1 Vernice Hankins
From: Barbara Jacobson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 1:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Resident Comment for PPL
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:
I am a Santa Monica resident and strong advocate of paid parental leave for City Staff and happy to see it on the agenda for June 28, 2022's Council Meeting. However, I want to add that I think there should be more paid leave for people who are physically giving birth to children.
With the six to eight week recovery times associated with Caesarian section births, recovery from body healing, and bonding time for birthing parent and child, I advocate that the fully paid parental leave for birthing parents be expanded from six weeks to 12.
The financial costs associated with birthing parents are high and it is important that the City of Santa Monica continue to be innovative and progressive for working parents in this time of political upheaval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Jacobson
—
Barbara Jacobson
Linkedin I Twitter
857-919-5695
Item 12.A
06/28/22
1 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sandra Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:18 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Cc: councilmtgitems; sandra smith
Subject: Item 12.A. - Adoption of Year 2 of the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget, Adoption of the Year 1 and Approval of the Year 2 of the FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget - Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My letter to the City Council on May 24, regarding the impacts and implications of Projects C0828 and C0468, has remained unanswered. Are we in a dictatorship? An approval of these projects in the upcoming year’s budget, would be setting in motion the closure of the airport without any public debate.
As I previously noted, this absolute lack of transparency is totally unacceptable. A decision with historical restructuring ramifications, impacts all the residents of the city for many years, if not forever. The Council’s respect for the city’s residents in this matter can only be described as non-existent and willfully short sighted.
I again, respectfully and formally, request that Projects C0828 and C0468 be deleted from budget approval.
No actions or contemplation of alternate uses of the airport property should be conducted without an honest and robust discussion with all residents.
A blundering government is a gross violation of public trust.
Ms. Sandy Smith
Santa Monica
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
Item 12.A
06/28/22
2 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
2 To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], SANDRA SMITH <[email protected]>, sandra smith <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
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 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!
Item 12.A
06/28/22
3 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
3 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 12.A
06/28/22
4 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
June 27, 2022
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Recommendations to City Council on Human Services Grants Program Budget, RFP, and Funding Human Service Delivery in Santa Monica
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members:
As members of the City of Santa Monica’s Social Services Commission (SSC), we have spent many months (and some of us, many years) hearing from our community’s most vulnerable citizens about the struggles in their daily lives. We are proud to live in Santa Monica, and we take our responsibilities as Commissioners seriously. We share the concerns of those in our community who rely upon the City’s services, and we hope you are listening to us now.
Annual funding for the city’s Human Services Grant Program’s - $8 million per year – is included in the City’s proposed 2022-2023 Budget. For much of the current year, the Housing and Human Services Division (HHSD) has been developing a new Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of local human services, and our Commission has served as a mechanism for city staff to receive community input regarding its design. We have made comments about the RFP that have been addressed, but what concerns us most is that the $8 million in total funds to be distributed each year for the next 3 years remains unchanged from what it has been since 2014. We ask that the City Council reconsider this amount, given not just inflation but also the growing demand for critical City services. An annual increase of 20% is reasonable – and essential – to address our community’s increased challenges in homelessness, behavioral health, and overall social service needs.
While we understand the budgetary constraints the City Council faces, we want to emphasize that the existing City revenues are not the only source of funds. For the past several years, we have urged the City Council to look at its other points of leverage to add to social service funding – including requesting social service benefits be included in development agreements that the city negotiates with real estate, hotel, health care, and tech companies that wish to operate here. In thinking through the options for channeling development dollars into social services, we recommend the city establish a “Human Services Fund” that developers would contribute to, as appropriate, as a condition for developing property within the city’s geographical boundaries, which could serve to augment existing dollars available for social services.
In addition, we are aware that several new proposals will be put before voters in November aimed to generate revenues for certain housing and human services, and regardless of which one(s) get approved, we also see the new funds that will be generated by these measures as new sources of funding for this “Human Services Fund.”
We want to make clear that it is equally important to our Commission that the funds that the City has allocated each year to Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District remain intact. Those funds are Item 12.A
06/28/22
5 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
essential to continue to reach the children in our city’s school system, which provides a range of essential social service supports to our community’s students and their families.
We applaud the Council for its focus on addressing the considerable needs for those experiencing behavioral health problems and homelessness, two issues that our Commission has highlighted as impacting too many of our citizens. Creating new capacity to address the gaps in behavioral health services is essential, and we are pleased that the City has been negotiating to develop a separate behavioral health funding initiative to address these needs.
After 40 years, our commission is sunsetting at the end of this month, and we take pride in the work that has been done, particularly during COVID these past two years, when we did not miss holding a single meeting. At this critical juncture in the lives of our most needy citizens, we urge you to consider our two primary recommendations: 1) creating a human services fund funded by new sources of revenue as described above; and 2) augmenting by 20% the $8 million in funds available to address the City’s HSD services, which include: basic services for those experiencing homelessness; adults and children struggling with behavioral health problems (mental health and/or substance abuse); early childhood education programs; and services to support senior citizens.
Again, thank you for your commitment to support those children and families in our community who need it most.
Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Social Services Commission
Winnie Wechsler, Chair
Brian Stedge-Stroud, Vice-Chair
Kay Ambriz
Cindy Akins
Tamara Kagel
Marie Manvel
Bill Parent
Ellen Sloan
Item 12.A
06/28/22
6 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sandra Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Item 12.A. - Adoption of Year 2 of the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget, Adoption of the Year 1 and Approval of the Year 2 of the FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget - Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
On Jun 27, 2022, at 9:17 PM, Sandra Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My letter to the City Council on May 24, regarding the impacts and implications of Projects C0828 and C0468, has remained unanswered. Are we in a dictatorship?
An approval of these projects in the upcoming year’s budget, would be setting in motion the closure of the airport without any public debate.
As I previously noted, this absolute lack of transparency is totally unacceptable. A decision with historical restructuring ramifications, impacts all the residents of the city for many years, if not forever. The Council’s respect for the city’s residents in this matter can only be described as non-existent and willfully short sighted.
I again, respectfully and formally, request that Projects C0828 and C0468 be deleted from budget approval.
No actions or contemplation of alternate uses of the airport property should be conducted without an honest and robust discussion with all residents.
A blundering government is a gross violation of public trust.
Ms. Sandy Smith
Santa Monica
Item 12.A
06/28/22
7 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
2 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]
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 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.
Item 12.A
06/28/22
8 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22
3 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 12.A
06/28/22
9 of 9 Item 12.A
06/28/22