50 Interagency Transfer? a. Yes
b. No

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 27 16.Do you have a smartphone?
a. Yes
b. No ! SKIP TO Q.19

17.Does your phone have a data plan to access the internet? a. Yes ! SKIP TO Q.19
b. No

18.Do you access the Internet on your phone using Wi-Fi? a. Yes
b. No

19.Do you have a credit card, bank debit card, or pre-paid card to make purchases? a. Yes
b. No

20.Are you eligible for reduced bus fares under any of the categories below? (Select all that apply)
a. Senior
b. Disabled
c. Medicare recipient
d. Youth (5 to 18 years of age)
e. No – Not Eligible for discounts

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 28 DEMOGRAPHICS

21.What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
c. Non-binary

22.In which age category do you belong?
a. 16-17 years
b. 18-24
c. 25-34
d. 35-44
e. 45-54
f. 55-61
g. 62 and Older

23.Select the group(s) that best describe you.
(Select all that apply)
a. Hispanic/Latino/Latinx
b. White
c. Black/African American
d. Asian/Pacific Islander
e. Native American
f. Other: ____________________

24.How many people currently live in your home (including you)? _____________

25.Thinking about all the people who earn money in your home – If their annual incomes were combined, approximately how much money is earned per year (i.e., annual household income)?
a. Less than $20,000
b. $20,000 – $39,999
c. $40,000 – $59,999
d. $60,000 – $79,999
e. $80,000 – $99,999
f. More than $100,000

26.How proficient are you in English?
a. I speak little to no English
b. I speak some English
c. I speak English very well

27.What is your home zip code? __________________

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 29 Title VI – Low-Income Definition
BBB uses Metro’s LIFE program to qualify customer’s as low-income based on household size and annual income, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Title VI - Low-Income Qualification
Household Size Annual Income
1 $39,450 or less
2 $45,050 or less
3 $50,700 or less
4 $56,300 or less
5 $60,850 or less
6 $65,350 or less

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: 1st On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - April 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Report: OCTOBER 2021

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Contactless Pilot Survey:

Customer Response to
Contactless Fares

DRAFT REPORTT

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) i
Executive Summary
In July, Big Blue Bus became the first transit agency in the United States to implement a 100% contactless fare payment system. This change minimizes interactions between passengers and motor coach operators to help prevent the spread of pathogens like COVID-19. It also improves on-time bus performance, and eliminates costs associated with collating and transporting cash fares to banks and repairing fare-boxes.

Between March and September at least 57% of Big Blue Bus (BBB) customers were asked to shift from cash to a contactless payment method. The majority of these customers adopted TAP cards to pay their fare, which coincides with the jump in TAP card usage from 36% to 73% between March and September. Overall, 79% of customers expressed a neutral response to the pilot; 7% expressed a positive impact; and, 14% had negative opinions of the contactless pilot. The majority of positive and negative comments came from customers who previously paid with cash. Positive comments revolved around speed, safety, and convenience; negative comments mentioned inconvenience seeking places to load fares, and confusion and concern about TAP card technology failing. This may explain why 73% of customers were interested in an option to load fares on a smartphone at the transit store.

Survey results showed BBB customers eligible for discounts for Interagency transfer, Seniors, and Youth have high levels of awareness (81%-86%); and 70% percent of disability eligible customers are aware of disability-based discounts. The discount area with the greatest opportunity to increase awareness is among LIFE eligible customers.

Currently, 27% of eligible customers are aware of LIFE, and 9% are receiving LIFE benefits. Ten percent of Seniors who previously received the $.50 senior fare discount did not transition to receive a senior discount on TAP. This may be explained by Seniors reluctant to provide personal information to register for the discount.

BBB may consider targeting LIFE eligible customers for outreach and education at TAP vending machines and TAP retail, given that 68% of LIFE eligible customers purchase fares at these locations. There is an opportunity to address some of the resistance Seniors experience in the discount application process to increase discount utilization.

Interagency discount awareness could be improved; however, it will be difficult to get an accurate picture of these customer’s needs until Metro resumes fare collection. BBB might consider testing marketing communication with focus groups to identify messages and communication modes that will resonate with target customers.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares | Final Report Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... i Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 1 BBB Routes Represented by Survey ...................................................................................... 2 Results ...................................................................................................................... 3 Section Description............................................................................................................3 Demographic Profile of BBB Customers ............................................................................4 Age of BBB Customers .......................................................................................................... 5 Race/Ethnicity of BBB Customers .......................................................................................... 6 Household Size ...................................................................................................................... 6 Household Income................................................................................................................. 7 Life Eligibility.......................................................................................................................... 7 Neighborhood of BBB Customers ......................................................................................... 8 Ridership and Payment Methods .......................................................................................9 Frequency of Riding BBB..................................................................................................... 10 Number of BBB Routes Used Weekly.................................................................................. 10 Fare Media........................................................................................................................... 11 Location to Purchase Fare Products .................................................................................... 12 Fares Category..................................................................................................................... 13 Transfers............................................................................................................................... 14 Discount Fare Awareness and Use..................................................................................15 TAP Discount Awareness ..................................................................................................... 16 Discount Fare Awareness..................................................................................................... 17 Senior Discount Usage......................................................................................................... 18 LIFE Eligibility and Use ........................................................................................................ 18 Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot..............................................................19 Contactless Fare Implementation ........................................................................................ 20 Access to Make Contactless Payments ................................................................................ 20 Interest in Transit Store to Load Fare on Smartphone......................................................... 22 Negative & Positive Impact of Contactless Pilot.................................................................. 23 Qualitative Positive Impact of Contactless Pilot .................................................................. 24 Qualitative Negative Impact of Contactless Pilot................................................................ 25 Return to Cash ..................................................................................................................... 26 Would Use Cash for Future Trips ......................................................................................... 26 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 27 Appendix ................................................................................................................ 29 BBB – Contactless Pilot........................................................................................................ 30

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Customer Readiness for Contactless Fares | Final Report List of Figures
Figure 1: BBB Riders by Age (N=592)...............................................................................5 Figure 2: Race/Ethnicity of BBB Riders (N=592) ...............................................................6 Figure 3: Number of People in Household (N=591) ........................................................6 Figure 4: Household Income (N=385)...............................................................................7 Figure 5: Map of BBB Customers by Home Zip Code ......................................................8 Figure 6: Frequency of BBB Ridership (N=592) ..............................................................10 Figure 7: BBB Routes by Customers (N=592) .................................................................10 Figure 8: Fare Media – BBB Customers Surveyed September 2021 (N=592).................11 Figure 9: Fare Purchase Locations...................................................................................12 Figure 10: Fare Category by Total, Regular and Discount Fare Payers ..........................13 Figure 11: Frequency of Blue-to-Blue and Interagency Transfers (N=592)....................14 Figure 12: Aware of Cost Reduction with TAP by Pre-Pilot Fare Type ...........................16 Figure 13: Discount Fare Awareness ...............................................................................17 Figure 14: Senior Discount Usage Before and During Pilot (N=79) ................................18 Figure 15: LIFE Eligible BBB Customers (N=321) ...........................................................18 Figure 16: Pre-Pilot Fare Media (N=592) ........................................................................20 Figure 17: Customers with Smartphones and Credit Card: March – September............20 Figure 18: Transit Store to Load Fare on Smartphone by Pre-Contactless Fare Type....21 Figure 19: Transit Store to Load Fare on Smartphone by Pre-Contactless Fare Type....22 Figure 20: Negative & Positive Impact by Pre-Pilot Fare Type .......................................23 Figure 23: Should BBB Accept Cash Again? – by Pre-Pilot Fare Type (N=592) .............26 Figure 24: Would BBB Customers Use Cash Again? by Pre-Pilot Fare Type ..................26 List of Tables
Table 1: Routes Boarded per Week and BBB Ridership ...................................................2 Table 2: LIFE Eligibility Criteria .........................................................................................7 Table 3: Top 9 Home Zip Codes for BBB Customers .......................................................8

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Contactless Fares Survey | Introduction & Methods
1 Introduction
On July 12, 2021, Big Blue Bus transitioned to a 100% contactless fare payment system. The purpose of this shift is to save on operations costs, improve on-time performance, and increase the safety of passengers and motor coach operators from possible exposure to pathogens like COVID-19. Initial metrics for success included (1) convert 85% of customers to contactless fares prior to start of pilot, (2) raise awareness of available fare discounts to 90%, (3) raise participation in the LIFE program to 10%, (4) increase average bus speed by 1 mile per hour, (5) save approximately $93,000 annually on cash handling reimbursements, and (6) save approximately $274,000 annually in reduced farebox and cash handling equipment costs. This report addresses how customers have experienced the contactless pilot approximately 90 days after implementation. In addition, it identifies progress made towards metric 2 (discount awareness) and 3 (LIFE participation), and customer transit behavior.

Methods
Between September 9, 2021 and September 21, 2021, Maroon Society conducted 592 intercept surveys at BBB bus stops and on-board BBB buses. Surveys were administered to collect a representative sample of customer feedback from all 19 BBB routes by day type and time of day. This included conducting surveys between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM over a 13-day period. Surveyors wore personal protective gear and approached BBB customers using hand-held digital tablets to complete the survey. All surveyors were English-Spanish bilingual, and completed surveys in the preferred language of the customer.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Contactless Fares Survey | Introduction & Methods
2 BBB Routes Represented by Survey
The following table lists routes boarded by survey participants each week compared to weekly BBB ridership. This table demonstrates the close alignment of customers surveyed and current BBB ridership. Routes boarded by survey participants are aligned with BBB ridership within 5 percentage points.1 This signifies how highly representative the survey results are of BBB customers.

Table 1: Routes Boarded per Week and BBB Ridership
Routes Boarded Ridership Alignment
BBB Route (N) (%) (%) Surveyed vs.

Ridership
1 - Santa Monica Blvd. 164 15.5% 16.6% -1.1%
2 - Wilshire Blvd. 70 6.6% 5.0% 1.6%
3 - Lincoln Blvd. 143 13.5% 13.8% -0.3%
Rapid 3 - Lincoln Blvd. 47 4.4% 4.3% 0.1%
5 - Olympic Blvd. 9 0.8% 0.8% 0.1%
7 - Pico Blvd. 175 16.5% 16.8% -0.3%
Rapid 7 - Pico Blvd. 76 7.2% 6.8% 0.3%
Express 7 - Pico Blvd. 23 2.2% 2.0% 0.2%
8 - Ocean Park 24 2.3% 5.2% -2.9%
9 - Pacific Palisades 136 12.8% 3.9% 8.9%
10 - Rapid Downtown LA 5 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
Rapid 12 - Westwood Blvd. 37 3.5% 7.0% -3.5%
14 - Bundy Dr. Centinela 32 3.0% 6.8% -3.7%
15 - Barrington Ave. 4 0.4% 0.8% -0.5%
16 - Marina del Rey 8 0.8% 0.7% 0.0%
17 - UCLA - VA 21 2.0% 4.3% -2.3%
18 - Abbot Kinney 59 5.6% 3.3% 2.3%
41 - 17th St. - SMC 18 1.7% 0.9% 0.8%
43 - 26th St. 10 0.9% 0.8% 0.2%
Total 1,061 – – –
1 Route 9 –is overrepresented by 8.9%.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Contactless Fares Survey | Results
3 Results
Section Description This section offers summary findings from the survey in four sections:

1. Demographic Profile of BBB Customers

2. Ridership and Payment Methods

3. Discount Fare Awareness and Use

4. Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
4 Demographic Profile of
BBB Customers
BBB customers are linguistically diverse, range in age from youth to seniors, and live in different areas of Los Angeles County:

LANGUAGE – Thirty percent (30.4%) of customers preferred to conduct the survey in Spanish. Sixty-nine percent (69.6%) conducted the survey in English.2 Overall, 70.8% of survey respondents spoke English very well.

GENDER – BBB customers surveyed were female (60.8%),

38.9% male, and 0.3% non-binary.

AGE – The age of BBB customers continues to reflect an older cohort – 60% of customers are 35 years and older, whereas in 2017 half of customers were young than 35.

RACE/ETHNICITY – Hispanic/LatinX are the largest ethnic group (48%) of BBB customers, down from 60% in March.

This decline coincides with the return of White and Asian customers who now represent 27% and 10% of riders vs. 20% and 5%, respectively.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME – Over half (54.2%) of customers live in households that qualify for LIFE (Low Income Fare is Easy) based on household size and combined household income.
2 “Language” is based on the language in which the survey was completed. The default language was English. Surveys were conducted in Spanish when customers indicated a desire to participate in Spanish.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
5 Age of BBB Customers
In May 2017, 27% of Big Blue Bus customers were 18-24 years old. One and a half years after the onset of COVID-19, 15% of BBB customers are 18-24 years old. This percentage is up from March, where only 9% of customers were 18-24 years. It is anticipated that this age category will continue to increase as UCLA students adopt BBB transit. As Figure 1 displays, ridership among youth (16-17 years) is up from previous years. We suspect this resulted from the affordability of the 30-Day Youth pass, of which 80% of Youth use to pay their fare. BBB is achieving high levels of racial equity with this fare category, as 84% of users are Youth of Color.3 Figure 1: BBB Riders by Age
(N=592)
3 This includes LatinX (45.5%), African American (34.1%), and Asian (4.5%) 2%
27%
20%
15%
14%
9%
12%
1%
9%
19% 19%
21%
16% 15%
7%
15%
18%
20% 20%
6%
13%
16-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-61 62+
May 2017 March 2021 Sept. 2021

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
6 Race/Ethnicity of BBB Customers
The majority of BBB customers (48%) identify as Hispanic/LatinX. Among Hispanic customers, 63% conducted the survey in Spanish (179/284). Figure 2 shows the shift in race/ethnicity of BBB customers that coincided with COVID-19 vaccinations, and easing of social distancing public health protocols. Between March and September, more White and Asian customers have either initiated or returned to BBB.

Figure 2: Race/Ethnicity of BBB Riders
(N=592)
Household Size
Nearly 1/4 of BBB customers live in a house with four or more people (24%). Figure 3 illustrates household size of BBB customers.

Figure 3: Number of People in Household
(N=591)
0%
10%
17%
27%
48%
2%
5%
17%
20%
60%
Native American
Asian
Black
White
Hispanic
March. 2021
Sept. 2021
24%
26% 27%
14%
7%
3%
One Two Three Four Five Six or More

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
7 Household Income
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of BBB customers live in a household with a combined household income of less than $35,000.

Figure 4: Household Income
(N=385)
Life Eligibility
Survey results show that over half of customers (52%) are eligible for the LIFE program for free or reduced fares. This calculation was done based on three criteria: (1) participants answered affirmatively to the question about receiving a LIFE discounted fare, (2) they viewed the information found in Table 2 and indicated they qualified, and (3) participants answered questions about household size and household income and the research team determined if they qualified using the same table below.

Table 2: LIFE Eligibility Criteria
People in Household Household Income to Qualify
Live Alone (1) $41,400 or less
2 $47,300 or less
3 $53,200 or less
4 $59,100 or less
5 $63,850 or less
6 or more $68,600 or less
1%
2%
9%
29%
34%
25%
$100,000-or More
$75,000-$99,999
$50,000-$74,999
$35,000-$49,999
$25,000-$34,999
Less than $25,000

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Demographic Profile of Customers
8 Neighborhood of BBB Customers
BBB customers live in areas surrounding Metro’s Expo line. Figure 5 illustrates the zip codes where BBB customers live. Darker shaded areas represent larger concentrations of riders. Santa Monica, West Wood and Mid-Wilshire are the primary areas where BBB customers live. Table 3 lists the top 9 Zip codes where customers live.

Figure 5: Map of BBB Customers by Home Zip Code
Table 3: Top 9 Home Zip Codes for BBB Customers
Rank Neighborhood Zip Code Frequency (N) Percent (%)
1 Santa Monica 90405 28 4.7%
2 Westwood 90025 26 4.40%
3 Mid Wilshire 90019 23 3.90%
4 West Adams 90016 21 3.50%
5 Pico Union 90006 19 3.20%
6 Westwood 90024 19 3.20%
7 Mid-City/Pico 90035 17 2.90%
8 Korea Town 90005 16 2.70%
9 Santa Monica 90404 15 2.50%

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
9 Ridership and Payment
Methods
This section details how customers travel on BBB, pre-Contactless Pilot and currently. This includes frequency of use and payment methods.

FREQUENCY – Fifty-six percent (56%) of customers ride BBB at least 4 days per week; and, half ride one route each week.

FARE MEDIA – Seventy-three percent (73%) pay their fare with TAP. This represents a 28% point increase in TAP over the past 5 months (73% vs. 45% in March). This increase in TAP is undoubtedly the result of previous cash users converting to TAP card.

FARE PURCHASE LOCATION – Forty-four percent (44%)
purchase fares at TAP vending machines, 28% purchase via the TAP app, 17% from retail locations and 14% from the BBB Transit Store.

FARE CATEGORY – Forty-eight percent (48%) pay with a single ride on TAP (45%) or single ride on mobile apps (3%).

TRANSFERS – Approximately ¼ of customers make transfers either Blue-to-Blue (23%) or Interagency (28%); and, most Interagency users (83%) claim to receive the discounted transfer rate.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
10 Frequency of Riding BBB
Fifty-six percent (55.9%) of customers ride BBB 4 days or more each week.

Figure 6: Frequency of BBB Ridership
(N=592)
Number of BBB Routes Used Weekly
Nearly half of BBB customers ride one route per week. Twenty percent (20%) ride three or more BBB routes per week. These are not only BBB customers taking parallel routes with similar origins and destinations; instead, 74% are making B-to-B transfers.

Figure 7: BBB Routes by Customers
(N=592)
8%
36%
49%
7%
Less than 1 day/week 1 to 3 days 4 to 5 days 6 days or more 48%
32%
15%
5%
One Route Two Routes Three Routes Four or More

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
11 Fare Media
TAP card is the most heavily used fare media, followed by TAP App and Smartphone app. Half of a percent of survey respondents said they do not usually pay. This is less than the 4% of riders who do not pay, according to driver reported data. We account for this discrepancy based on possible embarrassment of customers not wanting to be truthful about not paying, or the likelihood that people unwilling to pay their fare may be unlikely to participate in a survey about transit.

Figure 8: Fare Media – BBB Customers Surveyed September 2021 (N=592)

0.5%

7.3%

19.3%

73.0%
I don't usually pay
Smartphone App
TAP App
TAP Card

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
12 Location to Purchase Fare Products
TAP vending machines are the primary location for purchasing fares. Forty-four percent (44%) of customers report they typically buy their fares at a Metro vending machine; and, an almost equal amount (42%) report purchasing fares online via the TAP app, Smartphone App, or TAP website. Fourteen percent (14%) purchase their fare at the BBB Transit Store, indicating the continued desire for human interaction during the fare purchase process.

Figure 9: Fare Purchase Locations
44%
28%
17%
14%
7% 6% 6% 5%
2%
TAP
Vending
Machine
TAP
App
TAP
Retail
Location
BBB
Transit
Store
Smart
-phone
App
TAP
Website
Employer/
School
Access/
Social
Service
TAP
Call
Center

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
13 0%

0.3%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
6%
8%
8%
19%
45%
BBB Annual Pass
Employer-provided pass
TAP Interagency Transfer
TAP-UCLA BruinGo! Quarterly
TAP E-Pass
SMC Pass
TAP U-Pass
TAP UCLA Co-pay Pass
13-Rides Pass
EZ Pass
Single Ride - Mobile Phone
1-Day Pass
Access TAP Card
7-Day Pass
30-Day Pass
TAP Single Ride
Fares Category
Ninety-eight percent (98%) of BBB customers regularly use only 1 form of fare payment. Nearly half pay for 1-Ride at a time (45% with TAP, 3% with Mobile App), and over one third (35%) use passes, ranging from 1-day to 30 days.4 There is an additional 19% who pay their fare with a supplement based on their status as students, lower income, disabled or seniors.

Figure 10: Fare Category by Total, Regular and Discount Fare Payers 4 The 30-day pass may be overrepresented given that free 30-day passes were distributed proximate to the survey period.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Ridership and Payment Methods
14 Transfers
Twenty-three percent (23%) of customers Usually or Always transfer within Big Blue Bus, and 28% transfer interagency. Eighty-three percent (83%, 137/160) of those who Usually or Always make interagency transfers report receiving the discounted fare with stored value. Seventeen percent (17.5%) of interagency transferors report not receiving the discount because they pay with a pass (50%), they are not aware of the discount (32%), or because Metro is not presently charging (18%).

Figure 11: Frequency of Blue-to-Blue and Interagency Transfers (N=592)
38%
16%
24%
15%
8%
34%
17%
23%
18%
10%
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
Blue-to-Blue Interagency

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Discount Fare Awareness
15 Discount Fare Awareness
and Use
This section details customer awareness of discounted fares and their eligibility and use of LIFE.

TAP DISCOUNT – Seventy-eight percent (78%) of BBB customers claim they are aware of the discounted fare offered using TAP.

However, future surveys may ask customers how much a fare costs with TAP to confirm un-aided awareness.

DISCOUNT FARE AWARENESS – Awareness of discount fares is high (81%-86%) among Youth, Seniors, and Interagency
customers. Disabled BBB customers have high awareness at 70%; and, LIFE awareness is lower at 27%.

LIFE ELIGIBILITY AND USE – Over half of BBB customers (52%) are eligible for LIFE. Nine percent (9%) of eligible customers receive LIFE, and 19% who are aware and eligible do not receive LIFE.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Discount Fare Awareness
16 TAP Discount Awareness
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of BBB customers state they are aware of a discounted fare with TAP. Among BBB customers who used TAP card or TAP app prior to the contactless pilot, awareness is slightly higher at 81% and 87%, respectively. The largest discount awareness gap is among customers who previously paid their fare with cash. Former cash only fare users have 64% awareness compared to 78% of total, and 81% of previously used contactless fares.

Figure 12: Aware of Cost Reduction with TAP by Pre-Pilot Fare Type 78%
23%
81%
19%
64%
37%
Aware Not Aware
Total
(N=592)
Contactless Only
(n=466)
Cash Only
(n=115)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Discount Fare Awareness
17 Discount Fare Awareness
BBB set a goal to achieve 90% customer awareness of fare discounts. Figure 13 shows Seniors and Youth nearly achieve this mark with 86% awareness. Interagency Transfer customers have a 9% awareness gap to achieve the 90% goal5; and, Disabled customers may have a 20% awareness gap.6 LIFE eligible customers have 63- percentage point awareness gap to overcome in order to achieve the goal. This is discussed further on the following page.

Figure 13: Discount Fare Awareness
5 Interagency Transfer awareness is a calculation of customers to transfer interagency sometimes, usually or always; and, when they transfer, they pay with a TAP card or App to receive the discount. Among interagency transfer customers who did not pay to receive the discount, 34% (19/56) were not aware. 6 A direct question about awareness of disabled customers was not asked. This 70% awareness for Disabled customers contains a numerator calculated from customers who say they received a discount for being disabled or believe they would be eligible for a disability based discount, and a denominator calculated from customers who pay with Access TAP, say they received a discount for being disabled or believe they would be eligible for a disability based discount. 86% 86% 81%
70%
27%
Senior
(N=79)
Youth
(N=44)
Interagency
Transfer
(N=293)
Disabled
(N=56)
LIFE
(N=321)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Discount Fare Awareness
18 Senior Discount Usage
Ninety percent (90%) of Seniors used the $.50 co-pay discount prior to the pilot. As of the pilot, 80% of Seniors receive the contactless based Senior discount. Anecdotal evidence points to an application process that discourages Seniors from receiving the discount, primarily because it asks information they do not want to share.

Figure 14: Senior Discount Usage Before and During Pilot (N=79)
LIFE Eligibility and Use
Over half of BBB customers (52%) are eligible for free or low fares through LIFE; and, among the eligible, 27% are aware of their eligibility. Figure 15 shows 9% percent of LIFE eligible BBB customers say they receive LIFE. Eighteen percent (18%) of LIFE eligible customers who do not receive LIFE, report awareness of the program. Among these non-users, 38% claim to receive another type of fare discount (senior, disabled, youth, or other low income). This suggests the proportion of LIFE Aware customers who do not receive a fare discount is 11% of all LIFE eligible customers, helping explain why 7% of these customers are not enrolling in LIFE. However, the data do not allows us to understand why the remainder of eligible and aware customers chooses not to claim this discount.

Figure 15: LIFE Eligible BBB Customers
(N=321)
90%
80%
Senior $.50 Co-Pay Receive Senior Discount Now
9%
18%
Receiving LIFE Aware & Not Receiving LIFE

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 19 Customer Perceptions
of Contactless Fare Pilot
IMPLEMENTATION – Almost 80% of customers surveyed
already used a contactless payment method. The remaining 21% paid with cash (19%) or paper pass (2%)
CONTACTLESS FARE ACCESS – Customers with data-ready
smartphones and credit cards may have the greatest ease with loading fares on their selected fare media. These
customers are more likely to load fares on TAP app and
Smartphone Apps than customers without both a data-ready smartphone and credit card. Conversely, customers without both a data-ready smartphone and credit card are more likely to purchase their fares at a TAP vending machine.

TRANSIT STORE USE – Forty-four percent (44%) purchase fares at TAP vending machines, 28% purchase via the TAP app,
17% from retail locations and 14% from the BBB Transit Store.

POSITIVE/NEGATIVE IMPACT – Eighty-five percent (85%) of customers reported no impact from the pilot. However, those who previously paid with cash reported the greatest positive and negative consequences from the pilot.

RETURN TO CASH – Nearly 2 out of 3 customers (64%)
surveyed say BBB should accept cash fares again. However, only 35% would pay with cash for “some or most” trips if BBB accepts cash fares again.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 20 Contactless Fare Implementation
Nearly 80% of all BBB customers surveyed used some form of contactless fare prior to implementation of the contactless pilot. Nineteen percent (19%) of customers surveyed paid exclusively with cash, and 2% paid with a paper pass.

Figure 16: Pre-Pilot Fare Media
(N=592)
Access to Make Contactless Payments
The research team hypothesized that access to both a data-ready smartphone and credit card make the purchase of contactless fares easier. Figure 17 shows BBB customers surveyed in September are more likely to have both a data-ready smartphone and credit card than customers surveyed in March.

Figure 17: Customers with Smartphones and Credit Card: March – September Contactless,
79%
Cash Only,
19%
Paper Pass,
2%
1%
3%
79%
63%
September
2021
(N=592)
March
2021
(N=550)
Smartphone
& Credit
No
Smartphone
& No Credit

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 21 The survey data shows over half (57%) of customers without both a data-ready smartphone and credit card are more likely to purchase their fares at TAP vending machines than customers with a data-ready smartphone and credit card. Conversely, BBB customers with both a smartphone and credit card are more likely than their counterparts to purchase fares on TAP App, Smartphone Apps and TAP retail.

Figure 18: Transit Store to Load Fare on Smartphone by Pre-Contactless Fare Type 1%
10%
10%
3%
3%
11%
9%
19%
57%
2%
3%
6%
7%
9%
13%
17%
33%
40%
TAP Call Center
Access or Social Services
Employer/School
TAP Website
Smartphone App
BBB Transit Store
TAP Retail
TAP App
TAP Vending Machine
Smartphone &
Credit Card
Not Smartphone &
Credit Card

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 22 Interest in Transit Store to Load Fare on Smartphone In addition to the variety of measures taken to ease the transition to contactless payments, this survey explored the possibility of an option to load fares on a smartphone from the BBB Transit Store. Customer interest in using the transit store is consistent across fare payment types. Overall, 73% showed interest going to the BBB transit store to load fare on a smartphone. This interest may be driven by a common concern that the TAP cards would not work properly.
“[TAP] cards don't always work and vending machines sometimes don't allow me to load fare.” (BBB customer)
Figure 19: Transit Store to Load Fare on Smartphone by Pre-Contactless Fare Type 73%
27%
72%
28%
73%
27%
Interest No Interest
Total
(N=592)
Contactless Only
(n=466)
Cash Only
(n=115)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 23 Negative & Positive Impact of Contactless Pilot
Most customers (79%, n=468) reported neither a positive nor negative impact from implementation of contactless fares. However, 85% (394/466) of these individuals used contactless prior to implementation. Customers who only used Cash prior to implementation, are much more likely to report either a negative or positive impact from the contactless fare program. Thirty one percent (31%) of previous cash only customers reported a negative impact; and, 10% reported a positive impact.

Conversely, almost all customers (84%) who made contactless payments before the pilot reported no impact.

Figure 20: Negative & Positive Impact by Pre-Pilot Fare Type 5%
9%
79%
2% 4% 3% 7%
85%
3% 3%
13%
18%
58%
6% 4%
Negatively Somewhat
Negatively
Neither
Negative or
Positive
Somewhat
Positively
Positively
Total
(N=592)
Contactless Only
(n=466)
Cash Only
(n=115)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 24 Qualitative Positive Impact of Contactless Pilot
Customers who expressed a positive or negative experience with the contactless pilot program were asked to share their thoughts. Customers indicated that contactless payments are convenient, faster, better for the community, and safer.

Positive Themes
• It’s convenient
• It’s faster
• It’s better for the community
• It’s safer
Customer Quotes
“Cashless is better”
“It’s more convenient to use TAP.”
“I like that I don’t have to take out cash.”
“It's a little confusing but its better for the
community.”
“It’s faster to TAP and Go.”
“No use of cash is better for the pandemic.”
“It's healthier for the community.”
Figure 21: Positive Opinions of the Contactless Pilot

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 25 Qualitative Negative Impact of Contactless Pilot
Negative aspects of the program included difficulty finding a place to load fares, concerns about loading fares, cost of fares, especially compared to free fares on Metro, challenges to checking stored value on TAP, and capacity to pay (i.e., what happens if the technology fails, or customer fails to load TAP). The primary request from those negatively impacted is to bring back cash as an option.

Negative Themes
• It’s generally inconvenient
• Accessing locations to load TAP is a challenge
• Uncertainty checking value on TAP
• Concern paying fare when TAP doesn’t work
• Concern about paying when fare isn’t loaded
Customer Quotes
“I don't want to have to go to the TAP machine to
ride the bus”
“Finding a TAP vending machine is inconvenient.”
“I think I have to pay more now.”
“I'm not paying on Metro buses.”
“If TAP runs out, I can't pay the fare.”
“It’s too confusing.”
“It’s difficult when there's no money on the card,
and no way to check if I have credit.”
“Sometimes the TAP card doesn’t work.”
Figure 22: Negative Opinions of the Contactless Pilot

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Results – Customer Perceptions of Contactless Fare Pilot 26 Return to Cash
Sixty-four percent of customers say BBB should accept cash again. Customers who previously used a contactless payment method are more likely to say, No, meaning BBB should not accept cash again. Conversely, those who previously with cash only are more likely to say, “Yes,” BBB should accept cash again.

Figure 23: Should BBB Accept Cash Again? – by Pre-Pilot Fare Type (N=592)
Would Use Cash for Future Trips
Sixty-four percent (64%) of customers would not use cash if BBB accepted it again. The majority of these people (72%) had already used some form of contactless payment media prior to implementation. Sixty-five percent (65%) of customers who exclusively used cash before the pilot say they would use cash again for most trips (23%) and some trips (42%).

Figure 24: Would BBB Customers Use Cash Again? by Pre-Pilot Fare Type 10%
12%
77%
12%
26%
62%
12%
24%
64%
Don't Know
No
Yes
Total
Contactless Only
Cash Only
64%
27%
8%
72%
23%
4%
36% 42%
23%
No Trips Some Trips Most Trips
Total
(N=592)
Contactless Only
(n=466)
Cash Only
(n=115)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Conclusion
27 Conclusion
Big Blue Bus recently became the first transit agency in the United States to implement a 100% contactless fare payment system. The benefits of this change can already be found in faster trips, and cost savings. Other benefits, equally important but, more difficult to measure, include the reduced risk of transmissible illnesses in cash handling and lingering near fareboxes.

In March 2021, BBB analyzed the potential for disproportionally negative outcomes experienced by customers protect by Title VI. All impacts experienced by low-income and racial minority customers were below the federal threshold used to define a negative impact. The most recent survey shows the majority of lower-income customers previously paid their fare with cash. Although we cannot indicate how many cash paying customers remained or left the system, 30% of customers surveyed previously paid with cash; and, these individuals now pay with TAP.

Most customers (79%) in the current survey reported a neutral response to the contactless fare pilot; 7% had a positive impact; and, 14% expressed negative opinions of the pilot. As would be expected, most of the negative comments came from customers who previously paid with cash. However, customers who previously paid with cash also had the most positive things to say about the pilot. Negative experiences included: difficulty finding places to load fares, confusion about loading fares on TAP, and fear that TAP cards would not working property. Positive comments highlighted convenience, speed, and community safety.

BBB has done a good job making customers aware of available discounts. Seniors, Youth, and Interagency customers have the highest levels of awareness at 86% and 81%, respectively. Despite high awareness among Seniors, ten percent of Seniors who received a Senior discount with the $.50 co-payment before the pilot did not transition to receive a senior discount on TAP. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is because some Seniors are resistant to divulging personal information required in the application. Disability eligible customers have 70% awareness of their discounted fare.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Conclusion
28 LIFE eligible customers, however, present the greatest opportunity for education.

Twenty-seven percent of LIFE eligible customers are aware of LIFE, and 9% are receiving LIFE benefits.

BBB should consider targeting LIFE eligible customers for outreach and education at TAP vending machines and TAP retail locations, where 68% of these customers purchase fares. There is an opportunity to address some of the barriers Seniors experience in the discount application process to promote discount use. This mayu include reducing some of the information required, or reassuring them that their personal information will not be shared with out government agencies. Interagency discount awareness has room to improve; yet, an accurate profile of the needs will not be possible until Metro resumes collecting fares. BBB may benefit by testing marketing communication with focus groups to identify what messages and distribution methods resonate best with target Big Blue Bus customers.

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB | Appendix
29 Appendix

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Fare Use Survey – Fall 2021
30 BBB – Contactless Pilot

1. Are you at least 14 years old?
a. Yes
b. No (terminate survey)

2. How many days a week do you ride on BBB buses?
a. Don’t Ride! Terminate
b. Occasionally (less than 1 day per week)
c. 1 to 3 days
d. 4 or 5 days
e. 6 or more days

3. BBB route you ride on a weekly basis (select all that apply):
a. 1 Santa Monica Blvd.
b. 2 Wilshire Blvd.
c. 3 Lincoln Blvd.
d. Rapid 3 Lincoln Blvd.
e. 5 Olympic Blvd.
f. 7 Pico Blvd.
g. Rapid 7 Pico Blvd.
h. Express 7 Pico Blvd.
i. 8 Ocean Park
j. 9 Palisades
k. Rapid 10 Downtown Express
l. Rapid 12 Westwood Blvd.
m. 14 Bundy Dr. – Centinela
Ave.
n. 15 Barrington Ave.
o. 16 Marina del Rey
p. 17 UCLA - VA
q. 18 Abbott Kinney
r. 41 17th St.
s. 43 26th St.
t. 44 SMC Bundy Campus

FARE PURCHASE AND PAYMENT METHODS

4. Before BBB stopped accepting cash and tokens (July 12th, 2021), How did you normally pay for your BBB fare ? (RANK TOP 2)
a. Paid cash on the bus
b. TAP card (Regular, Reduced Fare, ACCESS, UCLA or SMC TAP cards) c. TAP App on a mobile device (smartphone or Apple Watch) d. Smartphone App (Transit app, Token Transit app)
e. Paper pass Bought on the bus
f. Paper Pass Bought at the BBB Transit Store
g. BBB employee/retiree/dependent pass

5. Now, How do you usually pay for your BBB fare?
a. TAP card (Regular, Reduced Fare, ACCESS, UCLA or SMC TAP cards) b. TAP app on a mobile device (smartphone or Apple Watch) c. Smartphone app (Transit app, Token Transit app)
d. I usually don’t pay

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) BBB Fare Use Survey – Fall 2021
31 ONLY ASK Q6. IF “DON’T PAY” AT Q.5

6. Why don’t you usually pay the fare on BBB? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) a. I don’t have a TAP card
b. I don’t have a smartphone
c. I don’t have a credit card
d. Because I can ride without paying
e. Other

7. Where do you typically obtain your BBB fare products? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
a. TAP - Ticket Vending Machine
b. TAP - Website or call center
c. TAP - Retail location (Ralph’s, 7-11, CVS, Walgreens, Check Cashing, etc.)
d. BBB Transit Store
e. Smartphone app (Token Transit app, Transit app)
f. TAP app on a mobile device (smartphone or Apple Watch) g. My pass is provided by my employer or school
h. My pass is provided by Access or another social service agency

8. Which BBB fare(s) do you normally choose now? (SELECT 1 OR 2) a. TAP (stored value) single ride
b. TAP UCLA BruinGo! quarterly pass
c. TAP UCLA Co-pay Pass
d. TAP E-Pass
e. TAP U-Pass
f. TAP Interagency Transfer
g. Access TAP Card
h. Single ride on mobile phone
i. 1 Day Pass
j. 7-Day Pass
k. 30-Day Pass
l. 13 Rides Pass
m. Youth 30-Day Pass
n. BBB Annual Pass
o. EZ Pass
p. Employer-provided pass
q. Santa Monica College pass

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 32 TRANSFER TRIPS WITHIN BBB AND TO/FROM BBB

9. Thinking about 1-way trips on the Big Blue Bus, How often do you transfer from Big Blue Bus to another Big Blue Bus (Blue to Blue)?
a. Never
b. Rarely
c. Sometimes
d. Usually
e. Always

10.Thinking about 1-way trips on the Big Blue Bus, How often do you transfer to or from Big Blue Bus to another bus or rail systems (Blue to/from Orange LA Metro Bus, Green Culver CityBus, etc.)]?
a. Never !SKIP TO Q.13
b. Rarely
c. Sometimes
d. Usually
e. Always

11.When you transfer to other transit providers (not BBB), Do you use TAP Stored Value to purchase the discounted $0.50 Regular or $0.25 Senior/Disabled Interagency Transfer?
a. Yes !SKIP TO Q.13
b. No

12.What is the main reason you don’t use TAP Stored Value to pay for your transfer?
a. Not aware of the transfer discount
b. I pay with a pass or passes on BBB and other transit agencies c. Because Metro isn’t charging a fare currently
d. Because I don’t use TAP to pay my fare

13.Are you aware that single rides cost less when using TAP or a mobile ticket than they did when using cash?
a. Yes
b. No

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 33 CONTACTLESS FARE PERCEPTIONS

14.How has the contactless fare program (no cash use on board) affected you? c. Negatively
d. Somewhat negatively
e. Neither negative nor Positive !SKIP TO Q.16
f. Somewhat positively
g. Positively

15.Please describe any positive or negative impacts you have experienced as a result of the contactless fare program [open ended]:
________________________________________

16.The goal of contactless payments on buses is to move buses faster, make fare payment more sanitary, and reduce the fare price for each ride. Understanding these goals, should BBB return to accepting cash fare payments? a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know

17.If BBB goes back to accepting cash, will you start using cash again? a. Yes, for most trips
b. Yes, for some trips
c. No
ONLY ASK Q18. IF “SOMEWHAT NEGATIVELY” OR “NEGATIVELY” AT Q.14

18.What can BBB do to improve the contactless fare program? [open ended]:
___________________________________________________________

SMARTPHONE AND CREDIT ACCESS

19.Do you have a smartphone?
a. Yes
b. No !SKIP TO Q.22

20.Does your phone have a data plan?
a. Yes !SKIP TO Q.22
b. No

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 34 21.Do you access the Internet on your phone using Wi-Fi? a. Yes
b. No

22.Do you have a credit, debit, or pre-paid card to make purchases? a. Yes
b. No
ONLY ASK Q23 IF “YES” AT Q.20

23.Would you be interested in using mobile ticketing (smartphone app) if you could load value to your phone at the BBB Transit Store using cash? a. Yes
b. No

REDUCED FARE OPTIONS

24.Are you aware that there are reduced fares available for seniors (62+), people with Disabilities, Medicare recipients, and/or youth?
a. Yes
b. No !SKIP TO Q.26

25.Which of the reduced fares are you receiving, IF ANY? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
a. Senior (62+)
b. Disabled/Medicare recipient
c. Youth (5-18 years of age)
d. Low-Income (LIFE)
e. Not Receiving a discount
f. I don’t know
ONLY ASK Q26. IF “NO” AT Q.24 OR “NOT RECEIVING” OR “DON’T KNOW” AT Q.25

26.What reduced fares might you qualify for? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) a. Senior (62+)
b. Disabled/Medicare recipient
c. Youth (5-18 years of age)
d. Low-Income (LIFE)
e. None of the above
f. I don’t know

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 35 ASK Q27. IF “RECEIVING SENIOR, DISABLED OR LOW INCOME DISCOUNT” AT Q.25 OR “QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE SENIOR, DISABLED OR LOW INCOME DISCOUNT” AT Q.26

27.Before BBB stopped accepting cash and tokens, did you receive the senior or disabled/Medicare reduced fare by paying $0.50 with cash? a. Yes
b. No

LIFE PROGRAM

28.Are you aware of the free or reduced fare available for low-income riders through the LIFE program?
a. Yes
b. No !SKIP TO Q.30

29.Are you currently receiving the LIFE program reduced fare? a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know

30.Are you eligible for reduced fares based on household income? (SEE ELIGIBILITY GRID)
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
People in Household Combined Income to
Qualify
Live Alone (1) $41,400 or less
2 $47,300 or less
3 $53,200 or less
4 $59,100 or less
5 $63,850 or less
6 or more $68,600 or less

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 36 DEMOGRAPHICS

31.What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Non-binary

32.In which age category do you belong?
a. 14-17
b. 18 to 24
c. 25-34
d. 35-44
e. 45-54
f. 55-61
g. 62 and Older

33.Select the group(s) that best describe you. (select all that apply) a. Hispanic/Latino/Latinx
b. White
c. Black/African-American
d. Asian/Pacific Islander
e. Native American
f. Other: ____________________

34.How many people currently reside in your household? _____________

35.What is your annual household income?
a. Less than $25,000
b. $25,000 – $34,999
c. $35,000 – $49,999
d. $50,000 – $74,999
e. 75,000 – $99,999
f. More than $100,000
g. decline

36.How proficient are you in English?
a. I speak little to no English
b. I speak some English
c. I speak English very well

37.What is your home zip code? __________________

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: 2nd On-Board Survey Contactless Fares Pilot - October 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Title VI Fare Equity Analysis
Simplified fare structure
December 2021

8.A.f
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Title VI Fare Equity Analysis - December 2021 (4631 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 1 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilApril 12, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
April 12, 2022