Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, August 24, 2022

City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA

SUE HIMMELRICH
MAYOR

LANA NEGRETE KRISTIN MCCOWAN

COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM

GLEAM DAVIS PHIL BROCK

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

CHRISTINE PARRA OSCAR DE LA TORRE

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

DAVID WHITE

CITY MANAGER

DOUGLAS SLOAN

CITY ATTORNEY

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN

CITY CLERK

STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously; • Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints; • Listen to others respectfully • Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; • Exercise self-control • Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions
Meetings are broadcast live on CityTV cable channel 16 and on the internet at santamonica.gov. Cable television re-broadcasts air on Thursday and Saturday at 11:30 AM. The agenda will air on CityTV on Saturday and Sunday at 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and on Monday and Tuesday at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 8/24/2022 1:00 PM Page 2

RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (Resolution No.11427(CCS))

WAYS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you are interested in providing public comment at a City Council meeting, there are several ways to participate:
(1) Written public comment. In lieu of oral public comment, the public is strongly encouraged to submit written public comment on agenda items via email to [email protected]. Written public comment submitted before 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be available for online viewing. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments. (2) Oral public comment. Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items on the agenda must be present and submit their name and address (optional) to the City Clerk before the public comment section is opened for that item or before the public hearing is opened where one is required by law. Register to speak at the Speaker Kiosk prior to the meeting. Remarks from the public are limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes and a minimum of one minute per item. Except for the author of the request, public comment on 12-items are limited to 1 minute. Except on Public Input, speakers appearing at the meeting in person, may donate 2 minutes to another person present in-person at the meeting, who may speak for a total of 4 minutes on that item.

Both the donor of time and the designated speaker must register at the Speaker Kiosk in person together.

Oral public comment from any one individual is limited to a total of 6 minutes per City Council meeting, with a maximum of 2 minutes per agenda item; under some circumstances, Council may change the maximum to 1 minute per agenda item.

ORDER OF BUSINESS (may not be changed except by majority vote of the City Council.)

1. General Public Input
(members of the public may address the City Council
only on items not on the agenda, but within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the City).

2. Public Comment for Closed Session, Special
Agenda, and Consent Calendar Items Only
(Commendations and Proclamations presented).

3. Closed Session.

4. Special Agenda Items (City Manager’s Report,
Presentations, etc.).

5. Consent Calendar (All items considered in one
motion unless removed by a City Councilmember for
discussion. Public comment shall be heard prior
to City Council discussion).

6. Public Comment on remaining Agenda Items

7. Study Session.

8. Continued Items.

9. Administrative Proceedings.

10. Ordinances:
• 1
st Reading
• 2
nd Reading

11. Staff Administrative Item.

12. Public Hearings.

13. Reports of Boards and Commissions.

14. Resolutions.

15. Written Communications (other than
Reports of Commission and Officers).

16. Councilmember Discussion Items.

Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].

Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.

City of Santa Monica Generated: 8/24/2022 1:00 PM Page 3

AGENDAS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SPECIAL MEETING

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250,
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2022
MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 PM
WAYS TO PROVIDE REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT:

Written public comment can be submitted via email to [email protected].

Written comments received prior to 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be available online. Please note the agenda item number in the subject line of your written comments.

Any Items not heard on the August 23rd agenda, will be continued to an Adjourned meeting on August 24th at 6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
(This is a special City Council meeting. Public comment is restricted to only items listed on the agenda.)
(Please note that Agenda Items may be reordered during the Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council.)

1. PUBLIC INPUT
(Public comment is permitted only on items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda, including issues raised under this agenda item.)

1.A. Public Input under this item will not be heard at this meeting.

2. PUBLIC INPUT (CLOSED SESSION, SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS, CONSENT

CALENDAR ONLY)

3. CLOSED SESSIONS
City of Santa Monica Generated: 8/24/2022 1:00 PM Page 4 No items

4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
No items

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.)
No items

6. PUBLIC INPUT (REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS ONLY)

7. STUDY SESSION
No items

8. CONTINUED ITEMS
No items

9. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
No items

10. ORDINANCES
(Public comment is permitted on ordinances for introduction and first reading. No public discussion is permitted on ordinances for second reading and adoption.) No items

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

11.A. Approval of Library Budget Changes to Expand Hours and Service Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the FY 2022-23 budget and position changes described in the Financial Impact and Budget Action section and Attachment A of this report to provide support for the expansion of library operating hours.

11.B. Adoption of Resolution for Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution to revise the schedule of fees for Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps to eliminate quarterly use charges at General City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach (Tier 1 Fees) and reduce City of Santa Monica Generated: 8/24/2022 1:00 PM Page 5 quarterly use charges for Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps at Palisades Park and Beach Parks (Tier 2 Fees).

2. Approve modifying Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Camps, or Classes at Palisades Park to include Barnard Way Linear Park, Ocean View Park, Beach Park #1, South Beach Park, Crescent Bay and Beach Green and renamed to “Palisades Park and Beach Parks”.

3. Approve continued use of small and medium group sizes at Barnard Way Linear Park and Memorial Park for Commercial Fitness Trainers or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps.

4. Remove Ken Genser Square and Airport Park Interim Open Space from the approved general park list for Commercial Fitness Trainers or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps.

5. Approve a cap of 75 permits per calendar year for General City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach.

11.C. Approval of Human Services Grants Program FY 2023-27 Request for Proposals
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) Funding Guidelines (Attachment H); and

2. Authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the next fouryear HSGP funding cycle (FY 2023-27).

ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and reports are accessible on the City's webpage at www.smgov.net/council/agendas. They are also available at the City Clerk's Office and in alternate formats upon request. For a free email subscription to the City Council Agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or [email protected].

Members of the public unable to attend a meeting but wishing to comment on an item(s) listed on the agenda may submit written comments prior to the meeting by meeting by mailing them to: City Clerk, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 or to [email protected]. Written comments received from the public by 2 PM on the day of the City Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted online.

City Hall and the Council Chamber are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917-6626 at least 3 days prior to the scheduled meeting.

Si desea comunicarse con alguien en español, llame a nuestra oficina al (310) 458-8211 y pida hablar con Esterlina Lugo.

Santa Monica Blue Bus Lines #2, #3, #5, #9 and the EXPO Line serve City Hall. Parking is available on Main Street, on Olympic Drive, and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 24, 2022
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Erica Cuyugan, City Librarian, Library Services Department Subject: Approval of Library Budget Changes to Expand Hours and Service Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the FY 2022-23 budget and position changes described in the Financial Impact and Budget Action section and Attachment A of this report to provide support for the expansion of library operating hours.

Executive Summary
On June 28, 2022, during the adoption of the FY 2022-23 Exception-Based Budget, City Council allocated resources for the Library to enhance Saturday hours at selected branch libraries and offer additional evening hours. Staff recommends the allocation of $537,924 in one-time capital improvement program projects that were deferred to increase library operating hours, including weekly Saturday service at both the Pico and Montana Avenue branches, and evening hours until 7 pm. The funding grants users expanded access to library space, public internet and computer stations, services, resources, and knowledgeable staff and emphasizes the City Council’s commitment to Equity and Inclusion as a value and key priority. Enhancing branch services and programs helps families, seniors, youth, and low-income households benefit by connecting to the library resources they need to thrive.

Discussion
In 2020, Covid became a catalyst for major budget reductions, extensive cuts to staffing, and the restructuring of the library department. As a result, many of the library’s

11.A
Packet Pg. 6
2 of 4
branches have remained shuttered or function with minimal staffing, limited in-person service and programs, and reduced operating hours.

Pre-Covid library staffing levels were 112.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, but the restructured department resulted in a reduction of 65.0 FTE (58%) leaving the library to operate and provide services with 47.0 FTE. Subsequent funding enhancements since 2020 have increased staffing to 61.2 FTE, including proposals approved in Fiscal Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 that have allowed incremental increases to hours and service, with three locations (Main Library, Pico Branch and Montana Avenue Branch) open for in-person service and one location (Ocean Park Branch) open through a self-service, automated model.

Using the funding approved through this proposal, the library, which currently operates at 84 hours per week across four locations, will increase its operations to 116 hours per week across all five locations. This results in a 38% increase in hours from current operations. This plan meets key expectations from the community and City Council:
• Main and branch locations will have evening hours
• Two branch locations will be open every Saturday
• All four neighborhood branches will be open
This enhancement marks a milestone in library restoration. For the first time since April 2020, the Library will be able to provide service at every neighborhood branch location (with a combination of self-service and in-person models) and be open every Saturday (at two locations). A focus on neighborhood and branch services will include additional programming for youth and families, alignment and coordination of Main Library services such as Literacy Education for Adults and Families (LEAF) and workforce development services, and an increase in branch staffing support. Most residents and visitors will now be able to walk to the closest neighborhood branch during certain days of the week. The library continues to rebuild services and hours as funding is restored.

Staff is committed to exploring opportunities to increase hours of operation, programs, and services.

11.A
Packet Pg. 7
3 of 4
Table 1 - Proposed Hours (116 hours per week, including weekly Saturdays) Main 11:00 AM - 7:00 PM 11:00 AM - 7:00 PM 11:00 AM - 7:00 PM 11:00 AM - 7:00 PM Pico 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM Montana 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM Ocean Park 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Fairview 12:00 PM - 7:00 PM 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Total Hours 8.0 29.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 14.0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Every Saturday The proposed additional staffing resources, outlined in Attachment A, increases staff by

2.0 limited term FTE and 5.3 FTE as needed staff to enable branch activation on Saturdays and evening hours. To balance staff resources, the Main Library would no longer be open on the first Saturday of the month until additional resources are obtained that would adequately cover the operational needs of the 104,000 sq. foot building on a weekend. With this enhancement, the Main Library will benefit from enhanced evening hours and be open an hour earlier than branch locations during the week, Monday through Thursday.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
06/28/2022
(Attachment B)
Adoption of the Second Year of the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget, Adoption of the First Year and Approval of the Second Year of the FY 2022-24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff recommends approval of the budget changes listed below and position changes (net 2.0 limited term FTE and 5.3 as-needed FTE) detailed in Attachment A. This proposal relies on one-time funding from capital improvement program projects that were deferred for FY 2022-23. If approved, ongoing funding would need to be identified and requested in the future. New positions would be limited term for FY 2022-23, or until ongoing funds are identified; however, existing positions (modified via add/delete) would remain ongoing.

11.A
Packet Pg. 8
4 of 4
Because the Library relies on other departments to successfully operate its buildings and maintenance, Public Works, Information Services Department, and Department of Transportation have been notified of the proposed changes to operations.

Prepared By: Rachel Foyt, Senior Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Position and Classification Changes
B. Written Comment
FY 2022-23 Budget Changes
One-time Budget Appropriation
Fund Department
Limited Term
Net FTEs
As-needed
Net FTEs
FY 2022-23
Amount
General Fund Library 2.0 4.8 $ 502,792
General Fund ISD -- 0.5 35,132
Total 2.0 5.3 $ 537,924

11.A
Packet Pg. 9

POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES

ATTACHMENT A

FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE 01 Library 1.0 Librarian I 01 Library 1.0 Librarian II Add/Delete - 01 Library 1.0 Library Assistant II 1 Add 1.0
01 Library 1.0 Library Assistant III 1 Add 1.0
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES TOTAL 2.0 FTE
01 Library 0.9 Library Services Officer 2 Add 0.9
01 Library 0.4 Library Assistant I 2 Add 0.4
01 Library 0.8 Library Assistant II 2 Add 0.8
01 Library 0.9 Librarian I 2 Add 0.9
01 Library 1.8 Library Page 2 Add 1.8
01 ISD 0.5 Computer Support Technician 2 Add 0.5

5.3 FTE

7.3 FTE

TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES TOTAL
2 As-needed hours are for FY 2022-23 only.

GRAND TOTAL
1 Limited-term position ending June 30, 2023.

DELETE ADD NET FTE

CHANGE REASON
August 23, 2022 Page 1 of 1

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Position and Classification Changes [Revision 2] (5278 : 1st_Library Budget Changes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dana Newman
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 11A
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
The Santa Monica community has experienced a significant decrease in access to the public libraries and their resources since the Covid pandemic began in March 2020. With regard to Agenda Item 11A, I urge the City Council to approve the FY 2022‐23 budget and position changes described in the Financial Impact and Budget Action section and Attachment A of the report to provide support for the expansion of library operating hours.

This would restore library services at every neighborhood branch location, provide Saturday services at two locations, and allow for the development of valuable programs benefitting families, seniors, and youth.

I appreciate your careful consideration of Item 11A.

Sincerely,
Dana Newman
Member, Santa Monica Library Board
Item 11.A
08/24/22
1 of 4 Item 11.A
08/24/22

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Written Comment (5278 : 1st_Library Budget Changes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council - 8/24/22 agenda item 11-A -- SUPPORT! Attachments: City Council - 8-24-22 -- Library budget.pdf

EXTERNAL
August 24, 2022

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members]
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 8/24/ agenda item 11-A: Library Budget Changes to Expand Hours and Service

I strongly support item 11-A.

As a resident of the Sunset Park neighborhood, I've been saddened by the closure of our Fairview Branch Library since the restructuring.

So I'm delighted to see that, if this item is approved,

1) all 4 neighborhood branches will be open, including the Fairview Branch on Tuesdays from 12 to 7 PM and on Fridays from 10 AM to 5 PM,

2) 2 branch locations (Montana and Pico) will be open every Saturday, and

3) at least one library will be open until 7 PM on Monday through Thursday.

I'm sure Santa Monica residents look forward to the day when full library service at Main and all branches will be fully restored. Meanwhile, this is a small step forward.

Thank you to Erica Cuyugan and the rest of the library staff for their ongoing efforts to make the best use of drastically reduced resources.

______________________________________________________________________

https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/detail_meeting.aspx?ID=1366 From: [email protected]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To:

Sent: 8/19/2022 11:20:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Agenda Packet - Aug 24, 2022 (Wed) - City Council SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2022 AT 6PM.

Please see the attached Agenda Packet document for the following meeting:

Item 11.A
08/24/22
2 of 4 Item 11.A
08/24/22

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Written Comment (5278 : 1st_Library Budget Changes) 2 City Council
Special Meeting
Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:00 PM
1685 Main Street, Room 250, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Download PDF Agenda Packet | View Web Agenda Packet
Document Modified: 8/19/2022 11:17 AM

If you no longer wish to be included in this distribution list you can remove yourself through the meeting web portal or reply to this message.

Item 11.A
08/24/22
3 of 4 Item 11.A
08/24/22

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Written Comment (5278 : 1st_Library Budget Changes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Geraldine <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: Item 11A Reopening and expanding hours at libraries

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Council Members,
I wholeheartedly support the reopening of Fairview (for 14 hours/week) and expansion of library services throughout the city and endorse the comments by our neighborhood President, Zina Jacobs, attached below.

As timid as it is, I consider this gesture a positive step and look forward to the time when Fairview will receive support for a restoration of all hours, services, and programs ‐ in just compensation of having been closed entirely for nearly 3 years!
In appreciation,
Geraldine Kennedy, former Planning Commissioner and proud user of the Fairview Branch

As a resident of the Sunset Park neighborhood, I've been saddened by the closure of our Fairview Branch Library since the restructuring.

So I'm delighted to see that, if this item is approved,

1) all 4 neighborhood branches will be open, including the Fairview Branch on Tuesdays from 12 to 7 PM and on Fridays from 10 AM to 5 PM,

2) 2 branch locations (Montana and Pico) will be open every Saturday, and

3) at least one library will be open until 7 PM on Monday through Thursday.

I'm sure Santa Monica residents look forward to the day when full library service at Main and all branches will be fully restored. Meanwhile, this is a small step forward.

Thank you to Erica Cuyugan and the rest of the library staff for their ongoing efforts to make the best use of drastically reduced resources.

Item 11.A
08/24/22
4 of 4 Item 11.A
08/24/22

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Written Comment (5278 : 1st_Library Budget Changes) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 24, 2022
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Community Recreation
Subject: Adoption of Resolution for Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution to revise the schedule of fees for Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps to eliminate quarterly use charges at General City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach (Tier 1 Fees) and reduce quarterly use charges for Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps at Palisades Park and Beach Parks (Tier 2 Fees).

3. Approve continued use of small and medium group sizes at Barnard Way Linear Park and Memorial Park for Commercial Fitness Trainers or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps.

4. Remove Ken Genser Square and Airport Park Interim Open Space from the approved general park list for Commercial Fitness Trainers or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps.

5. Approve a cap of 75 permits per calendar year for General City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach.

Summary
The Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps permit program currently operates at designated City parks and at Santa Monica State Beach. Prior to the program, community members and City class and camp instructors regularly complained about the proliferation of unregulated fitness training and camps in City parks and at the beach. On January 1, 2014, the Commercial Fitness Trainer Permit

11.B
Packet Pg. 15
2 of 15
program pilot launched in response to the proliferation of for-profit training classes in Palisades Park and concerns that training erodes amenities and infrastructure and prevents the public from enjoying the park and the beach as groups dominate use areas, benches, paths, and other amenities. Additionally, unregulated training was creating loud noises early in the morning and creating the possibility of risk due to businesses operating without insurance. Staff viewed the permit program as an opportunity to preserve and activate parks, mitigate risks, support the local economy, enhance community wellbeing and health, and diversify training locations. Open spaces were tiered into two groups - General Parks and Beaches (Tier 1) and Palisades Park (Tier 2). Higher fees, group size limits, and trainer restrictions for Palisades Park were created considering the site’s Landmarked status, historical structures, heavy use, geography, and proximity to residents.

On June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot Program, which included waived or reduced quarterly use-charges for businesses with Commercial Fitness Trainer Permits as an economic recovery measure. This fee waiver and reduction was extended several times and is currently set to expire on September 30, 2022. The pilot program has been successful and has contributed to a significant increase in the number of permitted trainers using park and beach space for fitness instruction. Staff anticipates that a return to the full pre-pandemic fees will price out and discourage many of the permitted instructors from continuing to obtain necessary permits. The increased number of permittees in the parks and beach supports the overall program goals of safely activating parks, providing the community safe options for training, while monitoring the number and location of trainers.

Staff recommends moving beach parks (Barnard Way Linear Park, Ocean View Park, Beach Park #1, Crescent Bay, South Beach, and Beach Green) to a new “Palisades Park and Beach Parks” fee structure, continuing to waive the quarterly use charges for General Park and Beach use, and reducing quarterly use charges for trainers using Palisades Park and Beach Parks. Staff anticipates that the continued fee reduction will help retain most of the trainers gained during the pilot program.

11.B
Packet Pg. 16
3 of 15
Additionally, staff recommends removing Airport Park Interim Space and Ken Genser Square as approved training locations and allow the continued use of small and medium group sizes at Memorial Park and Barnard Way Linear Parks. Finally, staff recommends that the number of permits issued in a calendar year for General City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach be capped at 75.

Background
In 2014 the Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes, or Camps at City Parks program was created in response to community concerns largely focused on Palisades Park, specifically about the proliferation of unregulated fitness training and boot camps in City parks and at the beach. The program requires that trainers pay for and hold a permit, follow rules, and pay a quarterly use charge pro-rated by quarter.

To obtain a permit, a trainer must apply and provide proof of general liability insurance, additional insured, and a Santa Monica business license. All permitted trainers must sign the permit, acknowledging they have read, understand, and will abide by the rules.

Once documentation is received, an annual permit is issued. The annual permit fee ranges from $125.54 to $188.32 per calendar year. If there are multiple applications for Palisades Park, a lottery is held. Additionally, before an annual permit holder can begin conducting business in parks or beaches, the permittee must agree to pay a quarterly use-charge for any quarter in which they elected to use City parks or beaches. Quarterly use-charges are categorized by location and by groups size as shown below (see Table1).

Table 1: Pre-Pandemic Fees
Tier 1 - General Parks & Beach
Permit Group Size Quarterly Use Charge
Small
(not more than 2 participants) $450 per quarter
Medium
(not more than 10 participants) $900 per quarter

11.B
Packet Pg. 17
4 of 15
Large
(more than 10 participants) $1,350 per quarter
Tier 2 - Palisades Park
Permit Group Size Quarterly Use Charge
Small
(not more than 2 participants) $675 per quarter
Medium
(not more than 10 participants) $1,350 per quarter
Large
(more than 10 participants) $2,025 per quarter

Also, each permittee must submit a Quarterly Use Report showing location(s) and hours of instruction in the previous quarter. Unique to Palisades Park, large groups are capped at 15 participants and a maximum of 15 permits are issued for medium and large groups. Lastly, to balance park uses, medium and large groups may only operate inside of the four designated zones within Palisades Park (see Table2).

Table 2: Palisades Park Training Zones
Zone Location
#1 Palisades Avenue north to Alta
#2 Montana Avenue north to Palisades Avenue
#3 Immediately north of Idaho Avenue
#4 Wilshire Boulevard north to the public restroom
In August 2017, quarterly use charges for permittees were eliminated for trainers who committed to use Reed Park exclusively, though such trainers would continue to pay the annual permit fee to use Reed Park. It was hoped that the changes would help increase activity in Reed Park and enhance the sense of safety. The changes were aligned with renovation of Reed Park amenities in 2016, which was followed by an activation strategy of recreational, cultural, and enrichment events, programming, and activities for youth, families, adults, and seniors. Unfortunately, despite outreach to commercial fitness instructors, only three trainers have used Reed Park since the program was created.

11.B
Packet Pg. 18
5 of 15
Allowing trainers to conduct business in parks and beaches required staff to identify locations where training would have minimal impact on community experience.

Additionally, some locations only allow for small- and medium-sized groups to help avoid parks becoming overcrowded. Below is the list of approved parks for Commercial Fitness Trainer use (see Table 3):

Table 3: Approved Commercial Fitness Trainer Sites
Airport Park Memorial Park
Airport Park Interim Space Ocean View Park
Beach Green Palisades Park*
Beach Park #1 Reed Park
Clover Park South Beach Park
Douglas Park
Gandara Park Tongva Park
Hotchkiss Park Virginia Avenue Park
Ken Genser Square Barnard Way Linear Park
Marine Park Crescent Bay Park
* Palisades Park permit allows a trainer to use Palisades Park, General Parks, and the Beach.

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City established a temporary, outdooruse-permit program, the Santa Monica Outdoors Program, which allowed businesses to use public and private outdoor spaces for dining, physical fitness, and other business uses and included waived or reduced quarterly use-charges for businesses with Fitness Trainer Permits. As a result of the new fee structure, an annual permittee who offers training in General Parks and the Beach locations is only required to pay the annual permit fee and submit quarterly use reports to receive a new quarterly permit. Those training at Palisades Park are required to pay the annual permit fee and a reduced quarterly use fee along with submitting quarterly use reports to receive a new quarterly permit. Below is the pilot program fee structure (see Table4):

Table 4: Quarterly Use Charges Under the Santa Monica Outdoor Pilot Program Tier Locations Size Annual Permit Fee Quarterly Use Charge #1
General
Parks/Beaches Large $125.54 $0.00
#1
General
Parks/Beaches Medium $125.54 $0.00
#1 General Small $125.54 $0.00

11.B
Packet Pg. 19
6 of 15
Parks/Beaches
#2 Palisades Park Large $125.54 $1,350.00
#2 Palisades Park Medium $125.54 $900.00
#2 Palisades Park Small $125.54 $450.00
Additionally, through the Santa Monica Outdoors Pilot program, allowable group sizes at Barnard Way Linear Park, Tongva Park, and Memorial Park were increased. Ken Genser Square and Airport Park Interim Space were added to the list of General Parks and Beach.

Discussion
In 2019, 11 trainers were issued annual permits. In 2021, 43 trainers were issued annual permits (see Table5: Total number of annual permits sold), reflecting a nearly 300 percent increase in permits issued. Growth was likely due to closure of indoor facilities and the waived or reduced quarterly use charges. Outdoor fitness classes in City parks and beaches have maximized fitness studios and instructors’ ability to provide safe recreational training or wellness offerings. The additional trainers have activated parks, supported local economic recovery and community health and wellbeing, and provided safe training opportunities. As indoor facilities re-opened, trainers continued to obtain permits to work in City parks and beaches. Due to the continued higher number of trainers obtaining permits through the Pilot Program, staff believes the higher pre-Covid permit fees could have been the barrier to entry for many trainers.

Table 5: Total Number of Annual Permits Sold
All Group Sizes 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
General 20 14 11 11 7 18 39
Palisades Park 13 8 5 9 4 1 4
Total 33 22 16 20 11 19 43

11.B
Packet Pg. 20
7 of 15
Staff invited the approximately 40 permitted Commercial Fitness Trainers to respond to a survey about the proposed fee changes. By the time of publication of this staff report, 15 trainers had responded. When asked about the likelihood of continuing to obtain a permit should the pre-pandemic fees be reinstated, 40 percent said “not likely”, 20 percent said “maybe”, 13 percent said “likely”, and 27 percent said, “very likely”. When asked how they would respond if the current quarterly fee reductions and waivers were to become the new adopted fees, 100 percent of respondents answered that they were “very likely” to continue as a Commercial Fitness Trainer permittee. Additionally, 93 percent of respondents only train clients outdoors.

Staff also surveyed other cities’ commercial fitness trainer programs. Although no two cities operated the program in the exact same way, it was found that Santa Monica’s fees for fitness instruction were 414% higher than average fees across 8 other cities offering similar programs and the yearly cost of City trainers is 435% higher than average yearly cost in the other 8 cities (see Table6).

Table 6: Survey Results of Cities Offering Trainer Permits Cities Annual Permit Fee
Quarterly Use
Charge
Annual Cost to
Trainers
Austin $0 $775.00 $3,100.00
Beverly Hills $0 $41.50 $166.00
Denver $25 $150.00 $700.00
Encinitas, CA $0 $62.50 $250.00
Laguna Beach $0 $750.00 $3,000.00
Miami $0 $50.00 $200.00
San Diego $0 $45.32 $181.28
Seattle $75 $225.00 $1,200.00
Average Fee $262.42 $1,099.66
Santa Monica General
Parks & Beach $125.54 $1,350.00 $5,902.16
Palisades Park
$125.54 ($188.32,
if lottery is required) $2,025.00 $8,225.44
Percentage difference
between other Cities
Average qtr fee and
Santa Monica General
Parks and Beach 414.45% 436.73%

11.B
Packet Pg. 21
8 of 15
Considering the survey results and growth in the program, staff recommends adopting the reduced quarterly use fees on an on-going basis. If pre-pandemic fees were reinstated, trainers would likely leave the program. By modifying the pre-pandemic fee structure to reflect the current, pilot-program fees, it is likely the program will retain permit holders. Staff recommends the proposed fee modification to maintain participation in the permit program, which contributes to safe training options, activation of open spaces, and supports economic recovery for small local businesses.

The modification would affect quarterly use charges in all approved parks and beach locations (see Table 3: Approved Commercial Fitness Trainer Sites). The General Parks and Beaches would no longer require quarterly use charges and a reduced quarterly use charge would be required to train at Palisades Park and Beach Parks. To train at any location, a trainer would still be required to pay the annual permit fee and must submit quarterly use reports to be granted a new quarterly permit (see Table 7).

Adopting the reduced quarterly use fees would reduce a trainer’s operational expenses.

The recommended quarterly use fees would result in a 35% reduction in the cost to become a permitted instructor, which includes the purchase of a Santa Monica Business License, General Liability insurance, annual permit, and quarterly use permit (see Table 7)
Table 7: Operational Cost to become a Permitted Trainer Permit Group Size
SM
Business
License
Fee
Annual
Permit
Fee
Quarter
Use Charge
General Liability
Insurance -
Yearly cost on
Average
Yearly cost
to trainer
Pre-Pandemic
Medium Group Size
(≤ 10) $176.29 $121.77 $1,350.00 $400 $6,098.06

11.B
Packet Pg. 22
9 of 15
Recommended
Medium Group Size
(≤ 10) $176.29 $125.54 $900.00 $400 $4,301.83
The % difference between Pre-Pandemic fees and recommended fees: 35%.

Barnard Way Linear Park, Ocean View Park, Beach Park #1, Crescent Bay, South Beach, and Beach Green
In considering the proposed fee structure, the Recreation and Parks Commission recommended adding the Santa Monica Beach to the Tier 2 fee structure, in recognition of its iconic location. Staff generally supports the Commission’s recommendation and believes it would be most effectively implemented by including Barnard Way Linear Park, Ocean View Park, Beach Park #1, Crescent Bay, South Beach, and Beach Green into the Tier 2 fee structure and renaming the fee as “Palisades Park and Beach Parks”.

The six beach parks are iconic oceanfront locations, in high demand from a variety of users, and are adjacent to residences. Higher fees for these locations could help to manage usage and address impacts of training on community experience.

Table 8: Proposed Fee Structure
Locations Size
Annual
Permit Fee
Quarterly Use
Charge
Tier 1
General Parks/Beaches Large $125.54 $0.00
General Parks/Beaches Medium $125.54 $0.00
General Parks/Beaches Small $125.54 $0.00
Tier 2
Palisades Park/Beach Parks Large $125.54 $1,350.00
Palisades Park/Beach Parks Medium $125.54 $900.00
Palisades Park/Beach Parks Small $125.54 $450.00
Program participation is at an all-time high and staff believes a primary reason is because the quarterly-use charges were waived and reduced. If the City were to reinstate pre-pandemic fees, staff believes it would result in reduced safe and healthy fitness options for the community, limit economic recovery opportunities for small fitness businesses, and limit activation of parks. Restoration of pre-pandemic fees could also result in trainers operating in the parks and beach without permits. Unpermitted

11.B
Packet Pg. 23
10 of 15
instruction is a concern because trainers will not be aware of park rules that mitigate negative impact to plants and physical structures and regulate appropriate distances from city-operated classes and camps. Additionally, unpermitted trainers are not required to hold general liability insurance and additional insured, which leaves the City exposed to potential liability due to injury. Finally, unpermitted trainers are not required to sign a defense, indemnity, and hold harmless agreement which again leaves the City exposed to potential liability.

Fitness training activity is tracked and monitored by staff who work closely with the permitted trainers to build productive relationships, collaborate, and problem-solve. If a community member has a concern about a permitted trainer, staff can respond quickly to address the issue. The productive and synergistic relationships that occur between staff and permitted trainers do not occur between staff and any unpermitted trainers who operate in parks and beaches.

Smaller parks in residential neighborhoods, listed below (see Table9), are not appropriate for trainers as the additional use would diminish community access and experience and disrupt residents. Additionally, there is minimal available parking. Staff recommends that training continue to not be allowed in the following parks.

Table 9: No Commercial Fitness or Athletic instruction, classes or camps may occur in the following parks.

Ashland Park Muscle Beach Park
Beach Park #4 Ozone Park
Chess Park Pacific Street Park
Euclid Park Park Drive Park
Goose Egg Park Schader Park
Joslyn Park
Continued Use of Small and Medium Groups Sizes at Parks Under the Pilot Program, the allowable group sizes at three parks were increased.

Memorial Park and Tongva Park were increased from small to large group size and Barnard Way Linear Park went from small to medium. Memorial Park and Barnard Way

11.B
Packet Pg. 24
11 of 15
Linear Park are actively used by permittees and have contributed to the overall increase of permitted instructors. Additionally, both locations have sufficient onsite parking and are located a comfortable distance from residents. Lastly, Tongva Park became available under the pilot program. While only one trainer has used Tongva Park for one quarter, staff believes that training in Tongva Park could help activate the park and increase the sense of safety in the park. Staff recommends that the three locations be added to the approved general park list and only small and medium size groups be allowed to operate.

Removal of Parks from General Park and Beach List
Both Ken Genser Square and Airport Park Interim Space locations were made available for permitted fitness instruction under the pilot program; however, neither location has been used by trainers. Additionally, trainers have not expressed interest in using the two locations. As a result, staff recommends that Ken Genser and Airport Park Interim Space to be removed from the approved general park list.

Annual Cap
In considering the quarterly use fee reduction, the Recreation and Park Commission recommended implementing limits on the number of permits issued to trainers. Staff concurs with the Commission and recommends limiting the number of permits issued Citywide to 75 per calendar year. The proposed cap is intended to mitigate impacts on surrounding areas and limit overcrowding at parks and beaches.

Recreation and Parks Commission
On July 21, 2022, the Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Commercial Fitness Trainer program and recommended that Council:

1. Waive quarterly use charges for fitness training at General City Parks

2. Remove Santa Monica Beach from the “General Parks and Beach list” and add it to the Palisades Park category, thus creating a “Palisades Park and Beach” category

11.B
Packet Pg. 25
12 of 15

3. Charge full, pre-pandemic fees for Palisades Park and Beach

4. Continue to allow small and medium group sizes at Barnard Way Linear Park and Memorial Park for fitness training

5. Remove Ken Genser Square and Airport Park Interim Open Space from the approved general park list for fitness training

6. Add limits on the number of trainers allowed at all parks and beaches.

Staff generally concurs with the Commission’s recommendations and has included them in the proposed actions. The only recommended adjustments to the Commission’s recommendations are to specify Beach Parks for inclusion in the Tier 2 fee structure and to maintain the reduced quarterly use fees for Tier 2 parks, given that increased fees would likely result in fewer permitted trainers and potential increased use of the Tier 2 parks by unpermitted trainers.

Alternatives
The Council could reinstate the pre-pandemic use charges or reduce quarterly use charges by 50 percent from pre-pandemic rates, rather than waiving fees for General Parks and Beach. However, it is possible that a 50 percent reduction would price out existing trainers and result in a loss of some permitted trainers. If Council elects to reinstate the pre-pandemic use charges, staff anticipates that a greater number of trainers will be priced out and the number of permitted trainers will return to prepandemic levels or below.

Re-instating the pre-pandemic fees is expected to have a significant impact on the Commercial Fitness Trainer Program because of the expected loss of trainer participation. The program’s historical trend reflects a yearly decrease in trainer participation, likely due to the pre-pandemic fees. The program goals are to provide a framework for rules for trainers to follow, give the community safe and healthy fitness

11.B
Packet Pg. 26
13 of 15
options, activate parks, and support local business owners to thrive. Re-instating the pre-pandemic fees would likely prevent the program from achieving its goals.

Council could also consider limiting the number of participants allowed per group in Ocean View Park, which is uniquely located close to residential properties. Recent resident complaints related to Ocean View Park have focused on amplified sound not associated with trainers, whereas trainers operating in all parks and at the beach may not use amplified sound. Currently, small, medium, and large groups are allowed in Ocean View Park. Council could limit trainers in the park to small (no more than two) and medium (no more than 10) group sizes.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
6/28/2022
(Attachment A)
Resolution #11432 revising the City’s master fee schedule to establish and revise certain permit and user fees and charges in the Community Development and Community Services Departments; Department of Transportation; Finance, Fire, Library, Public Works, and Police Departments; and Records and Elections Services. 5/10/2022
(Attachment B)
Resolution #11419 of the City Council extending the waiver of certain fees on a temporary basis until September 30, 2022.
06/08/2021
(Attachment C)
Adopt Resolution #11339 to authorize fee waivers for outdoor dining license fees and processing fees for outdoor dining permits, authorize fee waivers and fee reductions for outdoor fitness fees in City Parks and the Beach, extend the fee waivers associated with temporary use permits, establish fees for use of public property pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.40 to commence no earlier than January 1, 2022, and authorizes temporary closure of portions of Main Street.
06/23/2020
(Attachment D)
Resolution #11263 revising the City’s master fee schedule to establish and revise certain permit and user fees and charges in the Community Development, Community Services, Public Works, and Police Departments.
8/8/2017
(Attachment E)
Resolution #11068 revising the schedule of fees for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps in order to implement a waiver of the annual use charge for activities taking place exclusively at Reed Park.
1/13/2015
(Attachment F)
Program Pilot Year update and discussion of proposed changes. 7/24/2014 Information item providing an assessment of the first half of the pilot

11.B
Packet Pg. 27
14 of 15
(Attachment G) year, including summary results of a community survey. 10/22/2013
(Attachment H)
Ordinance #2441 amending Article IV of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Related to Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps in Parks and the Beach.
10/8/2013
(Attachment I)
Introduction and first reading of an Ordinance #2441 Amending SMMC Chapter 4.55 related to Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps in Parks and the Beach; and Adopt a Fee Resolution #10779 Establishing Permit Fees and Use Charges. 4/23/2013
(Attachment J)
Options for Addressing Use of City Parks and the Beach for Commercial Fitness Instruction, Classes or Camps
4/10/2012
(Attachment K)
Ordinance Amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections Relating to Park and Beach Use and Direction on Non-City Sponsored Fitness Classes in Parks and the Beach
1/19/2012
(Attachment L)
Recreation and Parks commission supported proposed modifications to the codes.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The recommended action would result in a revenue reduction of $24,300. If the recommended action is approved, staff would adjust the CSD FY 2022-23 revenue budget at midyear and would incorporate the approved fee changes into the City’s master fee schedule.

Prepared By: Thomas Carpenter, Community Services Program Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. June 28, 2022 Resolution #11432 -Master Fee Schedule B. May 10, 2022 Staff Report-Resolution #11419
C. June 8, 2021 Resolution #11339
D. June 23, 2020 Resolution #11263
E. August 8, 2017 Resolution #11068
F. January 13, 2015 Council Report

11.B
Packet Pg. 28
15 of 15
G. July 24, 2014 Information Item
H. April 23, 2013 Staff Report
I. October 22, 2013 Staff Report
J. October 8, 2013 Staff Report
K. April 10, 2012 Staff Report
L. January 19, 2012 Recreation and Parks Meeting
M. August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution

11.B
Packet Pg. 29
Information Item
1 Date: July 24, 2014

To: Mayor and City Council
From: Karen Ginsberg, Director, Community & Cultural Services Department Subject: Update on the Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps Permit Program in Santa Monica Parks and at the Beach Introduction
This information item updates the City Council regarding the implementation of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2441 that requires City authorization, in the form of a permit, to conduct commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps in parks and at the beach. The pilot year of this permit program began January, 2014. This report provides a mid-year review based on feedback from community members, trainers, clients, and City staff responsible for administration of the permit program, maintenance, and enforcement.

Background
For the past several years, community members as well as City class and camp instructors regularly complained about the proliferation of unregulated fitness training and camps in City parks and at the beach. The majority of complaints about this activity concerned the intensity of use at the north end of Palisades Park by trainers and their clients. During its January 19, 2012 meeting, the Recreation and Parks Commission recommended that Council request that staff develop a regulatory system for use of the parks and beach by commercial fitness trainers. The Commission also suggested that staff research how other cities handle the issue of fitness classes in public open spaces.

On April 10, 2012, staff brought these community concerns to Council for direction.

Council directed staff to return with options to address community concerns related to commercial fitness classes and use of large equipment in the parks and at the beach.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 2 On April 23, 2013, staff presented Council with options for addressing use of City parks and the beach for commercial fitness instruction, classes or camps. Council asked staff to return with refinements to the program including options for group training areas in Palisades Park with proposed time, place and group size restrictions. On October 8, 2013, an ordinance amending Chapter 4.55 of the Municipal Code related to commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps in parks and at the beach, and a fee resolution establishing a permit fee and use charges was introduced. Council approved staff’s recommendations as amended and adopted Resolution Number 10779 (CCS). At its October 22, 2013 meeting, Council adopted Ordinance 2441 (CCS) and the law became effective in January 2014.

Discussion
The purpose of the new Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps Permit Program is to create a greater balance of park and beach uses, protect park and beach amenities, reduce impacts on neighbors and park and beach users, ensure commercial instructors have a business license and proper insurance, and to have instructors compensate the City for commercial use of public property. Staff spent the months of December and January educating the public about the application process, permit requirements, rules and regulations as well as fees and use charges. This included installation of temporary signage at select parks (Attachment A), postcard distribution, email blasts to the interest lists, articles and press releases in the local newspapers, City websites and social media. Additionally, informational sessions were held with City staff from several departments/divisions including Police, Public Service Officers, (formerly Park Rangers), Code Enforcement Officers, Public Landscape Supervisors, Human Services and Community Recreation.

Applications for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps permits were accepted beginning December 2, 2013 and processed as received, with the exception of applications for medium and large group permits for Palisades Park.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 3 Applications for medium and large group permits for Palisades Park were accepted from December 2, 2013 – December 16, 2013 only. Pursuant to the regulations, no more than 20 permits were to be issued for Palisades Park. If more than 20 applications were received by the December 16th deadline, there would have been a random drawing of applicants to allocate permits. A drawing was not required because fewer than 20 applications were received.

Permits Issued: Through May 31, 2014 a total of 23 permits (covering 57 instructors) were issued for 2014 with the following breakdown of group size by location:
 Palisades Park (7 small – no more than 2 participants, 3 medium – no more than 10 participants, 2 large – no more than 15 participants)  The Beach and other Approved Parks (2 small – no more than 2 participants, 6 medium – no more than 10 participants, 3 large – more than 10 participants, no permits were requested or issued for Reed Park)
Revenues collected for January through June 2014 total $43,400 which includes an annual application fee and quarterly use charges.

Over the past few months, staff received several requests to re-open the application process for medium and large sized group permits for Palisades Park since the 20 permit limit had not been met. Therefore, starting June 1 st and until the limit is met, staff
began accepting applications for medium and large size group permits in Palisades Park with the permits being effective July 1, 2014 – December 31, 2014. By accepting additional applications and potentially increasing the number of medium and large size group permits, staff can better evaluate the 20 permit limitation during the one year pilot period. As of July 7, 2014 two existing permit holders modified their permits to add medium and large groups in Palisades Park with two additional approved instructors.

Therefore, as of mid-July 2014, a total of 23 permits (covering 59 instructors) have been issued.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 4 Along with the permit, approved instructors are issued photo ID badges that must be worn when they are instructing as well as small portable signs (Attachment B) that must be displayed on site. The ID badges and portable signs make it easy for enforcement staff, Public Landscape staff, trainers and community members using the parks and/or beach, to identify approved instructors. A current list of approved instructors is posted on the City’s web page at www.smgov.net/trainers.

Enforcement: Staff meets monthly with Police Department and Code Enforcement staff to evaluate and assess the permit program. The Police Department reports that between January and June they received 41 complaints regarding potential violations of the permit program such as attaching exercise equipment to park amenities and trees, athletic or fitness instruction without a permit, and excessive noise. Complaints received were as follows:
 January: 19 complaints
 February: 6 complaints
 March: 6 complaints
 April: 3 complaints
 May: 7 complaints
 June: 0 complaints
Complaints were received for issues at 10 parks (Palisades Park, Clover Park, Airport Park, Stewart Park, Marine Park, Hotchkiss Park, Goose Egg Park, Joslyn Park, Barnard Way Linear Park, Memorial Park) and several park medians. These complaints were responded to by either Police Department Public Service Officers and/or Code Enforcement Officers.

Code Enforcement reports that 23 cases were opened concerning potential fitness trainer violations between February and June 30, 2014. Of these:
 3 resulted in the issuance of Administrative Citations  14 have been closed; and
 6 remain open and are being monitored

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 5 In addition, Code Enforcement staff estimates that since February 2014 officers have made contact with over 150 individuals or groups in City parks and at the beach. In some situations, the contacted persons were in compliance with the law. In others, Code Enforcement Officers educated the contact regarding the permit program and/or warned or cited the person for a violation. Enforcement staff will continue to enforce the law through education, warnings, and citations when violations occur.

Park Maintenance: Public Landscape staff reports that they have worked closely with the permitted groups in Palisades Park to rotate locations to alleviate compaction of the turf. The approved instructors have been cooperative with City staff when asked to move or relocate due to maintenance activities taking place in the zones and/or complete closure of the zones due to repair or bad weather. Staff reports that even with rotating permitted groups within the zones, the four areas show signs of more wear/tear and compaction of the turf as opposed to non-zone areas in the park. This could be attributed to the fact that these zones have small, medium and/or large sized groups training on a regular daily basis throughout the week. In the areas north of Marguerita Avenue where commercial fitness instruction is not permitted, staff reports that there has been significant improvement in the condition of the turf.

Permit Program Feedback: In May 2014, staff issued a survey to approximately 250 contacts on Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps interest lists, which included neighborhood groups, commercial instructors and their clients, Santa Monica residents and other interested parties. The purpose of this survey was to obtain feedback regarding the new permit program. Thirteen questions were asked. Survey respondents were requested to make recommendations regarding specific aspects of the permit program if they believed the regulations in question were not appropriate or were in need of change. 104 people responded to the survey with key findings from the survey ratings and comments summarized below:
 Residency & Primary Interest
o 88 respondents identified as Santa Monica residents
o 70 indicated they were an Interested Community Member

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 6 o 21 stated they were a Client
o 10 were an Instructor
o 10 selected Other
 Group Size: 100 responses
o 47% thought the size of the groups is appropriate
o 44% thought the size of the groups should change
o 44 comments were received regarding the size of groups, as follows:
 57% suggested more restrictions, i.e. over 2, or over 7 participants should be classified as a large group
 32% suggested less restrictions, i.e. small groups should be up to 4 or 5 participants
 Assignment of Parks: 101 responses
o 36% believed the assignment of parks is appropriate
o 50% believed a change is needed
o 48 comments were received regarding assignment of parks  23% suggested less restrictions, i.e. allow small groups in all parks  71% suggested more restrictions (primarily in Palisades Park)  25lb Weight Limit: 94 responses
o 55% believed the 25lb weight limit on exercise equipment is appropriate o 10% suggested less restrictions, i.e. no limit
o 30% suggested more restrictions, i.e. limit to 5lb or 10lb or none  Park Amenities: 94 responses
o 69% respondents supported the current prohibition of using park amenities for exercise
o 9% suggested more restrictions, i.e. no use of park or beach equipment under any circumstance
o 18% suggested less restrictions, i.e. dips on benches  Valid Days and Hours: 92 responses
o 51% believed the permit hours and days are appropriate o 13% suggested less restrictions, i.e. permits valid Sundays in Palisades Park
o 33% suggested more restrictions i.e. hours start later than 6am and end earlier than 9pm, permits not valid weekends and holidays  Advertising: 95 responses
o 75% believed that all advertising in the parks and at the beach should remain prohibited
o 4% suggested more restrictions, i.e. City should not issue signs

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 7 o 17% suggested less restrictions, i.e. distribution of business cards or flyers and/or brochures
 Palisades Park Zones: 79 responses
o 51% thought limiting medium and large groups to specific zones in Palisades Park is appropriate
o 22% suggest less restrictions, i.e. move about freely with no zones o 15% believe more restrictions, i.e. limit groups to two zones  Amount of Commercial Instruction in Palisades Park: 87 responses o 22% are satisfied with the level of training since implementation of the restrictions
o 48% suggested more restrictions, i.e. want no training o 13% suggested less restrictions, i.e. rarely see trainers and would like to see more activity
 Enforcement: 90 responses
o 33% believed the level of enforcement was satisfactory or excellent o 22% were disappointed, i.e. never see enforcement staff in parks o 44% did not know
 Balance of Uses: 87 responses
o 36% believed the balance of uses was satisfactory or excellent o 39% were disappointed, i.e. want no training, want more training o 25% did not know
 Overall Satisfaction: 67 responses
o 40% were satisfied or rated the permit program as excellent o 46% were disappointed
o 14% did not know
o 42 comments were received
 40% suggested more restrictions, especially for Palisades Park  38% suggested less restrictions, especially regarding use charges A total of 363 comments were received in response to the survey questions regarding program implementation. A compilation of the survey ratings is shown on a chart as Attachment C and the comments are categorized and available on the City’s website at www.smgov.net/trainers.

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 8 Summary
Since the law became effective in January 2014, staff has observed an overall reduction in the amount of commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps taking place in City parks and at the beach. Staff will continue to monitor and assess the permit program and report back to Council at the end of the one-year pilot period and propose changes if warranted. During the summer season, staff anticipates more commercial fitness or athletic instructors attempting to conduct classes in the parks and at the beach. Staff will continue active enforcement of the regulations through education, warnings and citations.

Prepared By: Wendy Pietrzak, Senior Administrative Analyst

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 9 ATTACHMENT A
Educational Sign

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 10 ATTACHMENT B
Instructor ID Badge/Sign

Example of Photo ID Badge

Example of Portable, 9.5” x 13.5”, A-Frame Sign

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 11 ATTACHMENT C
Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps Community Survey Results
May 14 – June 10, 2014
104 Respondents
(Note: Not all respondents answered every question)
Response Response Response Response
# Question Answer # % Answer # % Answer # % Answer # %
1 Are you a SM
resident?
Yes 88 85.5 No 15 14.6 -- -- -- - --
2 What is your
primary
interest in this
issue?
Instructor 10 9.8 Client 21 20.6 Community
Member
70 68.6 Other 10 9.8
3 The three
group sizes
are?
Appropriate 47 47 In Need of
Change
44 44 Don’t Know 9 9 -- - --
4 Assignment of
parks is?
Appropriate 36 35.6 In Need of
Change
50 49.5 Don’t Know 15 14.9 -- - --
5 25lb weight on
equipment
limit is?
Appropriate 52 55.3 Too
Restrictive
9 9.6 Too Lenient 28 29.8 Don’t
Know
5 5.3
6 Prohibiting
use of
amenities is?
Appropriate 65 69 Too
Restrictive
17 18 Too Lenient 9 9.6 Don’t
Know
3 3.2
7 Hours and
days that
permits are
valid are?
Appropriate 47 51 Too
Restrictive
12 13 Too Lenient 30 32.6 Don’t
Know
3 3.3
8 Prohibiting all
advertising in
parks/beach
is?
Appropriate 71 74.7 Too
Restrictive
16 16.8 Too Lenient 4 4.2 Don’t
Know
4 4.2
9 Limiting
med/lg groups
in Palisades
Park to 4
zones is?
Appropriate 40 50.6 Too
Consolidated
17 21.5 Too Spread
Out
12 15.2 Don’t
Know
10 12.7
10 Amount of
instruction
occurring in
Palisades
Park is?
Appropriate 19 21.8 Too Much 38 43.7 Too Little 11 12.6 Don’t Know
19 21.8
11 Effectiveness
of
Enforcement
is?
Excellent 9 10 Satisfactory 21 23.3 Disappointing 20 22.2 Don’t Know
40 44.4
12 Effectiveness
of ordinance
in balancing
uses is?
Excellent 10 11.5 Satisfactory 21 24.1 Disappointing 34 39.1 Don’t Know
22 25.3
13 Overall level
of satisfaction
w/ permit
program is?
Excellent 9 10.3 Satisfactory 26 29.9 Disappointing 40 46 Don’t Know
12 13.8

11.B.g
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: July 24, 2014 Information Item (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees)

RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION

S P E C I A L M E E T I N G A G E N D A
Thursday, January 19 2012, 7:30 pm
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main St., Santa Monica CA 90401 Notice is hereby given that a Special Meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission will be held at 7:30pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012 in Council Chambers.

1. Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call

2. Administration of Oath of Office of Recently Appointed Commissioners Alan Toy and Nishith Bhaat.

3. Approval of Minutes from December 15, 2011.

4. Director’s Report: Karen Ginsberg, Director of Community and Cultural Services Tree Hugging Day
Active Santa Monica

5. CONTINUED ITEMS:

A. Commission discussion and development of recommendation for transmittal to City Council regarding a permanent name for the new Civic Center Parks currently known as Palisades Garden Walk and Town Square.

5. ACTION ITEMS:

A. Staff presentation on proposed changes to the municipal code regarding park and beach use for Commission review and comment.

6. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

A. Request by Chair Brock to discuss upcoming California Park & Recreation Society (CPRS) Conference scheduled for March 20 through 23.

B. Review of Long Range Agenda

7. Committee and Liaison Reports:

A. Community Gardens Advisory Committee Liaison – Commissioner Cohen B. Disabilities Commission Liaison –
C. Planning Commission Liaison – Vice Chair Linnekens
D. Landmarks Commission Liaison –
E. SMMUSD/SMC Liaison – Commissioner Petz, Chair Brock
F. Field Sports Advisory Council Liaison – Commissioner Petz, alternate Chair Brock G. Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board Liaison – Commissioner Cohen H. Parks Conservancy –Chair Brock, Commissioner Cohen
I. Urban Forest Task Force – Commissioner Petz
J. Bicycle and Pedestrians Committee –Chair Brock, Commissioner Petz, alternate Commissioner Keiley

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: January 19, 2012 Recreation and Parks Meeting (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) K. State Recreation & Parks Commission Board –Chair Brock

8. Public Comment
Public input is permitted only on items on the agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Recreation & Parks Commission

9. Adjournment

______________________________
Phil Brock, Chair
Recreation & Parks Commission

City Hall is wheelchair accessible. To request a disability-related accommodation, such as a sign language interpreter or assistive listening device, please call the Department of Community & Cultural Services at 310- 458-8310, or TTY 310-458-8696, or email [email protected] at least three business days in advance. This agenda and all documents for the meeting are available in alternate format upon request. City Hall is served by Big Blue Bus lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 8, 9 10 and Rapid 3; call (310) 451-5444 or TTY (310) 395-6024 for additional transportation information. Parking is available in front of City Hall and on Olympic Drive and in the Civic Center Parking Structure (validation free).

This agenda is subject to change up to 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. We encourage you to check the agenda on the City’s website (http://smgov.net/ccs/agendas/rec/) 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Please note that Agenda Items may be reordered during the meeting at the discretion of the Chair.

PUBLIC INPUT GUIDELINES: Public attendance and comment at Commission meetings are welcomed and encouraged. Members of the public will have 3 minutes to speak and should submit a chit to City staff before the presentation begins. If more than 15 members of the public wish to speak on one item, speaking time will be limited to 2 minutes each. If a member of the public submits a late chit, his/her speaking time will be limited to 1 minute. Members of the public wishing to speak will be called upon in the order in which their chit was received.

Applause or any other disruptive behavior is not allowed.

Any documents produced by the City regarding any item on this agenda will be made available in Room 210 at City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, during normal business hours.

11.B.l
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: January 19, 2012 Recreation and Parks Meeting (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 1 City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California

RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA REVISING THE CITY’S MASTER

USER FEE SCHEDULE TO ELIMINATE AND REDUCE QUATERLY

USE CHARGES FOR COMMERCIAL FITNESS OR ATHLETIC

INSTRUCTION, CLASSES OR CAMPS
WHEREAS, Santa Monica State Beach and parks located within the City of Santa Monica (the "City") are congested public recreational facilities that are heavily used by residents, workers and visitors; and
WHEREAS, to maintain safety and maximize public recreational opportunities, it is necessary for the City to regulate, through a permitting process, commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps in City parks and on Santa Monica State Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City's parks vary significantly in size, configuration, amenities, amount of passive open space, and uses; and
WHEREAS, because of these, and other differences, the City's parks vary in their capacity to accommodate use for commercial fitness training; and WHEREAS, establishment of a charge for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camp's use of City parks and the Santa Monica State Beach is consistent with existing surf instruction for compensation charges as currently authorized

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 2 by local law; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 17554, adopted on July 12, 1994, governs the amount of user fees or fees for services provided for the benefit of particular individuals rather than the general public and allows such user fees to be set by ordinance, by resolution adopted by City Council, or by any other means authorized by law; and WHEREAS, it is the City’s general policy to charge for the full costs of services provided by City staff (“City’s Cost Recovery Policy”) when such services benefit individual users, rather than members of the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the City’s Cost Recovery Policy, the City has discounted certain recreational services and other opportunities to individuals to promote equity, inclusion, and other community benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City further makes various recreational facilities, fields, courts, parking lots, swimming pools, rooms, auditoriums, and patios, and other locations available for recreational activities and events pursuant to City guidelines; and WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy to establish user charges for those locations so as to promote use of its limited facilities by this community and by groups working to promote this community’s welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City maintains a Master User Fee Schedule to allow the public to more easily gather information about such fees; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10779, establishing permit fees and a use charge for commercial fitness or athletic instruction,

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 3 classes or camps in parks ("Resolution No. 10779"); and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2441 to amend Article IV of the Santa Monica Municipal Code related to commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps in parks and the beach; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10816, which incorporated the fees established by Resolution No. 10779 into the City’s Master User Fee Schedule, as set forth in Exhibit U, Commercial Fitness of Athletic Instruction Classes or Camps at City Parks and at the Sant Monica Beach; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11068 to revise its fees for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps at City parks and Santa Monica State Beach to provide for a waiver of the quarterly use charge for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps operating exclusively in Reed Park; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11263, which, among other things, revised certain permit and user fee charges, including the annual permit and quarterly use charges for commercial fitness and athletic instruction permits; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11339 to, among other things, waive the quarterly use charges for businesses with commercial fitness or athletic instruction permits issued pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code through June 30, 2022, except that such business operating in Palisades Park were required to pay a reduced quarterly rate; and

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 4 WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11419, to, among other things, waive or reduce the quarterly use charges for business with commercial fitness or athletic instruction permits issued pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code until September 30, 2022, to stimulate economic recovery; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11432, to, among other things, commencing on July 1, 2022, and on July 1 of each fiscal year thereafter, administratively revise and increase annually certain fees reflected in the 2022 Master User Fee Schedule, including the quarterly use charges for businesses with commercial fitness or athletic instruction permits, by a factor equal to the net change in City salaries and benefits costs for that fiscal; and
WHEREAS, the City has an important government interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, reducing the quarterly use charge for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps would further the City's intent to increase activities in its parks and at its beaches in order to maintain a safe, accessible and attractive open space; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to revise its fees for commercial fitness or athletic instruction, classes or camps at City parks and Santa Monica State Beach to eliminate the quarterly use fee for General Parks and Beaches and reduce the quarterly use fee for Palisades Park and Beach Parks.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) 5 DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Exhibit U, Commercial Fitness of Athletic Instruction Classes or Camps at City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach, attached to the City’s Master User Fee Schedule that was revised on June 28, 2022 by Resolution No. 11432, is hereby replaced and superseded by Exhibit U attached to this Resolution, which fee schedule eliminates the quarterly use fee for General Parks and Beaches and reduces the quarterly use fee for Palisades Park and Beach Parks.

SECTION 2. All fees established by this Resolution will take effect on October 1, 2022, unless otherwise noted.

SECTION 3. If there are any conflicts between the fees adopted in this Resolution and fees adopted by any prior resolution or fee schedule, the fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall control. If there are any conflicts between the portions of the fee schedule set forth in this Resolution and any prior fee schedule, the portion of the fee schedule attached to this Resolution shall control.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Exhibit U Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps at City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach at City Parks and at Santa Monica State Beach

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) Exhibit U: Community Services
Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or
Camps at City Parks and at the Santa Monica Beach
Authorized By Resolution No. (CCS)
Permit Fee
Commercial Fitness or Athletic Instruction, Classes or Camps Permit Permit fee if a Request for Proposal process, lottery or other allocation process is required.

Notes:

1. All permits expire December 31st of each year, regardless of date issued.

2. Permit fees shall be subject to the City’s annual administrative revision and increase set forth in this resolution.

3. No more than 15 small and 15 medium or large permits may be issued for Palisades Park. A Request for Proposal process, lottery or other allocation process will be used to issue permits if applications received during the priority registration period exceed availability.

4. These permit fees do not apply to surf instruction for compensation and commercial. groups requiring a Youth Group Beach/Water Activity Permit.

Quarterly Use Charge
In addition to a Permit Fee, Permittee shall pay a quarterly flat rate use charge as indicated below. Charges are determined by the number of participants in the group and vary depending upon the park and/or beach location. The following charges are based on a calendar year quarter and are not pro-rated or refundable:

General Parks and Beach Quarterly
Use Charge Permit
Small group size (not more than 2)
Medium group size (not more than 10)
Large group size (more than 10)
Palisades Park & Beach Parks
Quarterly Use Charge Permit
Small group size (not more than 2)
Medium group size (not more than 10)
Large group size (more than 10)
Note:

General Parks and Beach includes Airport Park, Clover Park, Douglas Park, Gandara Park, Hotchkiss Park, Marine Park, Memorial Park, Reed Park, Stewart Street Park, Tongva Park, Virginia Avenue Park
Palisades Park & Beach Parks includes: Palisades Park, Ocean View Park, Beach Green, Barnard Way Linear Park, Beach Park #1, Crescent Bay Park, and South Beach Park The annual use charge for permittees committing to use Reed Park exclusively for their training Fee
FY2022-23
125.54
188.32
$ 450.00 0
$ 900.00 0
$ 1,350.00 0
675.00 $450
1,350.00 $900
$ 2,025.00
$1,350.00

11.B.m
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: August 2022 -Commercial Fitness Fees Resolution (5142 : Commercial Fitness Trainer Fees) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 24, 2022
Agenda Item: 11.C
1 of 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human Services
Subject: Approval of Human Services Grants Program FY 2023-27 Request for Proposals
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) Funding Guidelines (Attachment H); and

2. Authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the next four-year HSGP funding cycle (FY 2023-27).

Summary
The City’s Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) is administered through the Community Services Department (CSD) and funds an array of safety-net programs for vulnerable and underserved individuals and families in Santa Monica. Services provided through the City-funded programs include, but are not limited to:
• childcare subsidies;
• school-based mental health services;
• job training and placement;
• food assistance;
• legal services;
• programs for seniors; and
• homeless services.

11.C
Packet Pg. 49
2 of 26
HSGP is a key component of the City’s overall efforts to support our community and provide services that keep vulnerable residents healthy, stable, and housed. With the next funding cycle scheduled to begin in July 2023, staff is seeking Council approval of funding guidelines for a future FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program along with authorization to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications for the FY 2023-27 HSGP funding cycle.

This report provides a brief overview of the evolution of the HSGP, including the core values that have defined the services and responses to community needs over the years. While individual grants represent a small portion of the local and regional safety net, as the single largest source of City funds to local non-profit social service agencies, HSGP has shouldered the burden of community expectations to address wide-ranging socio-economic policy issues, including youth violence, homelessness, and behavioral health-related issues, while also being the focus of concerns related to ensuring transparency and accountability. In acknowledging these concerns, the report outlines efforts to solicit community input on future funding guidelines including an outcomes framework, target populations, participant eligibility, agency eligibility, and scoring criteria, as well as staff recommendations based on feedback. The report also describes the processes for identifying and securing an expert review panel to score and rank applications, and recommended guidelines to ensure a well-balanced grant portfolio and greater transparency. The report concludes with a timeline for the RFP process and the awarding of funds.

Background
History of Community Grants
The Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) is designed to address critical community needs and gaps in existing service systems, while also offering funding stability to local social service agencies. Founded in 1974 as the Community Development (CD) Program, the grants program has always prioritized funding for:
• programs that document effective services to target populations including seniors, youth and families, people with disabilities, and other low-income Santa Monica households;

11.C
Packet Pg. 50
3 of 26
• organizations that demonstrate strong interagency coordination; and • agencies that leverage limited City resources through significant contribution of non-City funds.

As early as 1976, the City Council established program selection criteria to maximize the impact of City-funded social service programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and prioritize high-quality services to Santa Monica residents. What began as four nonprofits has grown, along with Santa Monica’s population and social service needs, into what is now known as the Human Services Grants Program (HSGP), with an $8 million budget and portfolio of 19 agencies and 35 programs (in FY2021-22, see June 23, 2020 Staff Report).

FY2021-22 funding sources for the $8 million HSGP include:
• City General Fund $7.57M (94%),
• Federal entitlement and competitive grants $223K (3%) such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Continuum of Care (CoC) funds,
• Other local revenue sources $248K (3%) including Proposition A transportation.

The current HSGP grant cycle started in FY 2015-16, when Council approved 4-year grants for 22 local non-profits (June 23, 2015) at an annual funding level of $8,165,812 (referenced in past council actions). In FY2018-19, Council adopted the Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing (Attachment G) and departments worked City-wide to align goals and outcomes. CSD brought in Canavan and Associates —a Cambridge, MA-based firm with nearly 15 years of experience working at local, state, federal, and international levels on program engagement and design—to engage the community in a redesign of HSGP performance measures and outcomes to align with Framework goals.

On January 22, 2019, Council granted a two-year extension to the FY2015-19 grant cycle to allow time for meaningful community input in advance of a Fall 2020 RFP release (referenced in past council actions).

11.C
Packet Pg. 51
4 of 26
RFP development halted in early 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as staff shifted to focus on emergency response, working with HSGP grantees to pivot local services to respond to pandemic needs, and launching two new programs—the Virginia Avenue Park Food Pantry and the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). Both the City and local agencies adapted to respond to local needs and reprioritize and deliver essential services during a time of limited resources and facing an uncertain future.

Three months into the pandemic, in June 2020, Council adopted a budget for FY2020- 21 that reduced the previously proposed City budget by nearly 25%, including a decrease of over 12% to the HSGP, resulting in a $1.035M cut to local services to vulnerable populations (see June 23, 2020 staff report). A Fall 2020 RFP release became not only unattainable, but unfeasible given the unpredictability of resources and needs. As a result, on January 26, 2021, Council approved a second two-year extension to the HSGP funding cycle— acknowledging the particular hardship of releasing an RFP for a new, multi-year grant cycle mid-pandemic amidst so much uncertainty and setting the new start date for the next RFP funding cycle for July 1, 2023 (referenced in past council actions). Ultimately, the current grant cycle was never intended to be eight years. However, the desire to align HSGP with Citywide goals and outcomes, and then a global pandemic resulted in a prolonged grant cycle, which staff do not anticipate happening again.

Guiding Principles
The following guiding principles have historically shaped the scope and focus of the grants program:
• Multi-year funding: Funding equates to services and jeopardizing the availability of services every cycle creates disruptions in service delivery to people in need.

Program participants need the assurance of knowing that services will be available for more than a year should they need them. Multi-year funding allows for stability in hiring and programming and reduces administrative burden so agencies can focus on service delivery. In 2010, Council approved an extension of the three-year grant cycle to create a four-year cycle to align with the City’s

11.C
Packet Pg. 52
5 of 26
biennial budget process. Staff also renegotiate contracts every year, which provides an opportunity to revise program plans and pivot to better meet participant needs, and Council approves agency funding levels annually during the Budget process. Shorter grant cycles would limit long-range planning, disrupt services and staffing, and add to agencies’ administrative burden, taking away from resources needed to develop, implement, and run programs. • Defined Santa Monica Program Participants (SMPP): HSGP includes a specific definition of who can be served with City grant funds to ensure local resources are serving local needs. As one of 88 cities in Los Angeles County, the City expects local agencies to use regional resources first to serve SMPP. City funding ensures that SMPP are prioritized by these programs, creating set-aside slots specifically for Santa Monica eligible households, and allowing flexibility in services where County funds are more restrictive. City funding is also used to fill gaps in services for SMPP when non-City funding is fully expended or insufficient due to time/service limits or eligibility issues.
• Depth of Services Versus Breadth of Services: As the cost of delivering services has increased over time and the needs of low-income households have grown more complex, the grants program made intentional changes to focus on holistic programs that can provide deep levels of support and robust comprehensive services to a smaller number of highly vulnerable individuals who are SMPP. This translates into more clinically focused and intensive services (by licensed and certified staff) over a longer period, as opposed to providing lighttouch, short interventions to more people. • Serving Multiple Populations: The HSGP has long sought to preserve the diversity of Santa Monica residents by supporting marginalized and underserved community members. Over the first three decades of the grants program, as the amount of available City funding increased, the grants portfolio evolved to serve many populations including seniors, people with disabilities, youth and their families, low-income households, and people experiencing homelessness. While the needs of these different populations ebb and flow over time, and some populations have surges in need, it is critical that the HSGP maintain a core

11.C
Packet Pg. 53
6 of 26
stable safety net for all populations rather than attempting to meet the exclusive needs of one group at the expense of others.
• Leveraging Non-City Resources: City funds are insufficient to meet all local needs. The HSGP stipulates a minimum 30% cash match requirement, meaning City funds can only be used to cover up to 70% of the cost of services to SMPP and agencies must secure non-City funding for the balance of those costs. This encourages agencies to use the stability and reliability of annual City grant funds as a positive asset to secure other funding from private and public sources.

Agencies annually match over $14 million in non-City dollars, meaning that the $8 million in annual HSGP grants is used to leverage a total of $22 million in services to SMPP.

Early RFP Development – Community Engagement
From May to October 2019, CSD and Canavan and
Associates held a series of sessions to solicit
community input and feedback in preparation for the
planned upcoming grant cycle. Staff invited over
10,000 individuals via public announcements on social
media, as well as through direct, in-person outreach.

Specifically, staff conducted in-person outreach at four farmers markets, a Twilight on the Pier concert, and
two Meet Me at Reed (Park) events. Canavan and Associates held a total of twentyseven Community and Stakeholder workshops and two Town Halls and presented to five City Commissions. Through these efforts, more than 350 people participated, including executive directors, program participants, service providers, first responders, business and faith community leaders, representatives from Neighborhood Associations, policy makers, educators, youth, and the general public. In addition, staff conducted two online surveys in English and Spanish and collected over 150 survey responses.
41 Engagement
Events
350
Participants
150
Survey
Responses

11.C
Packet Pg. 54
7 of 26
These community input sessions were guided by a central question:

What does an effective human services system in Santa Monica look like to you? Figure 1. Community Input Collected August 29, 2019, at Santa Monica Institute Canavan and Associates documented and analyzed these conversations and concluded that community members are interested in services that address the following key concerns: behavioral health (inclusive of mental health and substance abuse), vulnerable seniors, youth, people with disabilities, and services for people experiencing homelessness, including homeless prevention services.

The responses elicited from this extensive community engagement process are consistent with more recent comments received from both City Council and the community and include specific areas of interest, such as: increased accountability of service providers, increased capacity for comprehensive and holistic services for youth and their families, and increased funding for high-quality service delivery and decreased staff turnover, as well as addressing homelessness through prevention services.

An additional product of the community conversations about effective human service systems was feedback about the process behind service delivery (funding agencies, monitoring agency performance, strength of partnerships within the network of care, etc.). Community stakeholders identified three areas for process improvement, and City staff have responded in the following ways:

11.C
Packet Pg. 55
8 of 26
• Transparency
o Held multiple public community meetings to solicit feedback on RFP components
o Publicly posted draft HSGP RFP components on City website o Implemented a public process for identifying the RFP review panel • Accountability
o Revised outcomes to focus on program impacts
o Posted program and fiscal reports from HSGP grantees to City website o Contracted with Moss Adams to conduct a third-party independent audit of current grantees
o Incorporated past performance as a scoring criterion in the RFP • Collaboration
o Partnered with the We Are Santa Monica Fund Advisory Board o Partnered with the Social Services Commission on RFP development, which included an invitation for feedback to all Neighborhood Associations and community stakeholders to elicit a diverse array of resident input o Incorporated collaboration across agencies as a scoring criterion in the RFP Social Services System Needs and HSGP Funding Levels
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, social service agencies regionally and nationally were struggling to meet operating costs as well as recruit and retain staff. This has been particularly true in Santa Monica where agencies face high rent and many staff endure long commutes due to prohibitively high local housing costs, especially on a non-profit salary. The pandemic has only compounded pre-existing stressors, as agencies struggle to meet even higher operating costs and secure staff amidst inflation and an exceptionally competitive job market, all while ramping up services to address the massive increase in social service needs. Results from the 2022 National Non-Profit Fund survey underscore these challenges, with long-term financial sustainability being the top concern amongst non-profits, and over half of non-profits reporting problems employing enough staff and offering competitive pay.

11.C
Packet Pg. 56
9 of 26
A consistent theme that arose from community feedback was the need to increase funding to meet current needs and address emerging, future needs. While the needs of Santa Monicans have steadily increased during the current 8-year funding cycle (and spiked during the pandemic), funding for the Human Services Grants Program has not risen proportionally. The last substantial enhancement to HSGP funding occurred in FY 2015-16, when Council approved a $550,000 increase, which expanded the total pool of funding available to applicants to $8,166,812. As a result, the reality is that existing funding may be insufficient to address the community’s emerging needs, let alone established needs.

The Review Panel and Council will need to carefully consider proposals to ensure a future grants portfolio that, while far from addressing all local needs, is responsive to current and emerging needs and will continue to provide a range of interventions—from upstream approaches to intensive case management—across populations. Staff recommendations outlined in this report seek to provide guidelines for the RFP to create opportunities for new programs while preserving core safety net services that residents rely upon to meet their basic needs.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
01/23/15
(Attachment A)
Council adopted funding rationale for HSGP based on documented community needs and priorities
05/28/2015
(Attachment B)
Council provided comments on proposed HSGP FY2015-19 funding recommendations as part of the FY2015-17 biennial budget study session
06/23/2015
(Attachment C)
Council awarded four-year grants to non-profit agencies through the FY2015-19 HSGP
01/22/2019
(Attachment D)
Council approved a two-year extension of the FY2015-19 HSGP funding
01/26/2021
(Attachment E)
Council approved a two-year extension of the HSGP funding cycle

11.C
Packet Pg. 57
10 of 26
06/28/22
(Attachment F)
Council adopted the second year of the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget, including funding for the final year of the current HSGP cycle
Discussion
CSD staff began updating the HSGP Request for Proposals (RFP) at the start of 2022 with community input received during the Canavan outcomes development process, as well as feedback from City Council members. Staff approached this process seeking to offer multiple opportunities for the community to review and provide feedback on key components of the RFP, including agency and program participant eligibility, proposal scoring criteria, and proposed outcomes. Staff also sought to update the RFP to reflect the City’s efforts to advance equity and inclusion.

The proposed HSGP funding rationale details this updated process and seeks to ensure that the HSGP continues to support a range of services—from early intervention (for children 0-3) to intensive case management—across underserved Santa Monica populations and to leverage non-City funds to maximize impact.

Community Input
Staff held three public information and feedback sessions hosted by the Social Services Commission (SSC) in February, March, and May of 2022. Each meeting covered a different set of recommendations:
• February—participant eligibility and scoring criteria • March—program outcomes
• May—review panel development and protocols, and funding allocations by population Staff advertised these meetings to residents via the City’s social media channels, City media alerts, and City-wide email distribution lists, including SaMoNews, which reaches over 47,000 recipients. Meetings included real-time closed captioning, American Sign Language interpretation, and Spanish language interpretation. Additionally, staff

11.C
Packet Pg. 58
11 of 26
reached out directly to Santa Monica Neighborhood Associations, inviting them to participate and offering presentations to each neighborhood group on the topics covered. Recordings of the meetings and associated materials are available at the Social Service Commission website: smgov.net/ssc.

Staff invited the public to view draft RFP materials on the HSGP website (https://www.santamonica.gov/human-services-grants-program) and submit public input via email through June 15. Staff received 4 written comments during that time. A summary of community feedback is also available on the website.

Proposed 2023-2027 RFP
Staff used the feedback received during the community engagement process to inform the development of the new RFP. The following sections describe the specific RFP components in more detail.

Santa Monica Program Participant (SMPP) Eligibility
As included under Guiding Principles above, the HSGP relies on Council-adopted criteria for Santa Monica Program Participants (SMPP) to ensure that local funds serve local needs. Applicants have flexibility in determining the population(s) they propose to serve, as long as they can demonstrate an unmet current need, and the proposed participants meet SMPP eligibility.

SMPP Eligibility
• Individuals or households with a permanent address in Santa Monica • Students enrolled in a Santa Monica public school (for school-based services)
*See Attachment H, Section 1 for additional criteria for at-promise youth and people experiencing homelessness

11.C
Packet Pg. 59
12 of 26
There are additional SMPP criteria for two populations, at-promise youth and people experiencing homelessness, to further ensure that HSGP funds are maximized and focused on community-identified needs. “At-promise” youth have great potential and experience personal and academic risk factors that can hinder their success. Programs with this focus provide assertive case management for identified high-risk children, youth, and their families; and lead coordination of system-wide case conference meetings with local social service providers to respond to their holistic needs. The additional SMPP criteria for at-promise youth can be found in Attachment H, Section 1.

Staff are not proposing any major changes to SMPP criteria for at-promise youth.

Due to the limited resources discussed earlier, for programs proposing to serve households experiencing homelessness (individuals or families), Council adopted a more specific set of criteria for determining who should be prioritized for local services.

These criteria ensure that HSGP-funded programs prioritize services for people most likely to die on the streets without intervention, people generating the most calls to Fire and Police, and people who became homeless in Santa Monica. Under the current criteria, an unhoused person or family who recently arrived in Santa Monica or who only occasionally stays in Santa Monica would not be considered an eligible SMPP. Any person experiencing homelessness who does not fall under one of the additional criteria for PEH would instead be served by County or other regional resources.

Community feedback included recommendations to expand the definition of homeless SMPP. However, without significant additional funding, expanding the current eligibility would only dilute available services, and move away from the research-supported prioritization of people by name and by vulnerability. Therefore, staff recommends maintaining existing SMPP criteria for People Experiencing Homelessness.

A complete list of all proposed participant eligibility criteria can be found in Attachment H, Section 1.

11.C
Packet Pg. 60
13 of 26
Agency Eligibility
A consistent theme that arose during community feedback was that the HSGP feels like a “closed” system and the process does not encourage or facilitate applications from new agencies. Staff worked to respond to this feedback while still ensuring that future HSGP-funded agencies have the organizational capacity to administer public funds and operate quality programs in compliance with fiscally responsible best practices and local, state, and federal regulations. The proposed criteria for agency eligibility reflect standard practices in the non-profit field.

Qualifying agencies must be a non-profit registered 501(c)(3) organization with a board of directors or a hospital/educational institution with a governing board and maintain an accounting system in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Agencies must also certify that they are and will remain in compliance with federal legislation, as well as non-discrimination in hiring or provision of services, and are in good standing with the State of California Office of the Secretary of State.

If awarded funding, agencies must: possess a current and valid Santa Monica business license for each Santa Monica location where services are provided, have an established Grievance Procedure/Policy for participants, and submit Good Neighbor Agreement(s).

Staff are proposing a change from past agency eligibility criteria that required proposing agencies to be located or operating in Santa Monica already to ensure programs were accessible to SMPP and familiar with local community needs. Given the limited number of social service non-profits in Santa Monica, and in response to community feedback to expand eligibility criteria, staff revised the requirement to allow agencies not currently located within the City to describe their planned service delivery model, including supporting documentation of how they plan to provide services accessible to SMPP and/or locate themselves in the city. For example, an agency might consider co-leasing space in Santa Monica with an established organization or identify a new space to co11.C Packet Pg. 61
14 of 26
lease with a partner agency. In their application, this agency would provide a letter of agreement or MOU with the collaborating organization(s).

Even with this expanded eligibility criteria, there may still be newer agencies with innovative ideas that do not yet have a track record of using public funding effectively or otherwise do not qualify. Staff received consistent community feedback on the desire to ensure newer agencies have opportunities to apply for funding. With the goal of helping agencies build capacity for a future funding cycle, the HSGP RFP will include information about other local and regional funding opportunities that might be a better fit, including the We Are Santa Monica Fund. The RFP will also include available grant resource hubs to guide agencies to other funding sources. The City encourages agencies to apply for these opportunities in addition to or instead of HSGP funding as applicable. The complete proposed agency eligibility criteria can be found in Attachment H, Section 2.

Outcomes
New Outcomes Framework
Core to the HSGP is understanding the difference that programs can make in the lives of participants, which can have a positive impact on the community at large. Outcomes are key tools in assessing this impact. Outcomes data inform program planning and help identify where things are working and where improvement is needed, and support data-driven decision making.

Given the essential role that outcomes play in the grants program, the 2023-2027 HSGP RFP is an opportunity to re-imagine and standardize outcomes to incorporate current research, reflect the needs of underserved populations, and be responsive to Council and community priorities. Using information gleaned from the community engagement process, Council priorities, and current best practices and research, staff reframed how outcomes are structured into a new framework to guide the HSGP and ensure grantees address the most important needs identified through these processes.

The proposed framework provides uniformity across agencies and programs to clearly measure and report performance, while also allowing flexibility for HSGP programs to

11.C
Packet Pg. 62
15 of 26
be nimble and innovative in the way they address the community’s most pressing needs.

The revised outcomes framework is organized in three components: community impact areas, goals, and indicators.

Figure 2. Outcomes Framework
New to the RFP are the community impact areas of lifelong learning, stability, and health and wellness. Staff identified these impact areas using the results of the community engagement process and they reflect Council and community priorities. The proposed areas also provide a new, outcomes-focused way for applicant agencies to think about their proposed programs and services. Attachment H, Section 3 shows the complete outcome framework as proposed for inclusion in the RFP, including the specific framework components which are defined in more detail as follows:

Community Impact Areas
Staff divided the key, high-level priorities emphasized throughout the community input process into three areas: 1) lifelong learning, 2) stability, and 3) health and wellness.

Lifelong Learning
Overview
Lifelong Learning describes programs that facilitate access to high-quality education and training for individuals of all ages. Programs that support Lifelong Learning focus

11.C
Packet Pg. 63
16 of 26
on supporting access to childcare and early learning, improving the school experience, enhancing key transitions from pre-k through college, and/or increasing access to education among adults and throughout the community.

Program Examples
• Tuition assistance
• Programs that support attendance,
academic performance, and access
to school-based mental health
services
• Programs that support academic
transitions from preschool through
college and beyond.

Stability
Overview
Stability captures a broad range of needs that impact individuals’ and households’ economic and social stability. Programs that address housing stability focus on increasing the number of vulnerable households that receive appropriate supports to maintain stable, quality housing and/or expanding access to interim and permanent housing solutions. Programs that address economic and social stability focus on improving economic wellbeing, expanding access to affordable transportation, and/or increasing parent and caregiver support.

Program Examples
• Legal services that prevent eviction
• Home modifications
• In-home supportive services
• Case management
• Employment services
• Financial literacy services
• Adult day services
• Paratransit services
Health and Wellness
Overview
Health and Wellness focuses on achieving physical, mental, and emotional health and wellbeing. Programs that support participants’ health and wellness aim to improve behavioral health, including mental health and/or substance abuse; advance physical health; increase food security (i.e., access to affordable, healthy food); and/or support connections between residents and their community.

11.C
Packet Pg. 64
17 of 26
Program Examples
• Behavioral health treatment
• Provision of medical services
• Food pantries and food banks
• Programs that support enhanced
interpersonal interactions, community
events, and connections through
technology
Goals
Each community impact area is aligned with a series of goals, which describe a program’s intended impact and the big picture outcomes they aim to achieve. These goals are intentionally broad and applicable to a wide range of services and populations.

Indicators
Each goal has several associated example indicators that assess progress towards that goal. Agencies have the option to select from the example indicators defined by the City or to propose their own. Indicators should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART) and clearly support the program’s goals. All indicators will assess progress made during the program year (i.e., annually). The Citydefined example indicators for each goal are included in Attachment H, Section 3.

Outcomes Selection Process
Agencies are required to submit outcomes for each program for which they apply for funding. Staff propose that agencies adhere here to the following outcomes selection process to identify relevant impact area(s), goal(s), and indicators for their program:

Figure 3. Agency Outcomes Selection Process
The following section walks through the outcomes selection process by providing a description of each step and offering an example of how a potential HSGP applicant

11.C
Packet Pg. 65
18 of 26
might select their community impact areas, goals, and indicators. The example applicant in this scenario is an interim housing program that provides shelter, case management, mental health services, and supports individuals experiencing homelessness in securing permanent housing.

Step 1: Community Impact Areas
Agencies select one or more community impact area on which their program will focus.

They must select Lifelong Learning, Stability, and/or Health and Wellness.

Step 2: Goals
Agencies select one or more goals associated with each impact area. They must select from the goals listed in Attachment H, Section 3 and can select as many goals from this list as appropriate for their program.

Step 3: Indicators
Agencies propose up to three primary indicators that will measure progress towards their program’s annual goal(s), using the example indicators in Attachment H, Section 3 Interim Housing Example Applicant: Community Impact Areas The program might select Stability and Health and Wellness as their community impact areas because they provide housing and mental health services.

Interim Housing Example Applicant: Goals
The program might select:

1. Increase the number of vulnerable households who access interim and permanent hosing solutions

2. Increase economic wellbeing

3. Improve behavioral health
Interim Housing Example Applicant: Indicators
The program might propose three primary indicators and one secondary indicator.

They might select three primary indicators from the example list, including:

1. Sixty percent (60%) of unhoused households obtain interim housing

2. Forty percent (40%) of unhoused households obtain permanent housing

3. Ninety percent (90%) of participants maintain or increase their income The program might also propose one secondary indicator that they create:

1. Seventy-five (75%) of participants with a mental health diagnosis demonstrate improved coping skills, as measured by the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale.

11.C
Packet Pg. 66
19 of 26
as a guide. Indicators should reflect both services received (e.g., number of participants who receive independent living assistance) and more substantive changes in participants’ lives (e.g., percent of participants who remain in their home for six months or longer). Agencies can also propose up to three optional secondary indicators (for a total of six total indicators). These optional indicators can illustrate their program’s services but will not be used to directly measure performance.

Outcome Statement and Participant Impact
The Community Impact Area, Goal, and Indicator all tie together to form one outcome statement that summarizes the program’s impact on participants. Each indicator will form one outcome statement
Outcomes Community Impact
While HSGP program outcomes are purposefully framed to measure a program’s ability to positively impact participants’ lives, the collective impact of achieving these individual goals results in benefits to the community at large. Considering the interim housing example applicant, this program would have positive impacts not only on program participants, but also contribute toward maintaining equitable access to safe, healthy open spaces for the broader community.

Scoring
Community feedback was clear on the importance of a transparent proposal scoring process. As a result, staff redesigned the proposed RFP to include a detailed scoring chart that connects each component of the application to elements to be scored and the corresponding point value. A complete application packet will consist of a program plan, Interim Housing Example Applicant: Outcome Statements
This program will impact participants' health and wellness by improving their behavioral health, as demonstrated by at least 75% of participants with a mental health diagnosis showing enhanced coping skills (measured annually by the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale).

11.C
Packet Pg. 67
20 of 26
a program budget, and supporting documentation, and will be scored under two categories: program and fiscal.

Program Scoring
Members of the review panel will score the program category based on the applicant’s description of the proposed program; organizational capacity, policies, and procedures; and proposed participant outcomes. Below is a description of each area along with its point allocation:
• Program Summary (30 points): Applicants will specify the target population they intend to serve, how, and why. The panel will review this section to see whether the program is serving a population relevant to the community and the services are addressing an identified local need. The panel will also assess how the program is leveraging best practices, how it promotes equity, and whether the program is accessible to the target population, particularly under the limitations of the pandemic.
• Past Performance and Organizational Capacity (50 points): The RFP will require all applicants to submit reports from the agency’s largest funder for the last two fiscal years which will be reviewed for whether the organization has a track record of providing high impact, fiscally sound services. The review panel will assess submitted program plans and proposed staffing structure to determine whether the agency has the infrastructure in place to effectively implement the proposed program. Reviewers will also assess organizational policies and practices to see whether and how equity is integrated. This section will also ask about agency partnerships to ensure that the agency is integrated within its system of care, and that the agency has cultivated partnerships regionally and especially within the City.
• Proposed Outcomes (20 points): Here agencies will describe the intended impact of the proposed program. (An applicant agency’s past outcomes performance will be assessed within the Past Performance section above.)

11.C
Packet Pg. 68
21 of 26
These outcomes should be clearly identified and align with the guidelines described above and in Attachment H, Section 3. Agencies should also specify a plan to collect data and measure progress.

Focus on Equity
Program scoring also reflects a focus on equity, asking agencies to demonstrate their policies and practices related to promoting equity within their organization and in their work.

Agencies funded by the HSGP should have established
policies and procedures around Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) and specify how they will provide coverage and outreach to underserved populations and/or geographies within the City.

Under the scoring sub-section for Program Summary, reviewers will assess whether proposed services are culturally appropriate, relevant, and sensitive to serve economically, ethnically, and socially diverse populations. Review panel members will score the Program Summary based on items that promote service accessibility to diverse populations, for example: employing staff who self-identify with the target population and/or fluent speak relevant languages.

Under the scoring sub-sections for Past Performance and Organizational Capacity, the review panel will score agency/program policies and practices based on how they address DEI for participants and staff, including opportunities for program participants to inform program evaluation and design, and for staff to participate in relevant and ongoing professional development.

Fiscal Scoring
The review panel will score the fiscal category based on the applicant’s program budget, most recent audited financial statements, and monitoring reports for the last two fiscal years from the agency’s largest funder. Below is a description of each area along with its point allocation:

Programs Should
Demonstrate their
Commitment to Equity

11.C
Packet Pg. 69
22 of 26
• Program Budget (30 Points): Program budgets should outline all anticipated expenses associated with the program and will be reviewed to see if overall costs are reasonable, salaries are adequate, and non-city funds are sufficiently leveraged.
• Audited Financial Statements (10 points): Applicants will submit their three most recently completed audited financial statements which the panel will review to identify any outstanding findings or concerns.
• Historical Financial Performance (10 points): The panel will review the agency’s most recent monitoring reports from the agency’s largest funder for items including concerns around spend-down issues, returned funds, ability to meet cash match requirements, and/or any other fiscal-related findings.

An additional resource that will be available to the review panel is a report by the City’s internal auditor, Moss Adams LLP, which is completing a review of agencies currently funded by the HSGP. Findings from the Moss Adams report may inform future funding recommendations.

Guidelines for Application Review and Funding Recommendations In addition to the revised RFP components reviewed so far, staff updated the procedures used to review applications and develop funding recommendations to invite more community participation and ownership, while providing guiderails to ensure a balanced safety net of services to a broad array of populations. Staff made these changes in response to requests from the community and Council to increase transparency.

Proposal Review and Evaluation
Historically, HSGP proposal review panels have been comprised of a combination of City staff, members of City boards and commissions, and external subject-matter experts from Santa

11.C
Packet Pg. 70
23 of 26
Monica and beyond. City staff would solicit and select reviewers from the community and from regional and national organizations based on their knowledge of non-profit social service systems, non-profit management, public policy, or specific subpopulations.

For the 2023-27 HSGP RFP, staff proposes to work with the We Are Santa Monica Fund (WASMF) Advisory Board to conduct an open solicitation for qualified individuals to submit a statement of interest to join the review panel. The WASMF Advisory Board is well-positioned as an advisory body to the City with current responsibility for awarding WASM funds. That role, combined with their diverse composition of Santa Monica residents with backgrounds in non-profit management, demonstrate that they have both the fitness and relevant expertise to lead the recruitment and selection process for qualified HSGP proposal raters.

Members of the HSGP Review Panel will be subject matter experts in the fields of youth and families, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, seniors, and other underserved populations in Santa Monica—understanding the needs of these populations and the landscape of evidence-based programs that meet their needs.

These experts should be a diverse group representing the fields of social services, financial and assurance services, non-profit management, marginalized populations, and equity and inclusion. Additionally, panelists will include those with lived experience as consumers of local social services. Potential panelists will be required to submit a statement of interest form (Attachment I) which will be reviewed by an ad hoc group formed by the WASMF Advisory Board.

To further aid the proposal review process, the City will contract with an independent facilitator to manage the scoring and evaluation of proposals submitted in response to the HSGP RFP. The facilitator will organize panelists, allocate proposals for review, guide the scoring and ranking of eligible proposals, and oversee the development of final 2023-27 HSGP award recommendations for Council’s consideration in spring 2023.

11.C
Packet Pg. 71
24 of 26
40% Cap and Balanced Portfolio
The HSGP portfolio is broad by design, and members of the public at several community meetings raised the question of how funding will be allocated across populations and programs in a way that is balanced, serves a range of vulnerable and underserved populations, and focuses on a spectrum of interventions, including prevention and direct client aid. Rather than valuing the needs of one population over another, the HSGP recognizes the interwoven nature of the community.

The infant who receives subsidized childcare (while their parents work and contribute to local economic recovery) will grow up to have available mental health supports in their public school and fresh produce to supplement their meals if needed. As countless studies have shown, the earlier and more comprehensive the intervention, the higher the return on investment. At the same time, this does not mean that all funding should be allocated to early childhood programs, or even youth and families, and ignore the challenges faced by local seniors, people with disabilities, and those experiencing homelessness. As a result, the HSGP should continue to maintain a balanced portfolio of agencies and programs, focused on serving the diversity of needs in Santa Monica to the extent that limited funding allows.

HSGP is not the only source of social services funding in this community, however, as the largest source of City funding, staff want to be responsive to community members who have emphasized the importance of HSGP continuing to have a broad reach.

Operating with the framework that the HSGP seeks to provide services to the City’s vulnerable, low-income residents and that the range of programs that meet the needs of these populations is diverse, staff recommend that no population receive more than 40% of the total HSGP funding amount. Staff based this recommendation on an analysis of the current grants portfolio when sorted by primary population served (Table 1). Assigning each program in the current HSGP portfolio to one population served is challenging since most programs serve a range of populations, and a single individual or family often represents multiple populations (e.g., a senior who is disabled and experiencing homelessness). Given this complexity, the RFP will ask applicants to indicate the primary population they intend to serve on each program application. The selected population will be used to determine where programs fit within the 40% cap.

11.C
Packet Pg. 72
25 of 26
Table 1. FY 2021-22 HSGP Funding by Primary Service Population Primary Service Population Funding Amount % of Total Funding People Experiencing Homelessness $2,251,607 28%
People with Disabilities $214,618 3%
Seniors $1,302,155 16%
Youth & Families $2,920,526 36%
Underserved Populations not Otherwise Specified $1,349,735 17% TOTAL $8,038,641 100%
The HSGP, as currently funded, cannot meet every need, for every community member, and fund every program that applies. The HSGP RFP recommendations staff have outlined in this report are designed to provide accountability for public funds, foster a healthy and sustainable social service safety net, and support a balanced array of services to maintain a diverse and inclusive community.

Next Steps
Dependent on Council input and approval, staff will release the FY2023-27 HSGP RFP in fall of 2022. Staff will hold a bidders’ conference and the RFP will stay open for a few months. In Spring of 2023, staff will return to Council with initial grant funding recommendations. Staff will include funding awards in the budget study session in May 2023, and final HSGP funding awards will be made as part of final biennial budget adoption in June 2023. The FY2023-27 HSGP funding cycle will start July 1, 2023.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommendations in this report. For FY 2022-23, the total amount allocated to the HGSP is $8,235,685, a nominal increase of less than 1% from FY 2021-22. As City revenues improve, additional funding for the HSGP would enable the City to better address the growing needs of its most vulnerable residents. Staff will return to Council with proposed HSGP funding recommendations in the Spring of 2023 in preparation for the FY 2023-25 biennial budget process.

11.C
Packet Pg. 73
26 of 26
Prepared By: Aliya Buttar, Senior Human Services Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. January 26, 2015 Staff Report
B. May 28, 2015 Staff Report
C. June 23, 2015 Staff Report
D. January 22, 2019 Staff Report
E. January 26, 2021 Staff Report
F. June 28, 2022 Staff Report
G. Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing
H. Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines
I. Draft HSGP RFP Review Panel Statement of Interest
J. Written Comment

11.C
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: H
Proposed HSGP Funding Guidelines
Human Services Grants Program FY2023-27
The following funding guidelines include:
(1) Eligibility criteria for Santa Monica Program Participants (SMPP), (2) Eligibility criteria for prospective agencies, and
(3) Proposed outcomes framework.

Section 1. Eligibility Criteria for Santa Monica Program Participants For the purposes of the HSGP, an eligible Santa Monica Program Participant (SMPP) is defined as:
• An individual or household whose permanent address is in Santa Monica; or • A student currently attending a Santa Monica public school (for school-based services)
For agencies applying to operate programs that serve “at-promise” youth,* two or more of the following risk factors must apply for program participants (child, youth, and/or caregiver):
• Youth is out of school and has not obtained a High School diploma, GED, or equivalent;
• Youth/child has behavioral health challenges, such as substance abuse issues; • Youth/child has a history of physical and/or emotional abuse; • Youth/child has a history of personal or family trauma (e.g. death of a caregiver, incarceration of caregiver);
• Youth/child is a member of a low-income household;
• Youth/caregiver is unemployed and not in school;
• Youth/caregiver has a history of incarceration or family history of incarceration; • Youth/caregiver is gang involved or has family members that are gang involved; or • A pregnant person with 2 or more of the previous risk factors *An “at-promise” youth program provides assertive case management services for identified high-risk children, youth, and their families. These programs lead coordination of system-wide case conference meetings with local social service providers and respond to the holistic needs of the City’s most vulnerable children, youth, and their families.

11.C.h
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines [Revision 3] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) If a program participant is a person or family experiencing homelessness, the following additional criteria would apply to be designated SMPP and be eligible for City-funded services (with the exception of school-based services):
• Homeless individual/family whose last permanent address was in Santa Monica, and when they left that residence they stayed within Santa Monica; or • Homeless individual/family who has been staying/living in Santa Monica for five or more years; or
• Vulnerable individuals of Santa Monica’s workforce (homeless individuals or family members who have worked full-time within the city of Santa Monica for a minimum of 6 consecutive months; or who, within the past year, have been fired or laid off from a business in Santa Monica after having worked there for at least 6 months.); or
• Homeless individual/family on the Santa Monica Service Registry or identified by City staff as a high user of City resources and services.

A Santa Monica program participant is not:
• A student who lives outside of Santa Monica attending a private school in the City; or • A Santa Monica College student who lives outside of Santa Monica who has no other ties to the City (did not attend a Santa Monica public school); or • A homeless individual or family who recently arrived in Santa Monica or intermittently stays in Santa Monica.

Note – At any point during the grant cycle, staff may revise target population eligibility criteria based on new data that may identify any emerging needs.

11.C.h
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines [Revision 3] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) Section 2. Eligibility Criteria for Prospective Agencies To be eligible for City funding, applicants must:
• Be:
o A nonprofit organization with tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code and Section 23701(d) of the California State Franchise Tax Code; AND Registered with the office of the Attorney General of the State of California Department of Justice with a current registration status; AND has a Board of Directors OR
o A hospital or educational institution with a governing board. • Certify that they are and will remain in compliance with:
o Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
o Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (as amended); o Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended); o Age Discrimination Act of 1974;
o Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as amended); and
o The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
• Not discriminate in the hiring of staff or provision of services on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national origin, disabilities, HIV status, political affiliation or beliefs, or sexual preference.
• Agree that no City funds shall be used to teach, advance, advocate or promote any religion or religious belief or practices, including any irreligious belief or practice. • Agree that no City funds shall be expended for any political purpose, defined as participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, any initiative, referenda, ballot measure, recall, or any partisan or non-partisan electoral activity.
• Be located or co-located in Santa Monica. Agencies not based in Santa Monica must describe a planned service delivery model to SMPP, including any supporting documentation as appropriate (letter of agreement to co-locate in Santa Monica, lease, MOU, etc.).
• Receive the formal approval of its Board of Directors or governing body to submit a proposal for City funding.
• Be in Good Standing with the State of California Office of the Secretary of State:
https://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/bizfile/order-online

11.C.h
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines [Revision 3] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) Section

3. Proposed Outcomes Framework A B D E
Improve key academic
transitions from pre-k
through college
Improve school experience Improve child care and
early learning access
Increase adult and
community education A B D E
% of students who earn a
GED/diploma
% of students who improve
attendance
#/% of students who
receive tuition assistance
% of participants who earn
a degree or certificate
% of students who
graduate from high school
% of participants able to
access school-based
mental health services
# of outreach activities to
potential qualified
caregivers
#/% of participants who
access education
enrichment programs
% of students who attend
transition support groups
% of students who
experience a decrease in
disciplinary actions
% of parents/caregivers
able to work or attend
school
% of students who transfer
to a four-year university
% of students with
improved GPAs/grades
Lifelong Learning Outcome Statement Example:

Program X will improve the school experience by increasing the attendance rate among students with a high number of absences.

Lifelong Learning
Santa Monica residents have access to and succeed in education and training.

Goals
EXAMPLE Indicators - To be achieved by participants with an identified need by end of program year (these are examples, applicants can propose their own indicators) Community Impact Area

11.C.h
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines [Revision 3] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services

A B C D E
Increase the number of
vulnerable households
who receive appropriate
supports to maintain
stable, quality housing
Increase the number of
vulnerable households
who access interim and
permanent housing
solutions
Increase economic
wellbeing
Increase parent/caregiver
support
Increase access to
affordable transportation

A B D E F
# of successful eviction
preventions
% of unhoused
participants who obtain
interim housing
% of participants who
retain or increase
employment
# of parent/caregiver
education classes
attended
#/% of participants
utilizing transportation
assistance programs (e.g.,
LIFE, MODE, etc.)
% of households who
maintain their permanent
housing through the
program year
% of unhoused
participants who obtain
permanent housing
% of parents/caregivers
able to work or attend
school
% of parents/caregivers
who report improved
relationships with
child(ren)
# of rides provided by
transportation assistance
programs (e.g.,
LIFE,MODE, etc.)
# of households who
receive services that
improve accessibility of
their unit and allow them
to remain in their home
% of participants who
complete applications for
subsidized/affordable
housing
% of participants who
increase or maintain their
income (through benefits,
employment, or financial
literacy)
% of families successfully
linked to services
# of transportation passes
provided
% of households
connected to new
community-based
supportive services
% of unhoused
participants who are
added to the County
Coordinated Entry System
(CES) community queue
% of participants who
complete jobreadiness/career
counseling
programs/services
Community Impact Area
Program X will increase the number of vulnerable households who access interim and permanent housing solutions by increasing the percent of participants who complete applications for subsidized/affordable housing.

Stability Outcome Statement Example:

Goals
Stability
Santa Monica residents are socially and economically secure.

EXAMPLE Indicators - To be achieved by participants with an identified need by end of program year (these are examples, applicants can propose their own indicators)

11.C.h
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines [Revision 3] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services

A B C D
Improve behavioral health Improve physical health Improve food security Improve connections
between Santa Monica
residents and their
community

A B C D
% of participants who
actively engage in mental
health or substance use
disorder services
% of participants who show
improved mobility
# of pounds of food
distributed to community
# participants who receive
assistance to access
needed technology
% of participants who show
improvement on evidencebased assessment tool
% of
participants/households
enrolled in medical
insurance
# of participants who
access food pantries
#/% of MODE members
who utilize the LYFT app
% of of participants who
receive behavioral health
care system navigation
assistance
% of participants who
receive medical care # of meals delivered
# of participants
connected to new
community-based
programming
% of of participants
appropriately linked to
behavioral health services
% of participants who
report decreased ER visits
for physical complaints
(e.g., shortness of breath,
chest pain)
# of meals served
% of participants who show
improvement in social
support/community
connections on evidencebased assessment tools
Community Impact Area
Health & Wellness Outcome Statement Example:

Program X will improve food security by increasing the number of meals served to food-insecure participants.

Health & Wellness
Goals
EXAMPLE Indicators - To be achieved by participants with an identified need by end of program year (these are examples, applicants can propose their own indicators) Santa Monica residents are physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy.

11.C.h
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines [Revision 3] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Attachment: I
Review Panel Statement of Interest
Human Services Grants Program FY2023-27
All individuals interested in participating in the HSGP RFP review panel will complete the statement of interest on the following page. The statement will be reviewed by an ad hoc committee formed by the We Are Santa Monica Fund advisory board.

The We Are Santa Monica Fund is a partnership between community donors, the California Community Foundation, and the City of Santa Monica. The Fund provides grants to local nonprofit organizations to support the local economy, advance equity, improve physical and environmental health, and offer resources and emergency relief.

11.C.i
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Draft HSGP RFP Review Panel Statement of Interest [Revision 4] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) Review Panel Statement of Interest (DRAFT)
Human Services Grants Program Request for Proposal
Personal Information
Name:

Email: Phone:

Occupation: Employer:

Optional Demographic Information
Race/Ethnicity: Gender:

Age: Sexual Orientation:

Disability Status: Veteran Status:

Professional and Personal Experience

1. Please share any relevant experience, skills, or qualifications in the following areas:
a. Personal and/or professional experience with underserved or marginalized populations (including, but not limited to, people experiencing homelessness, early childhood, youth and families, seniors, and people with disabilities). b. Experience with non-profit operations and management or administrative oversight of social services (including service on non-profit boards, City of Santa Monica boards, commissions, or City Council).
c. Lived experience as a consumer of services (including as a person who is or was formerly homeless; person who has experienced mental illness and/or substance abuse; person who is low-income and/or disabled; person who is or has been enrolled in a Santa Monica social service program).

2. Please describe your interest in participating in the Santa Monica HSGP RFP process as a scorer/rater and your connection to Santa Monica, if any.

11.C.i
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Draft HSGP RFP Review Panel Statement of Interest [Revision 4] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program)

3. Please state any potential conflict(s) of interest in your participation with scoring HSGP Proposals for City funding, including if you or a close family relative (wife, husband, registered domestic partner, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, or sister) are affiliated in any way with an organization that may apply.

11.C.i
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Draft HSGP RFP Review Panel Statement of Interest [Revision 4] (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 4:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: For Aug 24 - item C - human services grant program

EXTERNAL
Hi –
Thanks for volunteering your time and efforts.

Please support the staff recommendations on the HSGP – and to consider raising the overall amount.

Our city has over 4500 residents under 5 – and a large portion of them depend on programs supported by HSGP grants – especially lower income families, who simply cannot live without the quality early education programs delivered by your grantees.

You have many conflicting priorities – it’s true – And the youngest residents depend on you – in this most vital time of their lives.

Thank You ‐
Ben Swett (resident)
614 San Vicente Blvd
Item 11.C
08/24/22
1 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jennifer Cowan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11C: Approval of Human Services Grants Program FY 2023-27 Request for Proposals

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and Honorable Councilmembers:

I am writing on behalf of Santa Monica’s youngest residents and working families. It is critical that their needs are heard as Council considers funding guidelines and resource allocations for the 2023‐2027 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP).

Connections for Children (CFC) supports City staff’s proposed HSGP funding guidelines which recognize the diversity of low‐income and vulnerable populations in Santa Monica. Further, we implore Council to increase funding to the HSGP program to adequately address community needs.

Through the current HSGP, CFC provides financial assistance to low‐income and vulnerable Santa Monica families so that they can afford the high cost of child care. City resources are directed to support Santa Monica residents who may not otherwise have access to Federal and State‐funded child care subsidy programs. HSGP funding allows Santa Monica resident families to receive child care subsidies necessary for them to participate in the workforce, continue their education, and maintain housing.

In FY 21‐22, CFC served 194 low‐income Santa Monica children in our child care subsidy program. About 50% of the families receiving child care subsidies are supported with HSGP funds. Many Santa Monica children are currently on the waitlist for subsidy – unable to be served due to limited funding.

CFC has seen first‐hand how the needs of the City’s young children and families have increased since the HSGP was initiated. Child care costs, as well as other basic need expenses, also continue to rise. However, funding for the HSGP has not risen proportionally. This lack of resources significantly limits non‐profit social service providers’ ability to address established and emerging community needs.

We are grateful for the City’s long‐time commitment to improving the well‐being of children and families.

CFC remains dedicated to working with the Council, City staff, and community partners to advance lifelong learning, stability, health and wellness for all residents.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Cowan
Executive Director
www.connectionsforchildren.org
Item 11.C
08/24/22
2 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Patricia Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
Patricia Campbell
1132 19th St,
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 11.C
08/24/22
3 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Laura Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. The City has over 4,500 residents under the age of 5 years (two of which are my kids ‐ John and Harrison ‐ who go to Growing Place Marine Park), and the services they and their families receive through HSGPs are critical to their wellbeing and ability to thrive.

Thank you for your service to our city,
Laura Lucas
1733 Robson Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11.C
08/24/22
4 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Tina Wiatrak <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
Tina Wiatrak, Teacher at the Growing Place, Ocean Park. California mentor teacher.

Santa Monica Resident since 1984
1316 Franklin St. Apt. A.
‐‐
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. http://www.growingplace.org
Tina Wiatrak
Associate Teacher | Growing Place, Ocean Park
401 Ashland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-399-7769
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 11.C
08/24/22
5 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gabrielle Monserrate <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
Gabrielle Monserrate
2120 Stewart St. #4 Santa Monica Ca, 90404
Student, server and mother to my two year old son who receives financial assistance at the Growing Place Marine Park.

Item 11.C
08/24/22
6 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Leonora <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Leonora Camner
Santa Monica resident
Item 11.C
08/24/22
7 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Joanna Grela <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: HSGP- Parent

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. The city has over 4,500 residents under the age of 5 years, that includes my daughter who is currently 3. The services our family receives through HSGPs are critical to our wellbeing and ability to thrive.

Thank you for your service to our city,
(Joanna Grela; Santa Monica resident and parent to a child at Growing Place Lab School in Santa Monica).

Item 11.C
08/24/22
8 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Frisco Fayer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: HSGP // Agenda item 11 (C)

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Member,

Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. Our Santa Monica citizens who are under the age 5 will know a better life in Santa Monica with this funding.

Sincerely,
Frisco
3036 Linda Lane
90405
Law and Mediation Office of Frisco Fayer, PC
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA
(310) 917‐1074
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e‐ mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by e‐mail and then delete this message. Thank you.

Item 11.C
08/24/22
9 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Nancy Chou <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Thank you for your service to our city,
Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. The city has over 4,500 residents under the age of 5 years, and the services they and their families receive through HSGPs are critical to their wellbeing and ability to thrive.

Funding programs that support those in our city who need it most makes our city the wonderful place that it is and will continue to be.

Sincerely,
Nancy Chou
3036 Linda Lane
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11.C
08/24/22
10 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Losmeiya Huang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
(Name; address or connection to Santa Monica)
Sincerely,
Losmeiya Huang
2721 2nd St Apt 101
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Works at an early childhood program, Growing Place in Santa Monica Item 11.C
08/24/22
11 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Charles McCoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. The city has over 4,500 residents under the age of 5 years, and the services they and their families receive through HSGPs are critical to their wellbeing and ability to thrive. As a father to 3 little boys, one of the reasons we love Santa Monica is due to its care of the young.

Thank you for your service to our city,
Charles McCoy
2506 28th St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 11.C
08/24/22
12 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Shannon Donohue <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
Shannon Donohue, 3rd generation Santa Monica native.

Item 11.C
08/24/22
13 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Leslie Ann Loughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

Funding programs that support those in our city who need it most makes our city the wonderful place that it is and will continue to be.

Sincerely,
Leslie Loughlin
1314 17th Street, Apt 15
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Sent from my iPhone
Leslie Ann Loughlin
(She/Her)
310‐428‐3566 mobile
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11.C
08/24/22
14 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Heather Epps <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

As a Santa Monica resident for nearly 20 years and parent to 2 children currently enrolled in this district, I urge you renew the funding for our early childhood programs in our city. The grant makes so much possible for the families in Santa Monica and the wellbeing of our children. I personally know what a huge positive impact schools like the Growing Place (Marine Campus) have on our children, which is only made possible with the tuition assistance funds, low teacher‐ student ratio, and scholarships available through city funding.

Thank you for your service,
Heather Epps
833 19th Street
Unit C
Santa Monica, CA
90403
____________________
Heather Epps
310.780.0145 cell
[email protected]
(she her hers)
Item 11.C
08/24/22
15 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: KimAnn Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

Funding programs that support those in our city who need it most makes our city the wonderful place that it is and will continue to be.

Sincerely,
Kim Nguyen
Item 11.C
08/24/22
16 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Rick Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 9:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Preschool

Funding programs that support those in our city who need it most makes our city the wonderful place that it is and will continue to be.

Sincerely,
Rick Lee
1453 Stanford St #E
Santa Monica, CA
Item 11.C
08/24/22
17 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mark R. Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11c - SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,

We are writing in support of the staff recommendations to APPROVE the proposed FY 2023‐27 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) Funding.

JVS SoCal is a 91‐year old nonprofit building better lives, one job at a time by empowering individuals to achieve dignity and economic independence through sustainable employment.

We have been honored to operate the Santa Monica Youth Employment Program for 10 years, because we align with the values expressed by City Council to “address critical community needs.” Providing youth with paid work experience is an impactful benefit for the youth and their families.

The City of Santa Monica’s 2020‐2024 Consolidated Plan recognizes the need to build an adequate, trained workforce to fill new jobs that will pay a living wage. It also recognizes the struggle facing the City, with almost 4,500 persons of working age (18‐65) not having a high school diploma and another 7,364 have only a high school diploma or GED; and the median income of residents with less than a high school diploma being below the current poverty level. The Plan voices the City’s historic and continued support for education and job training programs, including job training for younger persons and assisting young persons in career preparation and job placement.

Serving youth has also opened the door for others to seek out helpful, no‐cost career readiness services available through JVS SoCal. Parents who were unfamiliar with JVS SoCal’s services come to us when they hear how happy their high schoolers are with the SMYEP program. Youth in the program pay it forward when they tell their friends, siblings, cousins about the program and some of these youth enroll.

We value the City of Santa Monica’s engagement and involvement with the community and advocacy on behalf of all of its residents. The systems the City has in place to assist the young people and families who are struggling, or redefining themselves and their career paths benefit the entire City: when families are stable, the City is stable.

We appreciate our partnership and look forward to continuing our work serving youth alongside the City of Santa Monica. We are available to address any questions you may have.

Respectfully,
Mark R. Edwards

Get Outlook for iOS
Item 11.C
08/24/22
18 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 2 Mark Edwards
Vice President of Government Relations
6505 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90048 Office: 323‐306‐4229 Cell: 323.356.6579
Connect with us! Website • Twitter • Facebook • LinkedIn • Instagram Equal Opportunity Employer/Program.

Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic communication is confidential, intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer or facsimile system.

Item 11.C
08/24/22
19 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kabir Chopra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
Kabir Chopra
Santa Monica resident (and voter) since 2004
Item 11.C
08/24/22
20 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Angelica Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Thank you for your service to our city,
Angie Thomas
Mom of Luca Thomas, 16 months
2388 Dewey St Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 11.C
08/24/22
21 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Amber Richane <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11.c for tonight about HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. The city has over 4,500 residents under the age of 5 years, and the services they and their families receive through HSGPs are critical to their wellbeing and ability to thrive. My kids went to Growing Place and it is a magical experience that sets our kids off on the right foot for life.

Please fund them and other programs like them…it is critical for our community to thrive! Thank you for your service to our city,
Amber Richane; 1330 Cedar Street; 90405
Item 11.C
08/24/22
22 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11, C: HSGP

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Thank you for your service to our city, Please support the staff’s proposed guidelines to the HSGP. The city has over 4,500 residents under the age of 5 years, and the services they and their families receive through HSGPs are critical to their wellbeing and ability to thrive.

Funding programs that support those in our city who need it most makes our city the wonderful place that it is and will continue to be.

Sincerely,
Julia Socolovsky
3121 Colorado ave unit M
Santa Monica
CA 90404
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11.C
08/24/22
23 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) Laurie Konheim
Chair, Board of Directors
Lena Wilson, J.D.

President/Chief Executive Officer

VISTA DEL MAR CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS TELEPHONE: 310.451.9747 FACSIMILE: 310.451.6106 1533 Euclid Street Santa Monica, California 90404 VISTADELMAR.ORG To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Family Service of Santa Monica
RE: Agenda Item 6. Public Comment Regarding RFP for HSGP 2023-2027 Family Service of Santa Monica (FSSM) is a fully accredited, private, non-sectarian social service agency staffed by licensed professionals and interns. Our mission is to provide service to the community by helping individuals and families to cope with the economic, emotional, and social problems that prevent them from leading productive and satisfying lives. Family Service of Santa Monica is dedicated to the promotion of a healthy community by fostering interpersonal growth, improving communication skills and encouraging self-sufficiency.

FSSM has a rich history with the Santa Monica community. It was first established in 1925 as the first social service agency in Santa Monica which helped community members secure housing, food, and medical care. Currently, FSSM is a gracious recipient of the HSGP grant and has three thriving programs that serve the Santa Monica community. Our Community mental health agency provides services to over 200 low income Santa Monica Participants annually through individual and group therapy, which has been much needed throughout the pandemic. FSSM’s School Based Services have social workers onsite at 3 elementary schools (Mckinley, Edison, John Muir; now Grant and Will Rogers) and Santa Monica High School. Our School Based Services Program provides support to students, teachers, and administrative staff throughout the district and serves hundreds of students and staff each year. Our Early Childhood Well Being Project is aimed to provide assertive case management for families with children age 0-5 who are hovering or are below the poverty line. This program supports over 20 families in securing housing, legal support, subsidized childcare and employment. FSSM is seen as a beacon of community support given the vital services provided throughout Santa Monica, historically and currently.

FSSM plans to expand these services to include affordable housing through a partnership with Santa Monica Community Corp. FSSM recognizes the need to assist those experiencing homelessness and are in final negotiations to rebuild our current property to include a 7-story building for up to 40 affordable housing units. The first floor will continue to provide our current mental health services with additional space to meet other needs throughout the community, such as childcare or specialized counseling services. FSSM is excited about this new venture for its continued and expanded services to the Santa Monica community and is open to conversations with the City of Santa Monica to incorporate specific requests as we launch this new development. We look forward to our submission for the HSGP 2023-2027 RFP.

In community,
Chantilly Wijayasinha, LCSW, MPH
Program Director
She/Her/Hers
Family Service of Santa Monica
1533 Euclid St.

Santa Monica, 90404
Item 11.C
08/24/22
24 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) Laurie Konheim
Chair, Board of Directors
Lena Wilson, J.D.

President/Chief Executive Officer

VISTA DEL MAR CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) ChangeLives.org

Downtown Los Angeles
522 S. Main St.

Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 806-6300
Orange County
290 S. Anaheim Blvd.

Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 204-3000
San Fernando Valley
13545 Van Nuys Blvd. Ste. 1
Pacoima, CA 91331
(818) 794-4200
Santa Monica
1853 Lincoln Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 401-9400
August 22nd, 2022
Santa Monica City Council Members
City Hall
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Council Meeting on August 24th, 2022 – Agenda Item 11.C.

Dear Mayor Sue Himmelrich & Fellow Councilmembers:

I am writing today in reference to Item 11.C. on the Council’s agenda for August 24th, 2022 – “Approval of Human Services Grants Program FY 2023‐27 Request for Proposals.” We would like to thank the Council and the City for your ongoing support of the Human Services Grant Program (HSGP). We support staff’s recommended Funding Guidelines as the program moves forward into the coming funding cycle for FY2023‐27.

We also appreciate the inclusion of funding for jobs programs and employment services. We are happy to see “Stability” among the City’s proposed three “Community Impact Areas,” including services supporting economic stability and wellness. Providing employment services to City residents fills a critical need and we thank you for that investment.

One suggestion that we made during this process that we would like to reiterate here is around a possible expansion of a target populations not included in the proposed SMPP definitions. We suggest creating a “Supplemental SMPP” criteria for employment services that would include: 1) individuals in interim housing (including couch‐surfing settings); and 2) individuals experiencing homelessness for less than 5 years in Santa Monica. We feel it would be a wise and strategic choice to provide employment services to these target populations as well as those meeting the official SMPP definition.

We do not feel this would require new resources but would rather acknowledge the importance of proactively supporting these individuals to prevent them from ultimately qualifying as SMPP under the current definition and to recognize agencies like ours already serving these members of our community.

Founded in 1984 and having opened in Santa Monica in 1994, Chrysalis’ mission is to serve people navigating barriers to the workforce by offering a job‐readiness program, individualized supportive services, and paid transitional employment.

We empower our clients on their pathway to stability, security, and fulfillment in their work and lives. Chrysalis has been focused on working with some of the most vulnerable members of our Santa Monica community through these challenging times, including individuals experiencing homelessness and those impacted by the criminal justice system.

We appreciate the City’s ongoing funding for the Human Services Grant Program. We are committed to doing our part to support vulnerable local residents, to provide qualified candidates to local businesses, and to be a partner of the City for years to come. If you have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at [email protected].

Thank you,
Mark Loranger
President & CEO
Item 11.C
08/24/22
26 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program) Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and Honorable Councilmembers:

The Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force submits this letter in support of the funding guidelines for the future 2023-2027 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) and authorization to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit applications for the FY 2023-2027 HSGP funding cycle.

As the Santa Monica community continues to navigate and adjust to life beyond the Covid-19 pandemic, the HSGP supports our most vulnerable resident families significantly disrupted by the coronavirus and their young children’s well-being. The grants give children the important boost in life that quality care and education bestows. They make it possible for parents to sustain themselves financially in a sector that continues to run on the thinnest of margins. They help the economic security of early childhood educators and aides, although still not nearly enough (this workforce is primarily women, especially women of color), and support parent education and early childhood mental health by addressing the emerging research showing increases in challenging behaviors and developmental delays of our youngest children.

The Early Childhood Task Force recognizes that the city's needs have increased. Addressing the growing challenges of homelessness will cost more. The nonprofit community receiving Human Services Grants has only seen increased service demand. We urge the City Council to increase the funding to the Human Services Grants program so that the array of social problems for ALL residents within our diverse city can have access to be safe and healthy and access the resources necessary to thrive.

The Human Services Grants Program investment is a nationwide model of how a municipality supports its youngest residents and their families, and the HSGP plays a key role in pursuing all the community's objectives. We commend the funding guidelines’ focus on equity and the community impact areas of lifelong learning, stability, and health and wellness. These outcome impact areas align with what our children experience in their early years and are foundational to the Task Force's commitment to promoting the best, most accessible, and most affordable programs for children, families and for those working with the community.

The Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force thanks you for your leadership, dedication, and time commitment to serving our community and for approval of the guidelines with an eye to an increase in the grant funding. The grants are extraordinarily important to improving the quality of life for our families and youngest residents.

Sincerely,
The Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force Steering Committee McKenna Belgarde and Julie Taren
Co-Chairs Santa Monica Early Childhood Task Force
Item 11.C
08/24/22
27 of 27 Item 11.C
08/24/22

11.C.j
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Written Comment (5060 : 2nd_2023-27 Human Services Grants Program)

Santa Monica City CouncilAugust 24, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
August 24, 2022