Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, May 24, 2023

City of Santa Monica
City Council Meeting
AGENDA

GLEAM DAVIS
MAYOR

PHIL BROCK LANA NEGRETE

COUNCILMEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM

CHRISTINE PARRA CAROLINE TOROSIS

COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER

JESSE ZWICK 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
Regular 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: 5/25/2023 8:40 AM Page 2

RULES OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (Resolution No.11494(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 15-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: 5/25/2023 8:40 AM Page 3

AGENDAS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SPECIAL MEETING

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2023
MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 PM
HOW TO PROVIDE WRITTEN 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.

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.)

1. PUBLIC INPUT (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
. Public input under this item will not be heard at this meeting. This is a special meeting and public input is limited to agenda items only.

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

ITEMS, CONSENT CALENDAR ONLY)

3. CLOSED SESSIONS
No items
(Please note that Agenda Items may be reordered during the Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council.)

4. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
No items
City of Santa Monica Generated: 5/25/2023 8:40 AM Page 4

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents.)
No items

6. PUBLIC INPUT ON REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS
. Public Input for 12-Items will be heard at the time when the Public Hearing is called.

7. STUDY SESSION
No items

8. CONTINUED ITEMS

8.A. Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment for the term ending on June 30, 2024. (Continued from May 9, 2023.)

8.B. Appointment to one open seat on the Human Services Commission for the term ending in June 30, 2025. (Continued from May 9, 2023.)

8.C. Appointment to two unscheduled vacancies on the Disabilities Commission for terms ending on June 30, 2025. (Continued from May 9, 2023.)

8.D. Appointments to Five Seats on the Newly Created Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee for Five Partial-Terms Ending on 6/30/2025. (Continued from May 9, 2023.)

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. In accordance with Charter section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present dissents.)

10.A. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.830 to Prohibit Unlawful Possession of Catalytic Converters
City of Santa Monica Generated: 5/25/2023 8:40 AM Page 5 Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the proposed ordinance is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or, if considered a project, it is categorically exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines.

2. Introduce for first reading an ordinance adding Section 4.08.830 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code establishing regulations prohibiting the unlawful possession of catalytic converters within the City of Santa Monica.

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
No items

12. PUBLIC HEARINGS

12.A. Government Code Section 3505.7 Public Hearing on Impasse with Administrative Team Associates
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt the Factfinding Report dated March 7, 2023, as the official report in the matter of the impasse between Administrative Team Associates (ATA) and the City of Santa Monica (City) (Attachment A); and

3. Adopt and Direct staff to implement the Last, Best and Final Offer authorized by City Council and presented to ATA on February 15, 2022.

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 to either attend or provide public testimony at a Council meeting (i.e. sign language interpreting, access to an amplified sound system, remote option, etc.), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 458-8211 or TDD: (310) 917- 6626 or via email at [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be made to accommodate requests received after City of Santa Monica Generated: 5/25/2023 8:40 AM Page 6 the 72-hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the special Council 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: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment for the term ending on June 30, 2024. (Continued from May 9, 2023.)
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ApplicantListCSEJE
B. Written Comments
C. ITEM.8.A. Written Comments

8.A
Packet Pg. 7
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Commission on Sustainability, Environmental
Justice and the Environment
Name Application Date
David I Lappen 03/07/2023
Jeff Bush 03/07/2023
Kyle Moss 03/08/2023
Mark A Gold
Gerda Newbold
Laurel S Joe
03/21/2023
03/30/2023
04/02/2023
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: ApplicantListCSEJE (5787 : Continued: Appointment to CSEJE 8.A.(5 Mins.)) Memo
To : City of Santa Monica City Council and City Manager’s Office Fro m : Susan Mearns, Vice Chair, Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justiceandthe Environment
Sig na ture :

Da te : March21,2023
Re : City of Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment MotionRegarding Commission CandidateRecruitment
At the March 20, 2023 regular meeting, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment discussed and took action on the following agenda item:

C o m m is s io n Re c ruit m e nt Re c o m m e nd a t io ns a) Amanda Grossman (Sustainability Analyst) presented on the update on a Commission vacancy. Garen Baghdasarian submitted his resignation in February and Council approved this resignation at the February 28th Council meeting. The Commission vacancy was posted, and applications will be accepted until April 4th. Council will appoint a new Commissioner on April 11th.
b) Historically, the Commission (formerly the Task Force) would interview candidates, review applications, and make
recommendations to Council. In recent years, the Commission has not been included in the recruitment process.

After discussion,the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment made the following motion:

The C o m m is s io n o n Susta in a b ility, Enviro nm e nta l Justic e , a nd the Enviro nm e nt is c o m p ris e d of se ven m e m b e rs w it h e xp e rtis e , a nd fro m a va rie ty o f b a c kg ro und s in susta in a b ility. The C o m m is s io n o n Susta ina b ility, Enviro nm e nta l Justic e , a nd the Enviro nm e nt re c o m m e nd s tha t C o unc il a p p o int a c a nd id a te w it h e xp e rtise in the a rea s o f w a te r Item 8.A.
5/24/23
1 of 4 Item 8.A.
5/24/23

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Written Comments (5787 : Continued: Appointment to CSEJE 8.A.(5 Mins.)) c o nse rva t io n, d e c a rb o n iz a t io n/ e le c t rific a t io n o f b u ild in g s / tra nsp o rta t io n a nd p o lic y. Ad d itio na lly, the C o m m is s io n re c o m m e nd s tha t the C o unc il se le c t c a nd id a te s fro m a va rie ty o f b ac kg ro und s inc lud ing fo r p ro fit a nd no n- p ro fit o rg a n iz a tio ns.

The motion was made by Vice Chair Mearns and seconded by Member Lempert.

The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Vice Chair Mearns
Member Pettit
Member Lempert
Member Tower
Noes: None
Abstain:None

Absent: Chair Kubani and Member Sokol
Item 8.A.
5/24/23
2 of 4 Item 8.A.
5/24/23

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Written Comments (5787 : Continued: Appointment to CSEJE 8.A.(5 Mins.)) Created: 2023-04-10
By:

Status:

Transaction ID:

Amanda Grossman ([email protected])
Signed
CBJCHBCAABAALWBLy5piemBCGOEp2G31ixfZi1Rt8Mg9

23.03.20_Commission_CandidateRecruitment
Final Audit Report 2023-04-10
"23.03.20_Commission_CandidateRecruitment" History
Document created by Amanda Grossman ([email protected]) 2023-04-10 - 9:16:40 PM GMT
Document emailed to Susan Mearns ([email protected]) for signature 2023-04-10 - 9:18:12 PM GMT
Email viewed by Susan Mearns ([email protected]) 2023-04-10 - 9:22:58 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Susan Mearns ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-04-10 - 9:23:07 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2023-04-10 - 9:23:07 PM GMT
Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted.

Item 8.A.
5/24/23
3 of 4 Item 8.A.
5/24/23

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Written Comments (5787 : Continued: Appointment to CSEJE 8.A.(5 Mins.)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Pettit, David <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Pettit, David
Subject: Item 16A – Appointment to one Unscheduled Vacancy on the Commission on Sustainability

EXTERNAL
I am writing to support the appointment of Mark Gold to the Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment. I currently sit on this Commission and I was a Sustainability Task Force member for a number of years while Mark was its Chair. I also know Mark professionally in my capacity as an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. In my view, there is no one with a deeper understanding of the sustainability issues facing Santa Monica than Mark. He is very hard‐working, committed to improving Santa Monica, and can get the job done. I strongly support his appointment.

Thank you for your consideration of this note.

David Pettit
David Pettit
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org
Item 8.A.
5/24/23
4 of 4 Item 8.A.
5/24/23

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Written Comments (5787 : Continued: Appointment to CSEJE 8.A.(5 Mins.)) From: Alexandra Sokol
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: “Item 8A Appointment to one Unscheduled Vacancy on the Commission on Sustainability” Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:02:47 PM
Attachments: image.png
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a Commissioner on the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment I wanted to let it be known that I would love to see and highly endorse Mark A.

Gold for the vacant Commissioner position on our Commission. Mark has the background, depth and breadth needed on the this Commission.

I would welcome the Council to vote in Mark Gold as out new Commission member, since we need his expertise and background in this critical position and moving forward on the sustainability agenda. Barring that, my second choice would be Gerda Newbold, who I believe also has the strength of commitment and experience to add solid skills to the Commission.

My thanks for your consideration.

Regards - Alexandra
--
Alexandra Sokol
EnviroDynamix™
Chief Sustainability Strategist & EVP Project Development m: 310.500.7722 | [email protected]
Commissioner at City of Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment | Santa Monica EV Sub-Committee & Airport Redevelopment Committee Member | USGBC Advisor | LEED GA & ND | Member of SWRR | Member of Millennium Project Environmental Node |
American Anthropology Assoc. Member - Disaster TIG
http://www.envirodynamix.com
--------- This message (including any attachments) may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. Do not read, copy or share this communication unless you are the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your cooperation.

ITEM 8.A.

May 25, 2023
ITEM 8.A.

May 25, 2023

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: ITEM.8.A. Written Comments (5787 : Continued: Appointment to CSEJE 8.A.(5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one open seat on the Human Services Commission for the term ending in June 30, 2025. (Continued from May 9, 2023.) Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ApplicantListHSC

8.B
Packet Pg. 14
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Human Services Commission
Application Date
07/20/2022
07/25/2022
05/02/2023
03/29/2023
03/30/2023
Name
David T. Pisarra
Willa F. Wells
Marie Manvel
Luis B. Castanon
Helen M. Finkelstein
Zoë Muntaner
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 6
04/07/2023

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: ApplicantListHSC (5788 : Continued: Appointment to HSC 8.B. (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to two unscheduled vacancies on the Disabilities Commission for terms ending on June 30, 2025. (Continued from May 9, 2023.) Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ApplicantListDisabilities04.25.2023

8.C
Packet Pg. 16
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Disabilities Commission
Name Application Date
Debra Senopole 03/29/2023
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1
*Identified person with disabilities

8.C.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: ApplicantListDisabilities04.25.2023 (5789 : Continued: Appointment to Disabilities Commission 8.C.(5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointments to Five Seats on the Newly Created Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee for Five Partial-Terms Ending on 6/30/2025. (Continued from May 9, 2023.)
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. TOTAC.Applicant.List
B. Staff Report and Resolution approved 2/28/2023 (Web Link)

8.D
Packet Pg. 18
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee
Application Date
04/03/2023
04/03/2023
04/28/2023
05/03/2023
05/03/2023
Name
Danielle Goller
Sam J. Jagger
Albin R Gielicz
RoseMary Regalbuto
Natalya Zernitskaya
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
*Registered Lobbyist (2/3 votes required to appoint) & member of another SM commission
*Applying for hospitality member seats (2 seats available)

8.D.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: TOTAC.Applicant.List (5790 : Appointments to New TOT Advisory Committee 8.D. (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ramon Batista, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.830 to Prohibit Unlawful Possession of Catalytic Converters
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

Executive Summary
Over the last several years, the theft of catalytic converters has increased significantly in the City of Santa Monica, the State of California, and nationwide. To combat the theft, transportation, and recycling of illegally obtained catalytic converters in the City of Santa Monica, the Santa Monica Police Department, in conjunction with the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office, seeks to introduce an ordinance that will make it unlawful to possess a catalytic converter that is not attached to a vehicle unless the possessor has valid documentation or other proof of lawful possession.

Discussion
Over the last three years, the frequency of catalytic converter thefts has been a concerning issue in Santa Monica and around the nation. Since 2020, reported catalytic

10.A
Packet Pg. 20
2 of 4
converter thefts have increased. In Santa Monica, a total of 214 catalytic converter thefts were reported in 2020, 281 in 2021, and 312 in 2022. As of April 2023, there were 151 reported thefts, resulting in an average of 50 incidents per month, trending higher than previous years.

The rise in catalytic converter thefts can be attributed to the increase in value of precious metals. Catalytic converters contain metals such as platinum, palladium, and rhodium, which make catalytic converters an attractive target for criminal offenders. A catalytic converter is easily removed from a vehicle with the use of a reciprocating saw, which does not require sophistication on the part of offenders. Once a catalytic converter is removed, offenders transport it to a scrap metal dealer and sell it for cash.

The scrap metal dealer then extracts the precious metals for a high profit. Catalytic converter thefts are challenging for law enforcement agencies to investigate due to the lack of serial numbers or other identifying markers on or within each unit.

Currently, under California law, a police officer who encounters an individual in possession of a catalytic converter under suspicious circumstances must locate the rightful owner before making an arrest for theft or possession of stolen property. If the officer is unable to locate the rightful owner, the person in possession of the catalytic converter may be released absent additional evidence of criminal activity.

There is currently no City, State, or Federal legislation applicable within the City of Santa Monica to define and punish catalytic converter thefts absent an identifiable victim, which is a challenge for law enforcement in enforcing catalytic converter thefts.

Additionally, there is currently no City, State, or Federal legislation applicable within the City of Santa Monica to define and punish the recycling or sale of unlawfully obtained catalytic converters, thereby enabling this criminal enterprise.

Furthermore, there is currently no City, State, or Federal legislation applicable within the City of Santa Monica requiring individuals to provide proof to law enforcement as to how they obtained catalytic converters, therefore limiting law enforcement’s ability to protect the public by preventing catalytic converter thefts and preventing law enforcement from

10.A
Packet Pg. 21
3 of 4
seizing suspected stolen catalytic converters when no victim is present. Due to the lack of legislation defining and prosecuting these thefts, 99% of all catalytic converter theft cases in the City of Santa Monica have gone unsolved.

This proposed Catalytic Converter Ordinance would support the Santa Monica Police Department in investigating these crimes through: (1) deterrence by establishing zerotolerance for catalytic converter thefts, (2) sanctions for possessing stolen catalytic converters, (3) preventing offenders from profiting from the sale and recycling of stolen catalytic converters, (4) providing indirect justice to the victims of catalytic converters whose cases will go unsolved, (5) reducing Part I crime statistics which have been negatively impacted by catalytic converter thefts, and (6) minimizing the fiscal and personnel impact on the City of Santa Monica invested in deterring and investigating catalytic converter thefts.

This ordinance would provide the Santa Monica Police Department with clearly established legal authority to deter this criminal activity and, over time, reduce the number of catalytic converter thefts within the City.

Environmental Review
The proposed ordinance is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). If considered a project, it is categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance regarding lawful possession of a catalytic converter may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary.

10.A
Packet Pg. 22
4 of 4
Prepared By: Belen Sahagun, Executive Administrative Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Catalytic Converter Ordinance - Attachment A
B. Catalytic Converter Thefts by Year & Month - Attachment B C. Written Comments
D. PowerPoint Presentation

10.A
Packet Pg. 23
1 City Council Meeting:____________ Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.08.830 AND

ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, the theft of catalytic converters has been an increasing problem within the City of Santa Monica in recent years; and
WHEREAS, catalytic converters contain expensive precious metals including platinum, palladium, and rhodium; and
WHEREAS, the average cost of replacing a stolen catalytic converter and repairing the damage to the vehicle is typically more than $2,000 to the victim; and WHEREAS, since 2020, over 646 catalytic converter thefts have occurred in the City of Santa Monica, and catalytic converter thefts are increasing every year, with an average of approximately 50 incidents per month; and
WHEREAS, catalytic converter thefts are on the rise because individuals are incentivized to commit catalytic converter thefts for multiple reasons including, but not limited to: (1) the ease and undetectable nature of committing these thefts using relatively common tools; (2) the ability to recycle catalytic converters at scrap metal yards for high dollar returns; and (3) the challenges with prosecuting criminals for catalytic converter theft where a victim cannot be identified; and

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Catalytic Converter Ordinance - Attachment A (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 2 WHEREAS, individuals who are in possession of stolen catalytic converters recycle them for substantial profit while victims of these thefts suffer the tremendous consequence of paying thousands of dollars in repairs, the inconvenience of repairing their vehicles, and the feeling of being unsafe in the community; and WHEREAS, finding a victim of these crimes is difficult due to the relatively undetectable nature of the catalytic converter thefts and the difficulty in tracing catalytic converters back to a particular victim; and
WHEREAS, there are no City, State, or Federal legislation applicable within the City requiring individuals to provide proof to law enforcement as to how they obtained catalytic converters, thus limiting law enforcement’s ability to protect the public by deterring catalytic converter thefts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance seeks to: (1) deter criminal activity by establishing regulations addressing catalytic converter thefts; (2) sanction individuals in unlawful possession of stolen catalytic converters; (3) prevent criminals from profiting from the sale and recycling of stolen catalytic converters; (4) provide justice to the victims of catalytic converters; (5) reduce crime; and (6) minimize the impact on the City of Santa Monica;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is necessary to provide the Santa Monica Police Department a means to protect the public, deter this criminal activity and promote a more productive use of resources by staff responsible for investigating catalytic converter thefts; and
//
//

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Catalytic Converter Ordinance - Attachment A (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.830 is hereby added to read as follows:

4.08.830 Unlawful Possession of a Catalytic Converter
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any catalytic converter that is not attached to a vehicle unless the possessor has valid documentation or other proof to verify they are in lawful possession of the catalytic converter. (b) As used in this Section, the following items shall have the following meanings:
(1) “Lawful possession” includes being the lawful owner of the catalytic converter or in possession of the catalytic converter with the lawful owner’s written consent. It is not required to prove the catalytic converter was stolen to establish the possession is not a “lawful possession.”
(2) “Documentation or other proof” means written document(s) that clearly identify the vehicle from which the catalytic converter originated and includes, but is not limited to, the following document types: bill of sale from the original owner with photographs, documentation from an auto-body shop proving the owner relinquished the catalytic converter to the auto-body shop, or vehicle registration associated with the catalytic converter containing an etched associated license plate number or vehicle identification number. The validity of “documentation or other proof” is based on the totality of the circumstances.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Catalytic Converter Ordinance - Attachment A (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 4 (c) Each violation of this Section shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to all remedies and enforcement measures authorized in the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
(d) Any person violating this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars per violation, or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or by such fine and imprisonment.

The remedies provided in this subsection are not exclusive, and nothing in this subsection shall preclude the use or application of any other remedies, penalties, or procedures established by law.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Catalytic Converter Ordinance - Attachment A (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 5 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Catalytic Converter Ordinance - Attachment A (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance)

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Catalytic Converter Thefts by Year & Month - Attachment B (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 1 Xavier Mota
From: service bvainc.net <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Attorney Mailbox; Community Affairs
Subject: Public Comment - Catalytic Converter Theft, City Council Action

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Davis and Council members:

My name is Lee Chesnin. I am a former auto shop owner in Santa Monica and am current state president of the Auto Service Council of California (ASCCA) as well as a member of the West Los Angeles region board of directors of ASCCA. If you are not familiar with ASCCA we are a grass roots association of California independent auto shops formed with the purpose to elevate and unite the repair industry.

I read in the Santa Monica Daily Press that the City is working on legislation to address the serious issue of catalytic converter theft, and that there will be some discussion tonight. I appreciate the City taking action in this matter, as it is a significant problem and something needs to be done. This has been a major concern to the independent repair industry as well, and ASCCA has been providing input to the many state legislators who are also working on solutions. I believe that our industry can make a positive contribution to your efforts, and help make the result more practical and effective.

Unfortunately, I am out of town today and cannot attend the Council meeting in person. I would appreciate the opportunity for representatives of ASCCA to engage with law enforcement and city attorney staff to provide input towards the end legislation.

I thank you again for your recognition of the catalytic theft problem, and your work towards a solution. I look forward to supporting that work.

Lee Chesnin
2023 President, ASCCA
[email protected]
(310)895‐4014
ITEM 10.A.

May 24, 2023
ITEM 10.A.

May 24, 2023

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 2016- 2023 (YTD)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) 2020- 2023 (YTD) only

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) Incident Count per month
2016- 2023 (YTD)

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5742 : Catalytic Converter Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department Subject: Government Code Section 3505.7 Public Hearing on Impasse with Administrative Team Associates
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

3. Adopt and Direct staff to implement the Last, Best and Final Offer authorized by City Council and presented to ATA on February 15, 2022.

Summary
The City and Administrative Team Associates (ATA) conducted negotiations from September 2021 to March 2022 over the City’s proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for three job classifications in the Public Works and Information Services departments. The City proposed to revise the minimum qualifications because the degree requirement presented an inappropriate barrier to the consideration of qualified candidates. Following negotiations, the City presented its Last, Best and Final Offer (LBFO) to ATA concerning the proposed changes. ATA did not accept the City’s LBFO.

The City declared an impasse in the parties’ negotiations. ATA requested that the parties’ impasse be referred to a factfinding panel, in accordance with the MeyersMilias-Brown Act (MMBA). The parties participated in a factfinding hearing before a tripartite panel in August and October 2022. The neutral chairperson of the factfinding

12.A
Packet Pg. 34
2 of 6
panel issued findings of fact and advisory recommendations for settlement, which was joined by ATA’s panel member. The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent.

As required under the MMBA, the City publicly posted the factfinding report along with the City’s dissent.

Discussion
The City and ATA mutually agreed to the selection of the neutral factfinder, who was the chairperson of a tripartite factfinding panel also consisting of a member selected by the City and a member selected by ATA. The neutral factfinder issued a report which made the following findings of fact:
• ATA represents 256 employees, all with some managerial or administrative responsibility, in over 100 job classifications. Historically, all but three of the job classifications have required a bachelor’s degree and work experience. • In 2021, the City’s Information Services and Public Works Departments requested that the Human Resources Department review the minimum qualifications for two job classifications and add an alternative option wherein work experience may be substituted for the bachelor’s degree requirement. • The City reviewed the two job classifications and concluded that the requested modification was appropriate. In addition, a new job classification for the bargaining unit was created.
• In April 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the position of Technology Training Coordinator. As an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that two years of experience (beyond the three years’ experience required for all candidates) can substitute for the bachelor’s degree.
• In June 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the position of Software Developer. As an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that two years of experience can substitute for the bachelor’s degree.
• In August 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the position of Engineering Support Services Administrator. As

12.A
Packet Pg. 35
3 of 6
an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that additional qualifying experience can substitute for the bachelor’s degree on a year for year basis with successful completion of 30 units equal to one year of the additional required work experience.
• The purpose of the City’s proposals was based on its view that possession of a bachelor’s degree requirement as a minimum qualification precluded City Departments from considering candidates who may not have a bachelor’s degree but could perform the requisite job duties in each of the classifications. In addition, the City stated that removing such barriers to employment may have the added benefit of improving diversity in its applicant pools. • ATA opposed the City’s proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications for each of the three job classifications.
• During negotiations, which occurred between September 2021 and March 2022, ATA made three proposals for settlement: 1.) ATA would agree to permit the City to change the degree requirement of the classifications in exchange for educational incentive pay in the amount of 8% of base salary for a bachelor’s degree and an additional 4.8% for those with a master’s degree; 2.) ATA would agree to temporarily suspend the bachelor’s degree requirement where the applicant pool was insufficient; and 3.) ATA would agree to the proposed changes by the City in minimum qualifications if work experience credit was commensurate with the number of years to obtain the bachelor’s degree. • On February 15, 2022, the City presented ATA with its Last, Best and Final Offer (LBFO) concerning the proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications to provide a work experience alternative to the educational degree. The proposals in the LBFO are the same as what the City initially presented to ATA in June and August 2021.
• ATA did not accept the City’s LBFO.
• In March 2022, the City declared an impasse in the parties’ negotiations. • In March 2022, ATA requested that the parties’ impasse be referred to a factfinding panel.

12.A
Packet Pg. 36
4 of 6
• The parties participated in a factfinding hearing before the tripartite panel in August and October 2022.

In March 2023, the factfinder issued findings of fact and advisory recommendations for settlement, which was joined by ATA’s panel member. The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent. The City publicly posted the factfinding report along with the City’s dissent.

The factfinder made the following three recommendations to settle the impasse, which are advisory only:
1) The City will modify its class specifications for the three positions to require four years of additional experience instead of two years as an alternative to a bachelor’s degree;
2) ATA will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications by a college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any position in the bargaining unit; and
3) ATA members who have a four-year college degree will receive an annual bonus of 3% of their base salary.

The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent and addressed each of the three settlement recommendations as follows:
1) The City should not modify its class specifications for the three positions to require four years of additional experience instead of two as the alternative to a college degree.

Instead, the City should implement its LBFO to ATA on this subject; 2) The City does not request that ATA waive its right to participate in the established City process for reviewing and revising classification specifications. The City values ATA’s contributions to this process; and

12.A
Packet Pg. 37
5 of 6
3) The City should not modify the compensation for ATA employees who have a college degree so that they would receive an annual bonus of 3% of base salary. This would create inequity between comparably situated employees who possess the same or substantially similar capacity to perform the requisite duties for the job. Furthermore, the compensation market changes, and the City must be flexible not only as an employer but as an entity which services the public.

The City also provided clarification that it did not refuse to provide a counterproposal to ATA proposals during negotiations on this matter. This statement in the factfinding report is inaccurate and mischaracterizes the City’s restatement of its initial proposal during the negotiation process. Staff recommends that Council direct City staff to implement the LBFO which the Council previously authorized City staff to present to ATA.

The City Council has three options following the public hearing on the factfinding:

1. Take no action, in which case the status quo would be maintained and the minimum qualifications will remain as they are;

2. Impose the terms of the City’s LBFO, in which case the City will implement the revisions that it proposed; or

3. Direct the City to reopen negotiations with ATA according to the direction that the Council provides, whether that direction aligns with the factfinders’ recommendations or otherwise.

Staff recommends that Council impose the terms of the City’s LBFO.

Environmental Review
The City’s proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the three job classifications are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the

12.A
Packet Pg. 38
6 of 6
environment. The proposed changes to job qualifications are administrative in nature and would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, are categorically exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The Last, Best and Final Offer as presented to ATA on February 15, 2022, and outlined in Attachment A has no financial impact.

Prepared By: Sasha Sargent, Executive Administrative Assistant Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM
B. PowerPoint Presentation

12.A
Packet Pg. 39
1 FACTFINDING PROCEEDINGS
In the Matter of the ) Anthony Miller
Impasse Between ) 2020 5th St #2220
) Davis, CA, CA 95616
ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM ) 805/657-8794

ASSOCIATES )
)
Union, ) Case Number: LA-IM-310-M
)
And ) FACTFINDING REPORT
)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA )
) Date: March 7, 2023
Employer, )
)
(RE: Job Descriptions) )
____________________________________)

FACTFINDING PANEL
Impartial Chair
Anthony Miller
2020 5th St #2220
Davis, CA, CA 95616
Union Member
Benjamin Steers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City Member
Ericka Reinke
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 2 APPEARANCES
For the Union
Richard A. Levine, Esq.

Rains Lucia Stern
St. Phalle & Silver, PC
16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600
Encino, CA 91436
For the City
Alexander Volberding, Esq.

Adriana Guzman, Esq.

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
6033 West Century Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90045

INTRODUCTION
The parties, the Administrative Team Associates (Union) and the City of Santa Monica, selected the neutral factfinder, Anthony Miller, pursuant to the provisions of California Law. The Union appointed Benjamin Steers and the City appointed Ericka Reinke as their respective members of the factfinding panel. The panel conducted two days of hearing--August 19 and October 25, 2022—via Zoom. At the hearings the parties were afforded the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce exhibits and propound arguments in support of their positions. Both parties submitted post hearing briefs at which time the matter was fully submitted. The parties agreed to waive statutory time limits.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 3 RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
California Government Code Section 3505.4
(a) The employee organization may request that the parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant to the parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency's local rules. If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an employee organization may request that the parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not later than 30 days following the date that either party provided the other with a written notice of a declaration of impasse. Within five days after receipt of the written request, each party shall select a person to serve as its member of the factfinding panel. The Public Employment Relations Board shall, within five days after the selection of panel members by the parties, select a chairperson of the factfinding panel.
(b) Within five days after the board selects a chairperson of the factfinding panel, the parties may mutually agree upon a person to serve as chairperson in lieu of the person selected by the board. (c) The panel shall, within 10 days after its appointment, meet with the parties or their representatives, either jointly or separately, and may make inquiries and investigations, hold hearings, and take any other steps it deems appropriate. For the purpose of the hearings, investigations, and inquiries, the panel shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence. Any state agency, as defined in Section 11000, the California State University, or any political subdivision of the state, including any board of education, shall furnish the panel, upon its request, with all records, papers, and information in their possession relating to any matter under investigation by or in issue before the panel.
(e) The procedural right of an employee organization to request a factfinding panel cannot be expressly or voluntarily waived. (d) In arriving at their findings and recommendations, the factfinders shall consider, weigh, and be guided by all the following criteria:
(1) State and federal laws that are applicable to the employer. (2) Local rules, regulations, or ordinances.
(3) Stipulations of the parties.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 4 (4) The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the public agency.
(5) Comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the factfinding proceeding with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services in comparable public agencies.
(6) The consumer price index for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living.
(7) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays, and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received.
(8) Any other facts, not confined to those specified in paragraphs (1) to (7), inclusive, which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in making the findings and recommendations. (e) The procedural right of an employee organization to request a factfinding panel cannot be expressly or voluntarily waived.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Union is the recognized employee organization representing 256 employees, all with some managerial or administrative responsibility, in over 100 job classifications.

Historically, all but three of the job classifications for employees who are represented by the Union have required a bachelor’s degree and work experience.

2. In 2021, the City’s Information Services Department and Public Works Department requested that the Human Resources Department review the minimum qualifications for two job classifications and add an alternative option wherein work experience may be substituted for the bachelor’s degree requirement.

3. To implement this proposal, the Human Resources Department followed the regular process for reviewing and modifying job specifications including the two that were

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 5 involved herein and concluded that the modification was appropriate. In addition, a new job class specification for the bargaining unit was created.

4. On April 16, 2021, the City presented to the Union the proposed changes in the classification for the position of Technology Training Coordinator. Under the heading of Minimum Qualifications, it includes the requirement of “Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in business, information systems, computer science or a closely related field.” In additions it states that two years of experience (beyond the three years’ experience required for all candidates) can substitute for the college degree: “Two additional years of work experience may substitute for the required bachelor’s degree. Professional experience in the field of public sector customer support, administration, or technology is desirable.”

5. On June 30, 2021, the City presented the proposed qualifications for the position of Software Developer. Under Minimum Qualifications, the classification lists graduation with a bachelor’s degree, but adds that two years of experience may serve as a substitute: “Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer technology, software engineering, information systems, or a closely related field. Two additional years of qualifying work experience may substitute for the bachelor’s degree requirement.”

6. On August 5, 2021, the City presented the proposed changes in the qualification for the position of Engineering Support Services Administrator. Under the heading of Minimum Qualifications, the revised classification added a provision which allowed years of experience to substitute for a bachelor’s degree: “Graduation from an

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 6 accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree. Additional qualifying work experience may substitute for the educational requirement on a year for year basis. (Successful completion of 30 units is equal to one year of the additional required work experience.)”

7. The stated purpose of these proposals was based upon the view that possession of a degree requirement as a minimum qualification effectively precluded City Departments from considering, as part of the City’s recruitment and selection process, candidates who could perform the requisite job duties in each of the classifications

8. On August 10, 2021, attorney Elizabeth Silver Tourgeman, on behalf of the Union, stated the Union’s opposition to proposed revisions to the minimum qualification for the job classifications and stated the view that this was a mandatory subject of bargaining.

9. Subsequently the parties engaged in multiple negotiation sessions and the exchange of letters between Attorney Tourgeman and Sarah Rebensdorf, Acting Human Resources Manager.

10. In the course of negotiations, the Union made three proposals for settlement, and the City never made a counter offer or deviated from its original position regarding its proposed revisions of the minimum qualifications. Here is a summary of each proposal:

1. The Union would vest the City with the discretion to manage the degree requirement of the bargaining unit in exchange for educational incentive

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 7 pay in the amount of 8% of base salary for a bachelor’s degree and an additional 4.8% for those with a master’s degree.

2. The Union would agree to temporarily suspend the bachelor’s degree requirement where the applicant pool was insufficient.

3. The Union would agree to proposed changes in minimum qualification if work experience credit was commensurate with the number of years to obtain the college degree, the approach used for the Custodial Services Administrator.

11. During the negotiations, Ms. Rebensdorf, in an email to Ms. Tourgeman, stated that the changes in minimum requirements for the three classifications was “the goal of eliminating inappropriate barriers to employment that may negatively impact a qualified individual’s ability to obtain employment with the City. This may have the added benefit of improving diversity in our applicant pools.” Testimony at the hearing supported the view that the degree requirement was the barrier that was removed.

12. On February 15, 2022, following the period of negotiations, the City provided ATA its last, best, and final offer concerning the proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications to provide an alternative to a bachelor’s degree. The language concerning the work experience alternative in the last best and final offer is the same as the language in the original job class specifications submitted to the Union. Here are the relevant provisions verbatim:

1. Software Developer:

Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer technology, software engineering, information systems, or a closely related field.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 8 Two additional years of qualifying work experience may substitute for the bachelor’s degree requirement.

Experience: Three years of recent, paid work experience designing and developing web content in a windows-based server
environment.

2. Technology Training Coordinator:

Education: Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in business, information systems, computer science or a closely related field.

Experience: Three years of recent, paid work experience in technology support, training and learning systems management.

Two additional years of work experience may substitute for the required bachelor’s degree. Professional experience in the field of public sector customer support, administration, or technology is desirable.

3. Engineering Support Services Administrator:

Education:

Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree. Additional qualifying work experience may substitute for the educational requirement on a year for year basis. (Successful completion of 30 units is equal to one year of the additional required work experience.)
Experience:

Four years of recent, paid, and progressively responsible work experience providing general office management in public or private business work environment including two years of supervisory experience. One year of leading, coordinating or supervising the work of others and successful completion of the City of Santa Monica’s Pre-Supervisory Academy may substitute for the two years of supervisory experience.

13. On March 7, 2022 the City declared an impasse.

14. On March 25, 2022, ATA requested factfinding concerning the City’s proposed revisions.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
California Government Code Section 3505.4 (d) requires that “the factfinders shall consider, weigh, and be guided by” a list of statutory criteria or factors. These factors are

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 9 fully set out above under the heading “Relevant Statutory Provisions.” While not all of these factors proved to be relevant to the present case, here are the Factfinding Panel’s response to all eight sections.

Section (1) which deals with state and federal law is only relevant in the present situation because the Union has accused the City of failing to bargain in good faith as required by California Government Codes section 3505. It is not the place of this panel to determine if the City has committed an unfair practice, but it is worthwhile to note that the panel has not viewed the City as having failed to negotiate in good faith. The city presented its first proposed change to the Union on April 16, 2021 and the third on August 5, 2021. On August 10, the Union informed the City that it considered the matter to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. After that, there were multiple meetings between the parties. Additionally, representatives of the parties exchanged several letters in which the Union and the City fully stated their positions. In addition, there were a number of informal conversations between representatives of the parties on these issues. The City did not present its last, best, and final offer until February 15, 2022. The Union points out that the City, in the course of these negotiations, never presented a counter offer to the Union proposals or modified its original position. While the refusal to make a counter proposal is one indicator of a failure to bargain in good faith, it is not a per se factor. The test for failure to bargain in good faith requires an examination of “all the surrounding circumstances.” In the present situation, the parties met, exchanged views, discussed the matter in meetings, letters, and personal conversations over a period of time. The City clearly attempted to explain its position to the Union. Moreover, the City has made no

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 10 attempt to unilaterally implement the changes that it has proposed. The only thing the City did not do was modify its position which, in and of itself, does not necessarily indicate a lack of good faith.

Section (2) requires consideration of local law and regulation. The Factfinding Panel has not found any local law or regulation relevant to the present situation. And, Section (3) concerning stipulations of the parties has not played a significant role in the present case other than the parties agreed to waive the statutory time limits.

Section (4) is relevant in that the City has asserted the “the interests and welfare of the public” as the main reason for the modification of the minimum requirement for the three classifications in question. The City view is that having the best possible pool of applicants for a position is in the public good and that, in regard to the three job classifications in question, there is the possibility that the proposed change in the minimum job requirement would enhance the application pool. While this is a credible assertion—a college degree does not ensure competence and competence can certainly be gained by real world experience—there is no evidence on the record herein that this result would be the case with these three classifications. Nevertheless, the Departments which will supervise employees in these classifications have requested these changes, and the City’s decision to implement this request is a judgment call and policy decision that the City is entitled to make.

Section (5) deals with issues of compensation which have not played a significant role in the Panel’s deliberation. While one of the counter proposals by the Union involved bonus compensation for the ATA employees who did have a college degree, the only

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 11 evidence presented regarding this proposal was that both the Police Department and the Fire Department in the City of Santa Monica had bachelor’s degree and Master’s bonuses for certain employees. This evidence was insufficient to justify any conclusion by the Factfinding Panel.

Section (6) regarding the consumer price index or cost of living and Section (7) regarding consideration of the overall compensation of the employees played no role in the deliberations of the Factfinding Panel.

Finally, Section (8) invites consideration of additional factors which are “normally or traditionally taken into consideration in making the findings and recommendations.” In the present case it has been important to consider the interests of the parties.

As discussed above in regard to Section (4), the City has a viable interest in increasing the pool of qualified candidates for City employment. Managers apparently noticed that there are employees and non-employees who have the qualifications to work in the classifications in question even though they do not have a college degree, and they recommended that the class specifications be changed. Management has denied that the purpose of these changes in the class specifications is intended to increase diversity in terms of those groups of people who have been and are discriminated against, but admitted that the change in the class specifications could have that effect. The Union has agreed with this assessment.

The Union’s interest, and indeed goals, in this situation appear to be long range rather than immediate. The evidence does not establish that in the short run much will change for the Union if the City’s proposal is implemented. The City will begin the process of hiring

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 12 employees to fill the classifications. There may or may not be candidates who meet the experience requirements, and such candidates may or may not be the best qualified. The evidence does not show that Union membership, dues, and ability to represent its members will immediately be threatened. The Union’s concern is that if the City is allowed to modify the present job classifications, it will continue to modify other job classifications or even all the job classifications in the bargaining unit represented by the Union; and, if this long range vitiation of the requirement for a college degree continues, the economic bargaining power of the Union on behalf of its members will be diminished. The Union’s concern in this regard is both genuine and credible.

Although the Union represents the employees in the Bargaining Unit, the employees have their own collective interest in the change in classification. It is reasonable to assume that some or maybe all of the employees in the bargaining unit, may believe that it is unfair that someone else may now have the same job without a college degree. College degrees cost a great deal in time, money, and effort. The employees may also believe that the importance of their degree and the job which formerly required a degree is now diminished, which could result in the vitiation of bargaining power in future negotiations.

That said, it does not appear that the employees in the bargaining unit have suffered any immediate compensable loss, and future losses through the vitiation of bargaining power is at this time speculative.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT
The tripartite factfinding panel, consisting of Ms. Ericka Reinke (appointed by the Employer), Mr. Benjamin Steers (appointed by the Union), and Anthony Miller (neutral)

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 13 have carefully considered the evidence which has been presented to them and fully discussed all of the options that the parties have presented. The proposed recommendation of the panel is divided into two parts. The first proposal concerns the specifications for the three job classifications under consideration here: Software Developer, Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator. All of these new class specifications substitute work experience for the college degree. Software Developer and Technology Training Coordinator both substitute two years of additional work experience beyond the work experience requirement stated in the specification. The requirement for Engineering Support Services Administrator is more nuanced but, on its face, a less clear approach to substituting work experience for college credit. The recommendation for settlement is to modify all three class specifications to simply require four years of additional work experience as the substitute for a college degree. This proposal would make the requirement more comparable and, indeed, a fairer approach in that all classifications are treated equally.

The second recommendation for settlement concerns the long-range relationship between the parties. The Union has serious concerns about the future of the college degree requirement for all of the classifications in the bargaining unit, that over time the City will add experience criteria as a substitute for a college degree to all or most of the classifications. The Union can of course seek to bargain about each change in the job specification, and when the bargaining reaches impasse, it can go to factfinding. This process with be costly for both parties. One way to avoid this dispute resolution meltdown would be to change the parties’ approach to college degrees. Instead, of making a

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 14 college degree required for every classification, an experience requirement could be added to any classification the City deems appropriate, and the Union would waive its right to bargain on these changes to each classification. Such a waiver would be a significant concession to the City. In effect, the Union would be giving up its statutory right to bargain in good faith on wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, the right which is fundamental to the labor management relationships since the time of the Wagner Act. In return for this waiver, the City would establish a yearly bonus for all members of the ATA bargaining unit who have a college degree in the amount of 3 per cent of their yearly salary. This bonus is not intended as compensation for economic loss by the members, but rather as a benefit which will be conferred on the employees because the Union has negotiated for them. There is of course precedent for this type of bonus in the City: both police officers and firefighters receive a yearly bonus if they have attained a college degree and, indeed, an additional bonus if they have a master’s degree.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT

1. The City will modify its class specifications for the positions of Software Developer, Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator to require four years of additional experience instead of just two as the alternative to a college degree.

2. The Union will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications by a college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any position in the bargaining unit.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 15 3. Members of the bargaining unit ATA who have a four-year college degree will receive an annual bonus of 3 per cent of their base salary.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Dated: March 7, 2023
___________________________________
Anthony Miller, Chair and Neutral Member
_________________________________
Benjamin Steers, Member Appointed by the Union

NOT JOINING IN THE RECOMMENDATION AND SUBMITTING SEPARATE REPORT Ericka Reinke
_______________________
Ericka Reinke, Member Appointed by the City
City of Santa Monica and Administrative Team Associates Case No. LA-IM-310-M
City of Santa Monica’s Representative to the Factfinding Panel Ericka Reinke
Clarification of Points in the Factfinding Panel’s Report and Dissent to the Recommendations of the Neutral Factfinding Panel Chair and the Administrative Team Associates’ Panel Member Pursuant to California Government Code section 3505.4 and 3505.5:

As the City of Santa Monica’s (“City”) representative to the Factfinding Panel for the present dispute between the City and the Administrative Team Associates (“ATA”),

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 16 I respectfully dissent as to each of the settlement recommendations made by the neutral Factfinding Panel Chair, Mr. Anthony Miller, and ATA’s representative to the Panel, Mr.

Benjamin Steers (hereinafter referred to as “Majority Settlement Recommendations”).

I. Clarification of Points in the Factfinding Panel’s Report The Factfinding Panel’s Report includes several points that merit clarification:

Point #1 – The City Did Not Refuse to Provide a Counterproposal to ATA Proposal The Factfinding Report characterizes the City as refusing to provide a counterproposal to ATA proposals. (See Factfinding Report, p. 6.) This point is inaccurate and mischaracterizes the City’s maintenance and restatement of its initial proposal.

At the beginning of the negotiations between the parties on these classification specifications, the City made a proposal to ATA concerning revisions to the minimum qualifications for the job classifications at issue in order to allow qualified candidates to be considered for employment in those positions without regard for their possession of a college degree. The City’s proposal, developed in conjunction and consultation with the subject matter experts in the City Departments that employ employees in these classifications, allowed individuals with a certain amount of relevant experience to satisfy the minimum qualifications for employment with such experience rather than by demonstrating possession of a college degree.

In response to the ATA counterproposals (See Factfinding Report, p. 6), which either did not adequately address the City’s concerns about removing inappropriate barriers to employment (e.g., required additional relevant experience which exceeded what was necessary to perform the job) or imposed additional conditions on the City that were not related to the narrow issue being negotiated (e.g., required significant additional compensation to employees with college degrees), the City maintained and restated its initial proposal.

The City is lawfully entitled to maintain adamantly its position in bargaining, so long as it explains the reasons for its position and otherwise bargains in good faith.

During the negotiations, the City discharged its obligations under the law and explained its position concerning the proposed revisions.

Specifically, the City explained that its position was intended to remove barriers to employment (i.e., remove minimum qualification requirements regarding the possession of a college degree, oppose counterproposals that required more

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 17 experience than was necessary to perform the job) which inappropriately excluded or would inappropriately exclude otherwise qualified candidates from consideration for employment. The City explained that its position, which it adamantly maintained and restated throughout the negotiations, would benefit the City departments that employ employees in these job classifications by providing those Department additional candidates to consider for employment.

The City further explained that its positions would in turn benefited the City as a whole and the public served by the City.

The Factfinding Report’s characterization of the City’s action as amounting to a refusal to provide a counterproposal is inaccurate.

II. Dissent to the Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations The Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations and my Dissenting Recommendations are as follows:

Settlement Recommendation #1
Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations:

The City will modify its class specifications for the positions of Software Developer, Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator to require four years of additional experience instead of just two as the alternative to a college degree.

The City’s Dissenting Recommendation:

The City should implement its last best and final proposal to ATA on this subject.

The City should not modify the classification specifications for Software Developer, Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator classifications in the manner that the Factfinding Panel recommends.

The City’s last best and final offer concerning the experience necessary to perform the duties for each of these job classifications reflects the opinions of the subject matter experts in the City Departments that employee City employees in these classifications.

A “year for year” experience-for-education requirement is not appropriate for the classifications at issue. Imposition of the Factfinding Panel’s recommendation

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 18 would present an inappropriate barrier to entry for prospective employees who may, as a result of their experience, be able to perform the duties associated with the job classifications without the additional experience required under the Factfinding Panel’s proposal.

Settlement Recommendation #2
Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations:

The Union will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications by a college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any position in the bargaining unit.

The City’s Dissenting Recommendation:

The City should not modify the classification specifications in the ATA bargaining unit as recommended by the Factfinding Panel.

As provided above, a “year for year” experience-for-education requirement is not necessarily appropriate for all the classifications in the bargaining unit. Where such requirement is not appropriate, imposition of the Factfinding Panel’s recommendation would present an inappropriate barrier to entry for prospective employees who may, as a result of their experience, be able to perform the duties associated with the job classifications without the additional experience required under the Factfinding Panel’s proposal.

Further, the City does not request that ATA waive its right to participate in the established City process for reviewing and revising classification specifications.

The City values ATA’s contributions to this process.

Settlement Recommendation #3
Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations:

Members of the bargaining unit ATA who have a four-year college degree will receive an annual bonus of 3 per cent of their base salary.

The City’s Dissenting Recommendation:

The City should not modify the compensation for the employees in the ATA bargaining unit as recommended by ATA and the neutral party’s shared recommendation.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) 19 The Factfinding Panel’s recommendation is unnecessary and would create inequity between comparably situated employees who possess the same or substantially similar capacity to perform the requisite duties for their jobs.

Throughout the City’s negotiations with ATA, the City maintained its opposition to providing additional compensation to bargaining unit members who satisfy the minimum qualifications by possessing a college degree, rather than by possessing addition relevant experience. The City maintains that ATA failed to articulate any material harm that would actually impact its members with the mere option to have a separate pathway to qualifying for a position.

Lastly, compensation is based on many factors. The job functions, knowledge, skills, abilities and the labor market are considered. Further, things change. The market changes and we must be flexible not only as an employer but as those who serve the community of Santa Monica.

I believe everything the City has provided up until this point sufficiently justifies our position and I cannot agree with the recommendation of the Neutral Factfinder Panel Chair and ATA Panel Member.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ericka Reinke, City of Santa Monica Factfinding Panel Member

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Factfinding Public Hearing –
City Proposal to Revise the
Minimum Qualifications for
Three ATA-Represented Classifications
Public Hearing
May 24, 2023

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:

Overview
 Request:
o Vote to implement the terms of the City’s Last Best and Final Offer (“LBFO”) to ATA.
 Terms of the LBFO:
o Allow the City to revise the minimum qualifications for employment (“MQ”) for the Engineering Support Services Administrator, Technology Training Coordinator, and Software Developer classifications in order to allow for candidates who possess either:

1. A college degree; or

2. Additional relevant professional experience.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Proposal
 Development of Proposals:
o In advance of opening recruitment for the classifications, the City developed these proposals.
o Human Resources consulted with the relevant City Departments to develop proposals that were specific to the duties of each classification. o The proposals would allow the City to consider candidates who possessed the appropriate amount of additional relevant professional experience, but who lacked a college degree.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Proposal
 City Objectives:
o Remove qualifications that are not directly related to job performance; o Increase the supply of minimally qualified candidates from which City Departments could select the most qualified candidate; and o Make the City more competitive for talent in tight labor market.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Proposal
 City Departments (Subject Matter Experts)
o Not necessary that an employee in any of these classifications possess a college degree in order to perform the requisite job duties for the classification.
o Employees with additional relevant professional experience described below could perform the requisite job duties for these classifications. • 4 years of additional experience for Engineering Support Services Administrator; and
• 2 years of additional experience for Technology Training Coordinator and Software Developer

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Proposal
 What the City’s Proposal Is Not
o The City did not propose a one-size-fits-all for the additional professional experience required.
o The City did not propose to revise the MQs in order to “devalue” the classifications/reduce the amount of compensation that the City would provide.
o The City did not propose to revise the MQs for any other ulterior objective (e.g., to increase diversity).

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Bargaining with ATA
 Brief Bargaining History
o The City initially proposed to revise the MQs for these classifications more than 2 years ago:
• April 2021 – City proposal re: Technology Training Coordinator; • June 2021 – City proposal re: Engineering Support Services Administrator; and
• August 2021 – City proposal re: Software Developer.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Bargaining with ATA
 Brief Bargaining History (Continued)
o The City met and conferred with ATA between September 2021 and March 2022 regarding the City’s proposal to revise the MQs.
o The City did not implement these changes unilaterally. o The City has been unable to recruit for these positions during this time

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Bargaining with ATA
 ATA proposal:
o Revise the MQs for all the classifications in the bargaining unit in exchange for:
• An 8% increase in salary for employees with a college degree; and • An additional 4.8% increase in salary for employees with a master’s degree.
 ATA identified no actual harm that would justify the salary increase.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Bargaining with ATA
 ATA proposal:
o Revise the MQs for the classifications, but require at least four years of additional relevant professional experience for each classification.  ATA did not explain why this one-size-fits-all approach was always appropriate.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Bargaining with ATA
 Brief Bargaining History (Continued)
o In February 2022, after six months of negotiating, the City made its LBFO to ATA.
o In March 2022, after making little progress in the negotiations, the City declared impasse.
o Thereafter, the City and ATA started the post-impasse process.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:

The City’s Engagement in Factfinding
 Factfinding
o In August and October 2022, the City and ATA made their presentations to the Factfinding Panel.
o In March 2023, the Factfinding Chair issued a report and recommendations. • The City-appointed panelist dissented.
o The City posted the Chair’s report and recommendations and the City’s dissent.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:

Impose the City’s LBFO
 The LBFO is Appropriately Limited in Scope
o Revise the classification specifications for only the three classifications at issue, not all bargaining unit classifications.
o Revise the MQs in the manner recommended by the subject matter experts after case-by-case study, not a one-size-fits-all approach.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:

Impose the City’s LBFO
 The LBFO is Necessary for Recruitment
o Allow the City to consider the all minimally qualified candidates in order to select the most qualified candidate.
o Allow the City to compete with other employers who do not require degrees for comparable jobs.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:

Impose the City’s LBFO  The LBFO is Fair and Reasonable o Will not harm ATA or its members. o Will treat comparably situated employees equitably.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:

Impose the City’s LBFO
 The City requests that the City Council implements the terms of the City’s LBFO
o Remove qualifications that impose unnecessary barriers to employment; and o Allow the City to begin recruiting the most qualified candidate for employment in these classifications.
o Its implementation will serve the City’s and public interest.  Thank you.

12.A.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 24, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
May 24, 2023