EXTERNAL
June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Please see our attached comments in support or opposition to items on the June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items:
- Support items 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D
- Oppose Item 16E
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Written Comments (6495 : POD Program) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live,
work and play.
June 25, 2024
Subject: June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Support Item 10A and 10B
A. Support adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.53 to Align the City’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) Rule 2202
B. Support Adoption of an Ordinance that Supports Electric Vehicle Charging Access by Adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
Support Item 16B:
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance fully support the Council item 16B to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution that addresses the false and harmful signs on the 3rd Street Promenade disparaging our City Manager and the City at large, also conjuring lies about the LA County needle-exchange program. Those signs abuse our First Amendment free speech rights, threatening personal and public safety, the City’s reputation and the City’s economic recovery.
Please approve item 16B expeditiously so that Santa Monica can be proud of our civility and the potentially kind way that we treat others in Santa Monica and to enjoy the amenities and business on the 3rd Street Promenade that contribute to a clean and safe community and to our potentially vibrant economy.
Support Item 16D:
Our full support also applies to Item 16D to expand the Preserving our Diversity Program (POD) with clear considerations of elderly residents in the Pico Neighborhood experiencing poverty. The specifications identified to assist elderly Pico neighbors who qualify for POD are important requirements to fulfill our City’s and community’s expectations and aspirations to protect the vulnerable in our midst. Sometimes, it is too easy to miss something to help keep us attentive. Item 16D calls out new ways to assist POD applicants and to determine fair decisions about who receives POD aid.
Opposed Item 16E:
Finally, we oppose Agenda Item 16E to add a parcel tax measure to the November ballot. At this time, an unpolled measure, particularly for a parcel tax that is usually used for schools, is not a wise choice.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Written Comments (6495 : POD Program) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dan Charn. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 11:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16. D #4. OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
I have a real problem with #4 here..
POD should only go by age and those who have lived here the longest, have the most need..not give priority to anyone else for any reason - definitely not the reasons proposed here.. just by this:
AGE
NEED
LIVED HERE THE LONGEST
I would love to see the age lowered to 60 - but no priority should be given for color or ethnicity.
To apply SB535 in this case is very clever, but really this has nothing to do with POD at all.. just nothing ... amazing that these two would attempt to apply it.
Please don't do this... but please lower the age and up the stipend.
Many seniors all over this town are underwater and soon will either die from stress or be homeless.
Please just go by need and how long someone has lived here .. and that they have signed up .. please don't tell me that the PICO residents don't know about POD ..of course they do.
Danielle Charney
This one is too much
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Written Comments (6495 : POD Program) 2 David Yakobson
From: Brian Stedge-Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16C & 16D - Support
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my support for:
16C – Please support this item to suspend enforcement until the City Manager and City Attorney can craft a fair and transparent process .
16D – Please support the expansion of POD in the Pico neighborhood. POD is vital to keeping our most vulnerable in their homes and out of homelessness. An investment in POD is money saved by the City on homelessness programs.
Thank you!
Brian Stedge-Stroud
90404
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
Item 16-D
June 25, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Written Comments (6495 : POD Program) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 25, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request of Mayor Brock that the City Attorney and City Manager return to City Council no later than July 23, 2024 with a proposal to place a parcel tax measure on the November 2024 ballot to generate resources to address public safety and homelessness. More specifically, the proposed parcel tax should generate $7.5 million per year and allow for resources generated by the tax to support items such as enhanced police services, private security in downtown, and multidisciplinary outreach teams. The tax should also have a sunset date 10 years after its effective date.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.E
Packet Pg. 1009
1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Subject: I oppose item 16E
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Is 16E a joke?
There are no specifics on how to implement it, and no polling or studying has been done on this proposition.
Last time SMPD came to council, they stated they have 16 vacancies and more upcoming, and you still chose to defund sidewalk repairs and alley repaving to fund… more vacant positions. But apparently, this wasn’t enough and you now want to create a tax to create… more vacant positions? That’s an odd use of resources.
Can we also please leave parcel taxes for our schools that truly need them and that can use this revenue for tangible things instead of vacant positions?
If you truly care about safety, please support item 14A, which could potentially help solve some serious safety issues and free up officers’ time.
Let’s use our resources wisely, instead of coming up with items that accomplish nothing and take away from more important and productive ones.
Please oppose item 16E.
Caro Vilain
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Written Comments (6496 : Parcel Tax Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Cc: David White; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Items: Support 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D -- Oppose Item 16E Attachments: 2024-06 CC Agenda Items 10A-10B-16B-16D-16E .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Please see our attached comments in support or opposition to items on the June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items:
- Support items 10A, 10B, 16B, 16D
- Oppose Item 16E
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
--
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Written Comments (6496 : Parcel Tax Measure) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live,
work and play.
June 25, 2024
Subject: June 25th Council Meeting Agenda items
Support items 10A, 10 B, 16B, 16D
Oppose Item 16E
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council:
Support Item 10A and 10B
A. Support adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.53 to Align the City’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) Rule 2202
B. Support Adoption of an Ordinance that Supports Electric Vehicle Charging Access by Adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
Support Item 16B:
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance fully support the Council item 16B to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution that addresses the false and harmful signs on the 3rd Street Promenade disparaging our City Manager and the City at large, also conjuring lies about the LA County needle-exchange program. Those signs abuse our First Amendment free speech rights, threatening personal and public safety, the City’s reputation and the City’s economic recovery.
Please approve item 16B expeditiously so that Santa Monica can be proud of our civility and the potentially kind way that we treat others in Santa Monica and to enjoy the amenities and business on the 3rd Street Promenade that contribute to a clean and safe community and to our potentially vibrant economy.
Support Item 16D:
Our full support also applies to Item 16D to expand the Preserving our Diversity Program (POD) with clear considerations of elderly residents in the Pico Neighborhood experiencing poverty. The specifications identified to assist elderly Pico neighbors who qualify for POD are important requirements to fulfill our City’s and community’s expectations and aspirations to protect the vulnerable in our midst. Sometimes, it is too easy to miss something to help keep us attentive. Item 16D calls out new ways to assist POD applicants and to determine fair decisions about who receives POD aid.
Opposed Item 16E:
Finally, we oppose Agenda Item 16E to add a parcel tax measure to the November ballot. At this time, an unpolled measure, particularly for a parcel tax that is usually used for schools, is not a wise choice.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Written Comments (6496 : Parcel Tax Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 7:27 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: oppose 16E 6/25/2024
EXTERNAL
Phil needs to stop placing completely unbaked items on the agenda.
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Written Comments (6496 : Parcel Tax Measure) 1 David Yakobson
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 2:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: POA; Community Affairs; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Council Item 16E Taxing Homeowners
EXTERNAL
TO: City Council,
COPIES: SMPD, Neighborhood organizations
I fully support more public safety funding, but it is wrong to propose that homeowners (via a new property tax) pay for services that benefit the entire community.
Broader-based funding is called for.
STRONGLY OPPOSE.
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
Item 16-E
June 25, 2024
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Written Comments (6496 : Parcel Tax Measure)