1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lutz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comment for April 11 council meeting
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Regarding agenda items 11‐C and 12‐A.
The approved Administrative plan repeatedly insisted the City will make process accessible to elderly, disabled, and those using Federally funded housing subsidy.
The revised CAB which the council discussed Fall 2022 is still not supported, so the input from the elderly, disabled, low income constituents are NOT included in the Housing Element / Administrative plan as PROMISED to the State and City residents. This plan should not be passed without this input. The Council opened the City to massive unchecked development by their refusal to incorporate input mandated by HUD and the State.
Other unfulfilled promises:
The housing authority remains with 6 vacant positions.
There is no one helping ADA residents with concerns.
Second, the City is not providing the same financial incentives to residents to build and own housing as it does developers. The CITY can take this role and provide affordable HOME purchase opportunities for voucher holders.
Otherwise, this is economic discrimination on a large scale and our city is potentially target of a massive class action.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lutz
Item 12.A
04/11/23
1 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda items 11-C and 12- A
EXTERNAL
I would like to give public comment on agenda items 11‐ C and 12‐A.
As a housing authority voucher holder, I am in full support of the Housing Commission recommendations to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. I encourage you all to accept the revised version of recommendations provided to you 11 April 2023.
I encourage you to allow a representative of the Housing Commission to deliver formal recommendations to the SMHA Board immediately after the respective staff presentation and before board members deliberation and potential action instead of during public comments. This process seems like you are silencing our voice and possibly violating HUD recommendations. It also pairs with the fact that the current Resident Advisory Board ( RAB) has been prevented from meeting, not given proper education regarding the SMHA planning process and documents nor have they been provided with staff with collective input in the annual planning process as required by federal policy for more than 20 years. Our voices cannot be silenced any longer. If this silencing is not your intention we demand immediate reversal of all the current silencing policies.
Thank you,
Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire
Item 12.A
04/11/23
2 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 12:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Items 11-C and 12-A. Meeting 4/11/2023
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:52 AM
To: [email protected]; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Items 11‐C and 12‐A. Meeting 4/11/2023
EXTERNAL
I am far to sick and have had no sleep to do a by item
response to support this Housing Commission in a detailed and legal way but others will do that>
I want to say that my illness now could have been prevented and helped had I been able to go to anyone in this City during my awful treatment by the Housing Authority from March of 2014 to
August of 2016.
I was the victim of serious abuse by Barbara Collins, and other workers there
‐ my rights were violated, i was humiliated for fun by Collins, I was prevented
from using a voucher unless I agreed to live in a substandard unit hanging over the freeway or be moved into. a depressing old age home to die.
My civil rights were repeatedly violated. I was told by Collins to leave Santa Monica.
I had been here since 1982 ‐ she had been here for six years.
I was very ill at the time ‐ my conditions are worse now. I would have been able
Item 12.A
04/11/23
3 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
2 to help myself had I been given a fair shot. I went to every single council person, to Legal Aid and to Gary Rhoades. I went everywhere. I was ignored, shut out and not even responded to‐‐ so this is my request.
DO WHAT THESE TWO SMART BRAVE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE WOMEN
ARE ASKING OF THIS CITY. It is more than clear to all of us who have tried to have
our cases dealt with honestly that this City won't do that.
We need a clear resident RAB ‐ we always. have. We finally have a Housing Commission who functions for the residents and the most vulnerable of us. We have NEVER HAD THAT.
We have a political group moving to disparage and remove them. DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN. THEY ARE CALLING OUT THE WRONGS OF THIS CITY.
Do what this Housing Commission requests. Stop the political games .
Stop Abusing US.
DO THE RIGHT THING.
Danielle Charney
Resident Since 1982
Item 12.A
04/11/23
4 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
Housing Commission Recommendations to the
Santa Monica Housing Authority Board
Formally adopted by unanimous vote on 6 April 2023;
submitted to city leadership on 10 April 2023
The Housing Commission unanimously voted to provide the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) Board with important and time sensitive recommendations regarding SMHA clients, including amendments and additions to Housing staff's current Client Advisory Board (CAB) recommendations.
These recommendations come after extensive consultation with Santa Monica residents, including numerous Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) clients, and discussions with housing and advocacy nonprofits. They also follow several productive conversations with new SMHA Senior Administrative Analyst and supervisor Patrick Komesu, who prepared the current staff CAB recommendations.
Housing Commission Client Advisory Board (CAB ) Recommendations Background
As discussed at the previous HAB meeting, SMHA program participants have been prevented from meaningful participation in a functioning RAB, and subsequently meaningful participation in the annual SMHA planning process, for more than twenty years in direct contravention of HUD federal requirements.
At the previous HAB meeting the Housing Commission presented extensive recommendations for creating and supporting a functional Client Advisory Board (CAB) composed of all SMHA clients. These included size parameters, communications support, budget estimates, codification and legal agreements, and meeting guidelines.
Most of all, in light of both HUD policy requirements and a long history of SMHA client disenfranchisement, the Housing Commission recommended that the CAB be formed and operated with as much independence and self direction by SMHA clients as possible and only minimal, necessary administrative support by staff. That advice continues to inform the new recommendations below.
Item 12.A
04/11/23
5 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
Recommendations
Codification
1. In contrast with staff recommendations, which propose establishing a HABappointed CAB in the City’s Municipal Code in the same manner as other City Boards and Commissions, the Housing Commission recommends that the CAB be established solely by inclusion in the HAB bylaws, as it is an advisory body solely to the HAB and with a very narrow, federal mandate. Codification via city ordinance creates a more cumbersome body, entailing adherence to city staffing requirements, uniform city bylaws and agenda templates, and some direct oversight by city government. Conversely, establishing the CAB with only HAB bylaws allows for a leaner, more responsive, self directed, and independent advisory body, as supported by HUD policy and guidance.
2. Codification should include CAB bylaws written by the first CAB, approved by the HAB, and amended as needed by future CAB recommendation and HAB approval.
These bylaws should be included on the city and CAB websites respectively and in the SMHA Administrative Plan.
3. In contrast with staff recommendations, which state that establishing a CAB via city ordinance and CAB bylaws, together “would serve the same purpose as the Memorandums of Understanding used in other jurisdictions,” the Housing Commission strongly recommends that codification include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CAB and HAB. MOUs are potentially qualitatively different than disparate, technical city ordinance and CAB bylaws, allowing the creation of a more nuanced agreement that acknowledges SMHA clients’ collective history as well as current operating agreements. All thirteen comparable jurisdictions surveyed by SMHA have MOUs, and lawyers from nonprofits Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) and National Housing Law Project (NHLP) both explicitly recommended the creation of an MOU signed by both the CAB and HAB.
Composition
1. Given the amount of work required of the CAB and the high level of interest expressed by SMHA clients in serving as CAB members, the Housing Commission suggests the CAB be composed of nine (9) members instead of seven (7).
Item 12.A
04/11/23
6 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
2. Furthermore, given the importance of CAB member participation and the hardships and complications often experienced by SMHA clients, all of whom have low incomes and who are disproportionately older and disabled, the Housing Commission suggests the CAB also include two (2) alternate members who will serve on the CAB when one or more members are absent or unavailable.
3. The Housing Commission recommends that each CAB appointee serve a two (2) year term, with the option of reapplying for additional terms.
4. In order to fulfill the HUD federal Desk Guide requirement that CAB composition “reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA”, and to advance city priorities to advance racial and social justice and enhance equity, the Housing Commission strongly recommends the following:
1. Require at least one CAB member who meets each of the following criteria: HCV holder; CoC holder; resident of a neighborhood with a Title 1 school; 62 years or older; disabled; and current or former experience with homelessness.
2. Give priority to people who meet any of the following criteria: veteran; HOME voucher holder; Emergency Voucher holder; identify as Asian, Black, Latinx, indigenous, or LGBTQIA.
Administration
5. The Housing Commission recommends that the initial CAB applications be based on existing city board and commission applications, with potential modifications based on Housing Commission and SMHA client input to accommodate the unique requirements of CAB membership and needs of the potential applicant pool. Once the CAB is established and filled, CAB members may alter future applications at their discretion with HAB approval.
6. The Housing Commission strongly recommends that CAB appointments be made by the HAB with consideration given to the recommendations and input of the Housing Commission and individual SMHA clients.
7. In order to comply with federal law, SMHA should reach out to all clients at least once a year to notify them of the opportunity to serve on the CAB and to solicit new application submissions.
8. As one SMHA client pointed out, no one on City Council appoints their fellow councilmembers. In keeping with the Housing Commission’s recommendation that the CAB remain as independent and self directed as possible, and in recognition of the fact that HAB members appointing other HAB members stratifies the HAB, the Item 12.A
04/11/23
7 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
Housing Commission strongly recommends that the two (2) CAB representatives to the HAB are elected by the CAB, while ensuring that at least one HAB representative is an HCV holder and at least one HAB member has current or former experience with homelessness, as required by federal law.
9. In contrast with staff recommendations, the Housing Commission recommends that CAB members receive a $25 stipend per CAB meeting, with the option to receive this in the form of a gift card or to decline the stipend. Note that the staff report statement that stipends over $200 per year must be declared as income is incorrect. According to HUD rules, receipt of over $199 per month must be declared as income.
10. In alignment with practices of comparable jurisdictions as noted in the current staff report, CAB members should have access to outside training opportunities when available, for example those provided by nonprofit housing and advocacy organizations.
Communications
11. As previously recommended and discussed at the 13 September 2022 HAB meeting, the HAB is a city body and establishing the CAB via HAB bylaws will make the CAB subject to the California Brown Act. Therefore, all communications by CAB members acting in their capacity as CAB members, whether issued via city email or other platforms, will be subject to Public Records Act requests as required by the Brown Act.
12. The Housing Commission reiterates its previous recommendations of specific tools necessary to facilitate independent and fully accessible communications among SMHA clients:
a. Independent website (as current staff report notes that comparable jurisdictions operate) with email for CAB members and secure area for SMHA client chat
b. Dedicated phone number with TDD & TTY accessibility and outgoing messaging that will be recorded and maintained by the CAB c. Physical city mailbox for written correspondence
d. Dedicated Zoom account for meetings
e. Dedicated online fax account for accessible correspondence f. CAB materials in all new client onboarding, including new and ported vouchers
g. Continuing city email addresses for Housing Authority Board members h. All mailings to SMHA clients translated in their preferred languages i. Translation support at CAB meetings as needed
Item 12.A
04/11/23
8 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
j. Occasional translator support for outgoing phone messages k. Physical and digital mailings to all SMHA participants to notify them of CAB meetings in sufficient advance
l. Surveys sent 2x/year to all SMHA clients for the first two years and annually thereafter
13. The Housing Commission further recommends that the dedicated CAB phone number be routed to a few inexpensive cell phones in order for CAB members to speak with SMHA clients who need phone accessibility without compromising their privacy by having to share their personal phone numbers.
14. In addition to staff recommendations, notices of opportunities to apply for CAB appointments should be sent directly to all SMHA clients by mail and email at least once a year, included in onboarding materials for ported voucher participants, and posted on city social media.
Meetings
15. As previously recommended and discussed at the 13 September 2022 HAB meeting, the HAB is a city body and establishing the CAB via HAB bylaws will make the CAB subject to the California Brown Act. Therefore, all CAB meetings with a quorum present will be properly noticed, agendized, and open to public participation as required by the Brown Act.
16. The Housing Commission strongly recommends that CAB meetings should be held monthly for at least the first two years, after which the CAB can recommend changes. Note that all thirteen comparable jurisdictions surveyed in the staff report meet monthly.
17. With the exception of hybridity, as discussed below, CAB meetings should be held in a manner similar to existing city boards and commissions unless and until the CAB makes other recommendations that are approved by the HAB, which they should be as long as the recommendations are legal (with or without modifications to existing policy) and reasonable.
18. Given the disproportionate representation of seniors, disabled people, and people without access to reliable transportation among the SMHA client population, and the federal requirement that SMHA facilitate communications and participation among clients, the Housing Commission strongly recommends that all CAB meetings be hybrid, with options to attend in person or via video or phone. Note that this can be done without staff attendance and largely without staff support, and Item 12.A
04/11/23
9 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
will be done in compliance with applicable Brown Act rules regarding hybrid meeting noticing and access.
19. To encourage attendance and foster community among SMHA clients, and in keeping with comparable jurisdictions’ practices, CAB meetings should have refreshments available for attendees.
20. The Housing Commission recommends researching the feasibility of holding nonpublic meetings of CAB members and SMHA clients (for purposes other than conducting CAB business), as the staff report notes that comparable jurisdictions hold, in light of Brown Act requirements.
Respectfully submitted by Michelle Gray, Housing Commission Chair, on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission
Item 12.A
04/11/23
10 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
Housing Commission Recommendations to the
Santa Monica Housing Authority Board
Formally adopted by unanimous vote on 6 April 2023;
submitted to city leadership on 10 April 2023
The Housing Commission unanimously voted to provide the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) Board with important and time sensitive recommendations regarding SMHA clients, including advice to postpone the approval of current SMHA plans.
This recommendation comes after extensive consultation with Santa Monica residents, including numerous Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) clients, and discussions with housing and advocacy nonprofits. They also follow several productive conversations with new SMHA Senior Administrative Analyst and supervisor Patrick Komesu, who prepared the current staff CAB recommendations.
Housing Commission Recommendation Regarding Approval of SMHA Plans Background
As discussed at the previous HAB meeting, SMHA program participants have been prevented from meaningful participation in the annual SMHA planning process for more than twenty years in direct contravention of HUD federal requirements. While the likely forthcoming formation of a Client Advisory Board (CAB) is a positive development, it does not change the fact that the current nominal Resident Advisory Board (RAB) has been prevented from meeting, receiving full orientation regarding the SMHA planning process and documents, deliberating, and providing staff with collective input in the annual planning process as required by federal policy.
SMHA clients receive a single annual notice of the opportunity to provide planning feedback by email, mail, phone, or at a designated Housing Commission meeting.
However, the majority of clients are unaware that the Administrative and Annual Plans exist. Of those who are aware, few have any idea of their import, contents, and the discretionary status of their contents. This knowledge is necessary for any RAB member to provide planning input.
Despite claims otherwise, this annual notice does not fulfill HUD federal requirements for client inclusion in the annual SMHA planning process. Federal regulations require SMHA to Item 12.A
04/11/23
11 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
provide technical assistance to facilitate program participants’ understanding of the planning process and documents, to engage with and secure preliminary feedback from the RAB well in advance of the forty-five day comment period, and to actively facilitate the RAB meeting, deliberating, and providing collective input as a body.
In a positive development, staff recently scheduled a “planning workshop” to educate clients about the planning process and provide an additional opportunity to share feedback. Unfortunately, clients received only one week's notice of the event and it was scheduled for 1PM on a weekday, both leading to poor attendance; staff provided insufficient explanation of the Annual and Administrative Plans and did not include discussion of the 5-Year or Consolidated Plans which determine SMHA goals and funding sources; and some attendees were prevented from participating by an inaccessible meeting setup.
Plans for SMHA clients’ successful self representation are progressing and staff are taking positive steps toward empowering this disenfranchised population. However, the current planning cycle has not been informed by collective RAB feedback as required by federal regulations because the RAB has never had a single properly noticed meeting, orientation, or discussion regarding these plans. Moreover, on 13 September 2022 the HAB unanimously voted to explicitly and formally direct staff to schedule and facilitate such a meeting “with haste”, but the direction was not followed. When Housing Commission leadership inquired on 3 October 2022, staff denied such direction was given even after being provided with a transcript of the successful predicating motion.
Recommendation
Given the RAB’s continued denial of the opportunity to communicate, meet, deliberate, and provide collective input as required by HUD federal policy, the Housing Commission recommends that the HAB choose to refrain from approving the current SMHA Plans unless and until the current RAB (that is, all Housing Choice Voucher [HCV] holders) is able to meet, discuss, and submit collective feedback to staff. While SMHA Plans are due to HUD by 17 April 2023, HUD permits requests for extensions without adverse consequences to requesting jurisdictions.
Respectfully submitted by Michelle Gray, Housing Commission Chair, on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission
Item 12.A
04/11/23
12 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
Housing Commission Recommendations to the
Santa Monica Housing Authority Board
Formally adopted by unanimous vote on 6 April 2023;
submitted to city leadership on 10 April 2023
The Housing Commission unanimously voted to provide the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) Board with important and time sensitive recommendations regarding SMHA clients, including changes to their current representation on the SMHA Board (HAB) and the placement of the Housing Commission’s presentation of recommendations in the forthcoming meeting.
In light of their time sensitivity, and with the belief that fulfilling these requests is within Housing staff purview, the first two recommendations below were submitted to City Manager David White on 8 April 2023 for consideration and possible action before the 11 April 2023 HAB meeting.
These recommendations come after extensive consultation with Santa Monica residents, including numerous Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) clients, and discussions with housing and advocacy nonprofits. They also follow several productive conversations with new SMHA Senior Administrative Analyst and supervisor Patrick Komesu, who prepared the current staff CAB recommendations.
Housing Commission Recommendation 1—Tenant Representation on HAB Background
• Federal HUD policy requires tenant representation on the SMHA governing board, and the City of Santa Monica has dedicated two (2) SMHA Board (HAB) seats to this tenant representation. One of these seats is currently vacant. • The current SMHA Resident Advisory Board (RAB), composed of all HCV holders in Santa Monica, was created by staff decision and not via codification in HAB bylaws or city ordinance.
• The two tenant representatives named to the HAB two years ago were chosen, named, acknowledged, and thereby seated on the HAB solely via SMHA staff decision, and not via direction codified in HAB bylaws or city ordinance.
Item 12.A
04/11/23
13 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
• One of the two named tenant representatives has never attended a HAB meeting and recently formally resigned. The other named tenant representative did not attend the last HAB meeting and has not responded to any emails or calls from SMHA clients.
• HUD federal policy requires SMHA staff to reach out to all program participants at least once a year to ask if any of them would like to serve on the HAB and staff has not done so for more than two years.
• SMHA clients recently held two grassroots virtual RAB meetings: a five hour meeting on 19 March 2023 with twelve attendees, and a seven hour meeting on 4 April 2023 with sixteen attendees, during which clients unanimously elected SMHA clients Courtney Lauretano and Hajar Muqtasid St Claire to act as their two interim RAB representatives until a CAB is formed, with Joyce Sawyer and Stephanie Leah S. as alternates.
• It is essential that SMHA clients have two representatives sitting on the HAB in time for them to participate and vote during Tuesday’s HAB meeting.
Recommendation
To ensure meaningful RAB representation on the HAB until a CAB is formed, the Housing Commission strongly recommends that staff recognize SMHA clients Courtney Lauretano and Hajar Muqtasid St Claire, and in their absence, alternates Joyce Sawyer and Stephanie Leah S, as interim RAB representatives serving on the HAB in the two seats dedicated to tenant representatives, until a CAB is formed and can provide two CAB members as tenant representatives on the HAB.
Housing Commission Recommendation 2—Placement of Advisory Body Input Background
There are no current city provisions that permit appointed public officials to speak on behalf of their respective boards and commissions regarding a City Council or HAB agenda item at the same time as city staff, that is, immediately before City Council or SMHA Board deliberation and possible action on that item. Instead, these public officials are allowed to deliver formal advisory body input as public comment.
Item 12.A
04/11/23
14 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23
In principle, this practice is flawed because city boards and commissions are composed of appointed city officials whose mandate is advising city leadership, and their input is not, therefore, commensurate with individual public comment. In practice, this convention is flawed because public input is given at the beginning of meetings and therefore heard long, and often many hours, before the agenda item in question.
While City Council and SMHA Board meeting agendas dedicate item 13 to board and commission reports, presenting advice from staff and appointed public officials on the same topic separately is inefficient and unduly disenfranchises city advisory bodies. Given the nature of city advisory boards and commissions, including the hundreds of hours of hard work and communication with residents undertaken by their volunteer appointed public officials, hearing board and commission recommendations alongside related staff recommendations is most appropriate.
Recommendation
In order to facilitate communication and maximize busy SMHA Board members' understanding of complex issues, the Housing Commission recommends and requests that a representative of the Housing Commission be permitted to deliver the Housing Commission's formal recommendations to the SMHA Board immediately following the respective staff presentation and before board members' deliberation and potential action, instead of being heard during public comments.
Respectfully submitted by Michelle Gray, Housing Commission Chair, on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission
Item 12.A
04/11/23
15 of 15 Item 12.A
04/11/23