Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, May 24, 2022

Planning Commission
May 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St.

Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: City Council Meeting May 24, 2022; Agenda Item No. 4-B Financial Status Update, FY2022- 23 Proposed Budget, and FY2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Budget.

Honorable Councilmembers,
Item 4-B on your agenda is a study session regarding the City’s proposed budget for the next Fiscal Year 22/23. Given the City’s numerous priorities and limited resources, we understand that finalizing this City’s budget will be no simple task. However, it is essential for this City to provide the Planning Department the resources it needs to help us all build a stronger future for all residents.

The Planning Commission discussed and voted on recommendations which include the following priorities:
• Right size the Planning Department: The City Planning Department needs a stable and appropriately sized work force to complete its significant workload. This workload includes creating critical land use planning documents such as a compliant Housing Element and an approved Local Coastal Program, both of which enhance local land use control, while also processing permits critical to our economic commerce. The successful completion of these tasks alone strengthens Santa Monica. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council closely examine the Planning Department staffing levels to restore and fill key positions immediately to achieve these important tasks.

Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Current temporary positions should be made permanent, and remaining staff needs can be filled first by promoting within the City’s family and then consider adding new Staff. • Promote public participation: The pandemic presented numerous challenges for City governments. However, one positive aspect was the creation of remote public hearings.

This allowed a new, and for some easier, format for constituents to interact with City government. As the pandemic eases, good government dictates that public meetings return but not at the expense of remote public testimony. We urge the Council to approve a budget that permits in person City Planning Commission meetings at City Hall while also accommodating remote testimony.
• Code Enforcement: A strong Code enforcement presence is important to achieving many of our community’s goals ranging from fair housing to sustainability to responsible economic commerce. The value of any law, rule, and regulation is inhibited if compliance is not achieved. Code Enforcement staff allow us to achieve compliance through both voluntary and punitive measures. We recommend the City Council also review Code Enforcement staffing levels to ensure enforcement can occur 24 hours a day.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our recommendations and urge you to consider them closely.

Sincerely
Planning Commission, Chair
Item 4.B
05/24/22
2 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Johanna Kracke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 6:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Item 4B - libraries

EXTERNAL
Hello,
As a resident of Santa Monica with three small children who was devastated when our beloved librarians were fired during covid ‐ I would like to urge the council to reopen ALL our libraries, expand the hours, and rehire the staff needed to bring back our excellent programming of years past. The current hours are abysmal for working parents, and the idea that the Ocean Park library is being run on a "self serve" basis is appalling to me. Librarians are an irreplaceable resource and I hope that this idea was simply one of necessity during covid and not something that will continue. Some of my families' best memories were formed with the programming such as PJ storytimes and STEM activities led by Hanako at the Ocean Park branch, in addition to my kids just simply being excited to see her on our visits to the library.

Could we please see the budget estimations for what it would cost to get our library system up and running as it used to be? I hope that our city budget priorities this valuable resource and doesn't place it on a back burner. Our kids have had so much taken away from them, this is something we can and should give them back. Thank you, Johanna Kracke
[email protected]
Resident of 90404 (previously 90405)
Item 4.B
05/24/22
3 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
4 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
5 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
6 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
7 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jennifer Cowan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/24/22, Agenda Item 4B - FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As the Council considers the FY 2022‐2023 budget and allocation to the Human Services Grants Program (HSGP), it must recognize that investments in early childhood are critical to advance lifelong learning, stability, and wellness across our community.

The pandemic has further increased the stressors that challenge families’ ability to cover their basic needs and to afford living in Santa Monica. Child care allows parents to participate in the workforce, continue their education, and secure housing—strengthening their family’s resiliency and economic mobility. Further, children’s access to quality early childhood development and learning opportunities lays the foundation for their optional development across a range of indicators including physical and mental health, educational attainment, and employment.

Through the HSGP, Connections for Children (CFC) provides financial assistance to low‐income families so that they can afford the high cost of child care. CFC also provides free child care information and referrals to families at all income levels to help them find child care solutions that meet their family’s needs. Further, we support the City’s network of child care providers through referrals, professional development, and distribution of stipends and supplies.

The HSGP‐funded subsidy program helps low‐income families bridge the financial gap between child care tuition and what they are able to afford. We are able to leverage City and other state‐funded subsidy programs to maximize the number of vulnerable Santa Monica residents served. This allows more Santa Monica families to remain in Santa Monica and access child care options within the City. The program also benefits local child care providers, as program enrollment and tuition impacts their economic sustainability.  This fiscal year to‐date, CFC has enrolled 189 low‐income Santa Monica children in our child care subsidy program.  85% percent of children enrolled in the subsidy program reside in the Pico neighborhood (90404/90405).  About 50% of the families receiving child care subsidies are supported with HSGP funds.  152 Santa Monica children are currently on the waitlist for subsidy – unable to be served due to limited funding.

Connections for Children is grateful for the support the City has historically provided Santa Monica’s children and families, and is committed to serving the growing needs of our community. It is imperative that the City recognize the rising costs and expanded needs among the early childhood sector and allocate sufficient resources to adequately address these challenges.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Cowan
Executive Director
Connections for Children
www.connectionsforchildren.org
Item 4.B
05/24/22
8 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
9 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
10 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
11 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
12 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
13 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
14 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
15 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
16 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
17 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
18 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
19 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
20 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
21 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
22 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
23 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
24 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Item 4.B
05/24/22
25 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Barbi Appelquist <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment May 24, 2022: Item 4.B. Financial Status Update, FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget, and FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget

EXTERNAL
May 23, 2022
Re: Restoration of VAP staffing
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Esteemed City Councilmembers, and City Staff, I am writing to urge the restoration of services and staffing that were cut at Virginia Avenue Park's Teen Center at the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

Virginia Avenue Park (VAP) is one of Santa Monica's most beloved parks and is at the heart of the City of Santa Monica. VAP is known for its responsiveness to the needs of the Pico neighborhood and its socioeconomically diverse community members. Established in 2005, VAP's esteemed Teen Center—comprising five distinct, but connected work and activity spaces—is where our local 13‐18 year olds find a safe place to study, receive tutoring and mentoring, access supportive services, and pursue extracurricular activities like art and audio production. It is also where many under‐resourced Santa Monica teens take their first steps towards envisioning a future beyond high school. The Teen Center historically attracts well over 150 youth annually with an average daily attendance of 60. Since 2011, the VAP Teen Center has awarded over 50 Santa Monica seniors with scholarships to make their college dreams a reality.* (see below for more detail) The City Council's past financial support of the Teen Center demonstrates our City's commitment to the lifelong learning of our residents, from cradle to career.

Unfortunately, since the budget cuts required letting go of staff members, and multiple adult staff are required by law for the Center to operate because the Teen Center works with youth, the Center has all but gone dark. High School students, many of whom come from vulnerable families with one or both parents working minimum wage jobs, have had no place to go after school for enrichment opportunities. As a result of the isolation and uncertainty, we have seen our youth struggle with mental health challenges. Seniors have missed out on assistance with college financial aid, grants, and scholarship applications. This jeopardizes their ability to plan for post‐secondary education at one of the most critical junctures in their young lives.

Now that Santa Monica is experiencing a significant increase in revenues, it is time to reinstate cut positions into the upcoming budget cycle and to accommodate the new staffing legal requirements. Currently the Teen Center is only open 4 to 6 hours a week and can only serve 20+ middle school youth. VAP desperately needs a full‐time coordinator and part‐time staffing in order to fully reopen the Teen Center for 30 hours a week (2:30 to 8:30, Monday through Friday), resume programs, and offer a range of services to over 150 teens, including additional programs that focus on student mental health and wellness. The coordinator will be responsible for Item 4.B
05/24/22
26 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
2 planning homework and enrichment programs, conducting outreach, engaging artists and enrichment instructors, and supervising additional on‐site staff.

VAP staff members are at the heart of our Teen Center and its programs. Without them, the program cannot exist nor operate fully or effectively. Likewise, many of the students who come to VAP face family or financial challenges—along with other significant barriers to success—despite their great potential. Indeed, many of our Teen Center youth begin coming to the Park as elementary students for afterschool care and enrichment.

By reinstating these important positions, the VAP Teen Center will continue to serve as a resource for Santa Monica youth and ensure that students from the Pico neighborhood and beyond thrive throughout their teenage years and into the next chapter in their lives.

With appreciation,
Barbi S. Appelquist
Santa Monica resident
Virginia Ave. Park Advisory Board, Chair
*As in the past, we will continue to raise over $5,000 in private scholarship funds each year for students who will be graduating from a Santa Monica‐based public high school each spring. VAP scholars have been accepted into a college, university or trade school with plans for matriculation. A scholarship in the $500 to $1,000 range helps subsidize things like food and housing, textbooks, computer supplies, and transportation costs such as bus fares or gas. We know from past recipients that this type of unrestricted funding can often be the difference between a student persisting in their studies or dropping out because of a minor setback.

Item 4.B
05/24/22
27 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 6:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4B

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
FULLY FUND OUR LIBRARIES and OPEN THEM FULLY NOW.

You look and sound ridiculous for saying this can't happen now and now one believes you can't do this.

End the agenda to break up the community by sticking to your false narrative on this point.

Is this just another end goal to further Mayor Sue's three cheers for public private partnerships that will FOREVER remove our public spaces from the hands of the public? Fifty six staff members isn't enough. Plus we need police and security at each location.

Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein Item 4.B
05/24/22
28 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: santa monica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; [email protected]
Subject: Item 4b confirm receipt

EXTERNAL

1.Residents want the parklets to stop being allowed by resident apartments as it interferes with Comfort & enjoyment of our residences.

2. Please add security gate and security cameras to structure 10.

The gate needs to close this structure to public at midnight latest as we have endless interrupted nights. Residents have been subjected the loud crowds that return from the bars on 1200 block 3rd street nightly & weekends worse. Late nights we can’t even keep our windows open in our apartments. This is directly related to 1212 restaurant & Casa Martin & Cabo Cantina loud music and the “ partying crowds “they attract.

We need your assistance & appreciate your attention to this urgent matter.

Residents 1100 block 3rd ‐4th street.

Sara Lee
(310)428‐6232
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.B
05/24/22
29 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Structure 10 safety. Urgent matter to residents 1100 block 3rd street.

From: santa monica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:31 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Stephanie Venegas <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Structure 10 safety. Urgent matter to residents 1100 block 3rd street.

EXTERNAL
Date: May 23, 2022
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Structure 10 safety. Urgent matter to residents 1100 block 3rd street.

We want this addressed at 5/23/22 meeting:

Re item 4B: We want to request “funding” for structure 10 security. As we were told by SMPD there is no funding to provide security in this structure.

We want a security guard or cameras or closed off by metal gate by midnight so residents are not subjected the the severe nightly noise nuisance we currently experience from the public on our residential block.

We were told this is a city parking lot and we need it to be secured from the riff raff that party’s in it nightly.

We have endured enough,
Please add this in the Budget as closing this lot off at midnight will improve the quality of life for residents in the 1100 block 3 rd street.

Note: the new parklets all restaurants are getting right by resident living quarters is really not acceptable as they create more noise and take away too much parking. These restaurants don’t all need extra outdoor space. We want this addressed as it significantly impacting quality of life for residents. We did a survey and weee never contacted back about it.

We appreciate your assistance.
“ Santa Monica Residents matter.”
Item 4.B
05/24/22
30 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
2 Sara Lee
1100 block 3rd & 4th street residents
representative.
(310)428‐6232
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.B
05/24/22
31 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elan Glasser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/24/22 Meeting, Item 4-B / Proposed Budget

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, City Council and City Manager:

As you recall, in 2020 the City of Santa Monica slashed its library budget by around 65%. Staffing in the library's Youth Services (children's) department was cut by around 80%.

Of all the departments cut in the city budget, the library was given some of the most severe cuts.

The library branches remained closed to in-person services until a few months ago. In February, the library budget was increased by a small amount, still a pale shadow of its former operating budget.

Many residents have expressed strong support for restoring library funding at numerous council meetings, and were assured that our libraries are a priority for Council. It has now been 2 long years.

To this day, the library branches are operating on a skeleton staff, with the Main library open—with limited hours—only 4 days a week, most branch libraries open only 2 days a week for a few hours, and the Fairview branch is still shuttered.

The current staff report notes that "only three locations have in-person service and one branch with self-service, overall operating at approximately 33% of previous levels” and that “youth programs are at 30% or less of previous levels.”
Libraries are not only a place to check out books and read. Among programs that have been cut are afterschool programs, tutoring programs, youth services, story times for children, and ESL. Some of the most vulnerable members of our community, such as seniors and low-income families rely on our library services.

The budget that staff is proposing for 2022-23 has only a budgetary error correction for the libraries, and no real increase in library funding nor staff, even as the overall city budget calls for adding about 47 FTE (full-time equivalent) positions across a variety of services in the City.

Surely the departments that were hit the very hardest should be at the top of the list for these 47 FTE positions.

Of a city budget of around 400 million dollars, a few million dollars—approximately 1%—would nearly restore our libraries to full service.

If there is a will, there is a way.

I urge the City Council to direct staff to reprioritize our beloved libraries and redirect funding to the libraries in the upcoming budget.

Thanks for your consideration!
Elan Glasser
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4.B
05/24/22
32 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 5/24 item 4-B -- FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget -- SMO and Fairview

EXTERNAL
May 24, 2022

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: Agenda item 4-B -- FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget

I urge the City Council to increase support for two items essential to my neighborhood, Sunset Park:

1) The planning process for converting Santa Monica Airport to a Great Park when the airport closes in 2029, which is referred to in the staff report. Even if funds are not immediately available to implement such a plan, I get very tired of pilots trying to scare the community into keeping the Airport open with dire reports that City Council members are currently talking about putting thousands of houses on the Airport campus, creating another Playa Vista, etc., etc. We are sick of the noise and lead emissions from the thousands of prop plane landings and takeoffs every month, as well as black carbon and ultrafine particles from the jets.

2) Re-opening the Fairview Branch Library at least one day a week. While the current plan is to begin self-service in the Fall, this library also serves as a community center for our neighborhood, and self-service does not allow for that.

While Montana Avenue Branch, on the north side of town, is open Tuesdays and Thursdays -- https://smpl.org/MontanaBranch.aspx --

The Main Library downtown is open Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, and Saturdays. https://smpl.org/MainLibrary.aspx

The Pico Branch is open Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri, and 1st Saturdays of the month -- https://smpl.org/PicoBranch.aspx -- but it is a tiny library which does not really allow for social distancing, and it has very few books.

The Fairview Branch has been closed since the restructuring.

Fairview is spacious; it has large collections of children's, young adult, and adult books; a lovely patio; a community room which was well-used before the closure; and the library was updated to the tune of about $1 million around 2016.

Out in front are brick pavers inscribed with the names of many Sunset Park residents who purchased them to help fund the update. The brick paver fundraiser was chaired by one of our former FOSP Board members, Ellen Mark, who used to attend events in a brick paver costume that she had to crawl into, in order to publicize the fundraising effort. This is a library that the community cares about. Please allow us to use it again.

Thank you for your consideration of these two requests.

4B. Financial Status Update, FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget, and FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget

Item 4.B
05/24/22
33 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: City Council Mtg. 5/24/22- Item 4.B - Maintaining Clean and Safe Public Space -- Reed Park needs budget allocation to do exactly that

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
The budget outlines no support for Reed Park to ensure a clean and safe public space; one of three key strategies of the city. Please place Reed Park on the Urgent Needs to address a park that has been in decline and certainly not clean and safe for the public for years.

Thank‐you
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Item 4.B
05/24/22
34 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Recreation and Parks Commission
May 24, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Budget and Historic Belmar Park scoreboard Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,

On March 19th, 2022, the Recreation and Parks Commission studied the proposed budget and noted it contained no reference to a scoreboard for Historic Belmar Park.

The Historic Belmar Park field is a huge success. Among the unusual and fortunate things about it is it came in both ahead of schedule and under budget -- upwards of $1 million under! At the time the cost savings on the field was confirmed, talk began of adding the final piece to make the field a first-class athletic facility, a scoreboard. Intervening circumstances of the pandemic and city budget crisis led to the overage going back to the general fund or the public works budget. Hence, the comparatively modest cost of a scoreboard, approximately $75,000, was never allocated.

A scoreboard is a necessary part of a first-class sports facility shared by the entire community. It would also make the field more attractive to organizations who rent the field thereby making the field a greater source of revenue generation for the city,
The Recreation & Parks commission voted unanimously to request that $75,000 be added to its budget to purchase a scoreboard.

Several things were painfully evident:
• There is a functional as well as a financial disconnect between Recreation & Parks and its needs as a result of Recreation being part of one city entity, Community Services, and Parks being part of an entirely different entity, Public Works. Hence, decisions were made without taking into consideration the interdependence of the two now-separated branches for recreations and parks facilities and services.
• In no area is this clearer than field/park maintenance’s need for $145,000 for bare-bones maintenance having been denied in the proposed Public Works budget. Without the necessary maintenance, the field facilities and other popular park areas will be negatively affected in terms of condition, utility and safety, thereby hindering or removing community recreation programs that rely on maintained sports fields and the permit fee revenue generated by their use. Moreover, unmaintained fields will continue to deteriorate, requiring restoration which is far more expensive than continued maintenance. The “savings” purportedly created by not maintaining the fields and parks are thus illusory. The risks to safety and health created by eliminating the maintenance function must also be considered, along with the community upset created by such lack of care. • This certainly is not the time to cut maintenance and support of outdoor space which will result in long term damage, health, and safety concerns, and ignoring the desires and needs of the residents for our outdoor, extremely limited greenspace.

Item 4.B
05/24/22
36 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
• In addition to granting $145,000 for the needed maintenance, although not directly or solely tied to field maintenance, Public Landscape’s separate need for one additional team crew leader should be granted as well.

With respect to the Recreation & Parks proposed budget and the Public Works/ Public Landscape proposed budget, the Recreation and Parks Commission had NO input into either, unlike in previous years. The city staff who presented the proposal for Community Services, were unable to explain how/why certain items were given priority for substantial funds, while other, seemingly more urgent uses for funds were ignored. For example, more than $1 million was allocated for Virginia Park, while other urgent matters received nothing or close to nothing. And within Virginia Park, there were substantial allocations for “improvements” (as opposed to necessary repairs) while safety defects in Virginia Ave Park’s children’s playground were not considered, nor funded for repair. We were told the budget allocations could not be revisited and could not be explained to us because the presenters didn’t know what they were specifically for or what they cost. Hence, the commission whose function it is to advise City Council on Recreation and Parks matters was presented with a budget proposal with NO opportunity to contribute our extensive knowledge.

The Recreation and Parks Commission voted to support the budget, but with stated misgivings to be expressed to City Council as set forth herein about the process, and lack of input and information which left us in a take it or leave it position. Among those misgivings was the mystery of why Thelma Terry building repairs, painting, and “improvements” for example, were Recreation and Parks budget items and not Public Works budget items.

Knowing it hasn’t been an easy year, we especially appreciate the hard work that staff put into preparing the respective budgets and are particularly grateful to Matthew Wells who attended our study session and provided valuable information about the role and needs of Public Landscape and how they relate to Recreation and Parks.

Respectfully,
Lori Brown
Lori Brown
Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission
cc: Recreation and Parks Commission
Andy Agle, Director of Community Services Department
Jeanette Gant, Community Recreation Manager
David White, City Manager
Item 4.B
05/24/22
37 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
Recreation and Parks Commission
May 24, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: FSAC support for an additional budget allocation to the Public Landscape Division Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,

The Recreation and Parks Commission received the following motion from its advisory subcommittee, the Field Sports Advisory Council, which motion was unanimously passed at their meeting of May 18, 2022.

FSAC Motion:

The City of Santa Monica Field Sports Advisory Council recognizes the important role that youth sports have played in providing safe outdoor recreation opportunities for our community during the pandemic. As one of the only safe options for young people to come together during the pandemic, our parks and sports fields have gotten intensive use over the last few years and the impacts of this use are significant. While we have all worked together to manage the impacts of increased usage and decreased City staff and budget, the Field Sports Advisory Council would like to clearly express our support for an additional budget allocation to the Public Landscape Division so that the City can perform important sports field restoration and maintenance throughout our system. Additional staff and budget are essential to address the impact of the pandemic usage on our sports fields and ensure that we have adequate, well-maintained, and safe facilities in our community. The Field Sports Advisory Council recommends the City Council restore one park maintenance crew leader to support necessary daily field maintenance and restoration work and provide an additional $85,000 annually for critical field space maintenance and restoration needed.

Please note that the $85,000 number was obtained from information provided by Matthew Wells that deducted amounts that could be “saved” by forgoing other needed maintenance, such as cleaning the pond at Douglas Park.

The Recreation and Parks Commission is asking for the full $145,000 needed by Public Landscape for field and related park maintenance since the projects which would have to be forgone in order to supplement a portion of the unbudgeted field and park related park maintenance are needed projects in our parks that should not have to be sacrificed at all.

Sincerely,
Lori Brown
Lori Brown
Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission
cc: Recreation and Parks Commission
Andy Agle, Director of Community Services Department
Jeanette Gant, Community Recreation Manager
David White, City Manager
Item 4.B
05/24/22
38 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Study Session Item 4.B. Financial Status Update, Attachment B, the Proposed FY 2022-24 Biennial CIP Budget - Santa Monica Airport
From: Sandra Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; SANDRA SMITH <[email protected]>; sandra smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Study Session Item 4.B. Financial Status Update, Attachment B, the Proposed FY 2022‐24 Biennial CIP Budget ‐ Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL

Dear Council Members,
In anticipation of your Study Session Item 4.B. Financial Status Update, Attachment B, the Proposed FY 2022-24 Biennial CIP Budget, I (we) desire clarification regarding the following projects:
 Project C0828 ‐ Airport Conversion Planning ($4,350,000 from FY23 to FY26)  Project C0468 ‐ Airport Reconfiguration ($525,000 from FY23 to FY27) By proposing these significant capital projects at a time when the city is highly cash constrained that are specifically justified as requiring community input and involvement, the projects indicate that (1) the decision to close the airport has been made and (2) the airport will be developed and will not be the open space that was contemplated as the main selling point in passing Measure LC. Needless to say that such city-changing development runs completely counter to ALL voter and resident interests. And, if the airport is to be closed, then why spend any money out of the airport fund? Why would Project C0468 even be contemplated? These funds would represent stranded assets and a complete waste of resources which is unacceptable in this environment. They would best be kept in the airport fund and relinquished to the city once the airport fund is closed when the airport is closed. None of this makes any sense.

That approval for the expenditure of these funds is being requested without informing the voters of what major city-defining decisions that have apparently already been taken, then it’s clear that there is no mandate from the voters to approve, let alone spend, these monies. But more importantly, as the decision to close and develop the airport appears to have been taken without informing the public, who has an absolute right to know. And when is the council thinking of informing the voters of the Item 4.B
05/24/22
39 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
2 massive infrastructure, traffic, and potential subsidy costs inherent in such a decision and how such costs are going to be funded?
Let there be no mistake, the apparent decision to close the airport will have been made behind closed doors, and with an outcome that NONE of the voters want. One need only look at the Gelson’s project to understand where the voters stand on development. By not informing the voters of this development decision, the Council is acting not better than the developers who told the residents that since they comply with state law, none of the input matters. That is the experience residents get when dealing with unresponsive interests focused on their own well-being. This kind of treatment is NOT what the voters expect from their elected representatives.

Gelsons’s was only 4.4 acres. When faced with a choice of over 200 acres of similar development at the airport, the voters must have the right to debate and decide on what happens, including leaving the aviation use as is. The voters must have the option to preserve the existing irreplaceable low density land use that provides the critical quality of life throughout Sunset Park as well as prevents the city incurring massive spending liabilities that will burden all the city’s residents for decades to come. The residents just told the Council that they are in no mood for more direct taxes since they clearly rebuffed (by close to 60%!) the notion of a direct parcel tax to fund the libraries. This would generate direct costs and quality of life degradation that are orders of magnitude beyond anything the residents have seen. Frankly, it is why the voters thought they were approving LC – to avoid this exact scenario!
And, if the argument is to be made that a decision has not been taken to development the airport, then why is staff proposing to spend $4.35 million (or more) of very scarce General Fund money on C0828 with the justification that “With local control of the airport set to arrive in 2029, it is imperative that a planning and community outreach process begin as soon as possible.” Just as a reminder to the Council, under Measure LC, the City Council can approve the following uses of the Airport land without voter input:
 Development of parks
 Public open spaces
 Public recreational facilities
 Maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses Clearly, none of this is happening. This is a denial of the residents’ right to be appropriately represented and informed. We would not have expected such a unscrupulous developer-type move from the staff and Council.

This capital budget item should be denied until the decisions that have been reached are presented to the community for proper consideration.

For over thirty years, Santa Monica City has wasted millions on futile legal actions and dead end projects involving the airport. I want to know what decisions have been made and what scenarios are being modeled in the original budget item.

Sincerely, Sandra (by the Beach) Smith
Item 4.B
05/24/22
40 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Pauline McPeake <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/24/22, Agenda Item 4B - FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:

As the Council considers the FY 2022-2023 budget and allocation to the Human Services Grants Program (HSGP), it must recognize that investments in early childhood are critical to our local workforce and ensure positive outcomes for children and families in our community.

Through the HSGP, the Growing Place Marine Park can provide infant and toddler childcare, the most underserved group in our City (children under three years) to full-time working Santa Monica families. More importantly, the HSGP-funded subsidy program gives low-income Santa Monica families access and opportunities to ensure a high-quality experience for their young children.

Access to childcare for children as young as three months allows working mothers to return to the workforce, continue their education, and contribute to secure housing. Moreover, the outcomes for children of a quality early childhood education program are immeasurable; jumpstarting lifelong learning, developing kindergarten readiness, and building prosocial behaviors.

Currently, the Growing Place Marine Park, with support from the HSGP:
 100% of families enrolled in the infant/toddler program are full-time working  93% of the children graduating from our program will enter SMMUSD schools  50% of the families enrolled reside in the Pico neighborhood (90404/90405) As the recovery from the pandemic continues, and the workforce gains momentum, availability and affordability are essential for working families in Santa Monica.

Growing Place Marine Park has committed to serving very young children of working families with exceptional care and early education for twenty years. We urge the City to continue its commitment to its young families so that Santa Monica remains a vibrant and inclusive city for its residents.

Sincerely,
Pauline McPeake
Executive Director
Growing Place
www.growingplace.org
‐‐
Item 4.B
05/24/22
41 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
2 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. http://www.growingplace.org
Pauline McPeake
Executive Director | Growing Place
1802 4th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310-434-3811
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

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

For the privacy and protection of our families, this email is intended for the sole use of the original recipient(s). Images or documents contained within belong to Growing Place. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you please notify us, by reply email, and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.

Item 4.B
05/24/22
42 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sandra Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 5:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Study Session Item 4.B. Financial Status Update, Attachment B, the Proposed FY 2022-24 Biennial CIP Budget - Santa Monica Airport

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

From: Sandra Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Study Session Item 4.B. Financial Status Update, Attachment B, the Proposed FY 2022-24 Biennial CIP Budget - Santa Monica Airport
Date: May 24, 2022 at 11:22:36 AM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], SANDRA SMITH <[email protected]>, sandra smith <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]

That approval for the expenditure of these funds is being requested without informing the voters of what major city-defining decisions that have apparently already been Item 4.B
05/24/22
43 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
2 taken, then it’s clear that there is no mandate from the voters to approve, let alone spend, these monies. But more importantly, as the decision to close and develop the airport appears to have been taken without informing the public, who has an absolute right to know. And when is the council thinking of informing the voters of the massive infrastructure, traffic, and potential subsidy costs inherent in such a decision and how such costs are going to be funded?
Let there be no mistake, the apparent decision to close the airport will have been made behind closed doors, and with an outcome that NONE of the voters want. One need only look at the Gelson’s project to understand where the voters stand on development. By not informing the voters of this development decision, the Council is acting not better than the developers who told the residents that since they comply with state law, none of the input matters. That is the experience residents get when dealing with unresponsive interests focused on their own well-being. This kind of treatment is NOT what the voters expect from their elected representatives.

Gelsons’s was only 4.4 acres. When faced with a choice of over 200 acres of similar development at the airport, the voters must have the right to debate and decide on what happens, including leaving the aviation use as is. The voters must have the option to preserve the existing irreplaceable low density land use that provides the critical quality of life throughout Sunset Park as well as prevents the city incurring massive spending liabilities that will burden all the city’s residents for decades to come. The residents just told the Council that they are in no mood for more direct taxes since they clearly rebuffed (by close to 60%!) the notion of a direct parcel tax to fund the libraries. This would generate direct costs and quality of life degradation that are orders of magnitude beyond anything the residents have seen. Frankly, it is why the voters thought they were approving LC – to avoid this exact scenario!
And, if the argument is to be made that a decision has not been taken to development the airport, then why is staff proposing to spend $4.35 million (or more) of very scarce General Fund money on C0828 with the justification that “With local control of the airport set to arrive in 2029, it is imperative that a planning and community outreach process begin as soon as possible.”
Just as a reminder to the Council, under Measure LC, the City Council can approve the following uses of the Airport land without voter input:
 Development of parks
 Public open spaces
 Public recreational facilities
 Maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses Clearly, none of this is happening. This is a denial of the residents’ right to be appropriately represented and informed. We would not have expected such a unscrupulous developer-type move from the staff and Council.

This capital budget item should be denied until the decisions that have been reached are presented to the community for proper consideration.

Item 4.B
05/24/22
44 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22
3 For over thirty years, Santa Monica City has wasted millions on futile legal actions and dead end projects involving the airport. I want to know what decisions have been made and what scenarios are being modeled in the original budget item.

Sincerely, Sandra (by the Beach) Smith
Item 4.B
05/24/22
45 of 45 Item 4.B
05/24/22

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 24, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
May 24, 2022