Loading...
sr-020811-8bCity Council Meeting: February 8, 2011 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: Carol Swindell, Director of Finance Subject: Five Year Financial Forecast, Two Year Budget and Expenditure Control Budgeting, Public Comment on Emerging Issues Including Comments on Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Programs, and Discussion of Emerging Issues for the FY2011-13 Budget Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council: 1) Receive the FY2011-12 through FY2015-16 Five Year Financial Forecast as background for development of the FY2011-13 budget; 2) Approve the development of a Biennial Budget and Expenditure Control Budgeting; 3) Receive public comments on FY2011-13 budget priorities and emerging issues, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Program funds; and 4) Provide staff with direction on Emerging Issues to guide the development of the FY2011-13 budget. Executive Summary This report provides an update on the current status of the economy and its potential impact on budgeted revenues, presents a forecast of revenues and expenditures for the major City funds, recommends approval of a biennial budget process and expenditure control budgeting, and provides an update on community input received during the neighborhood meetings conducted by the City Manager in November and December. The report requests that Council receive public comment on community Emerging Issues and provide direction to staff on budget development for FY2011-13. The worst recession since the World War II has ended and mild-to-moderate economic growth has returned. However, many uncertainties that could affect the national, state, and local economies remain. Local governments across the nation and in California face unprecedented .challenges to their long term fiscal sustainability. Staff has prepared different scenarios to assess the City's future fiscal health and the potential 1 impacts of these ongoing uncertainties. Beginning in 2009, the City developed amulti- pronged strategy to address projected structural deficits over several years, including: • Reductions in operating and capital expenditures ® Business process and efficiency improvements, including use of technology to reduce costs. In FY 2010-11, for example, Parking Operations began a number of operational and technology improvemehts estimated to save the City approximately $500,000 per year in operating costs once fully implemented • Fee adjustments and new fee proposals • Employee negotiations to ensure that compensation costs are sustainable Limited use of one time funds as a bridge to allow the City to methodically resolve its projected structural imbalance with the least harm to the community and our employees Santa Monica has been proactive in facing these challenges over the last two years by cutting budgets without jeopardizing core services. It addition, the City increased revenues through fee adjustments and passage of Measure Y in November 2010, which created aone-half cent transaction and use tax in the City. In total, over the past two years these actions have reduced the shortfall by $25.0 million through a combination of $11.4 million in additional revenue, $12.0 million in departmental reductions and $1.6 million in compensation savings through employee cost sharing and reduced performance bonuses. In 2009, Council set aside $8.2 million as an economic uncertainty reserve, to be used as a one-time source of funds to create a bridge for implementing amulti-year permanent resolution to the structural imbalance. With the actions taken to date, the City has not needed to draw on this reserve. The FY 2010-11 Budget anticipated using $2.7 million of this reserve, but-based on current forecasts and proactive expenditure management that will not. be necessary. However, budget deficits in future years still appear likely as the growth rate of expenditures surpasse projected increases in revenues without further action. Staff has. produced three different General Fund scenarios for the next five years. Under the Baseline scenario, the City's fiscal position will be relatively stable for the current year and the first year of the forecast period before a $3.8 million deficit appears in FY2012-13, growing to $12.3 million by the end of the forecast period. The Best Case scenario, which includes more optimistic revenue assumptions and some lower expenditure assumptions, shows resources exceeding uses for all five years of the forecast period. Under the Worst Case scenario, which used more pessimistic revenue and higher expenditure assumptions, a deficit occurs in FY2012-13 growing to $26.3 million by the end of the forecast period, approximately double the deficit projected in the Baseline scenario. Staff is asking Council to approve the development of a biennial budget, which will make the overall process more efficient. Staff will return to Council frequently, with mid- year and year-end reports and adjustments, and ask Council to adopt an annual budget. 2 The FY 2011-13 budget will continue the multi-pronged approach to permanently resolve the expected shortfall, using the strategies mentioned above. As staff prepares the Proposed Budget for FY2011-13, departments have been asked to put forth return- on-investment proposals -ways the City can use one time funds to positively impact the bottom line through reduced costs or increased revenue. Staff is also asking Council to adopt expenditure control budgeting. Expenditure control budgeting is an approach that promotes sound fiscal management and offers flexibility and resources to respond to emerging or changing needs. It removes the "use it or lose it" approach to budgeting and replaces it with incentives and rewards for careful planning, strategic expenditure reductions, and creativity. Year-end departmental savings will be split between the department (1/3) and the General Fund (2/3). Departments may use the funds for one- time heeds, or bank the savings over multiple years. Each department's share of savings would be set aside. and unspent balances would carry over from year to year. The remaining 2/3 of savings will be retained in the General Fund and will be available for other one-time uses. Discussion Biennial Budget, Expenditure Control Budgeting, and FY2011-73 Budget Strategies Council currently adopts a biennial financial plan by appropriating funds in the first year and approving a budget plan for the second year. The City can realize. a number of advantages by transitioning to a biennial budget: • Less staff time is needed to produce the budget in the second year, freeing up programmatic productivity for other initiatives such as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process and fee studies in that year. • Equal attention is given to both the first and second year of the budget, which enhances long-range planning and provides for improved program evaluation. Better integration of financial and strategic planning is achieved, which will improve resource allocation. • Ongoing communication as staff will continue to provide Council with mid-year and year-end reports, including opportunities to make adjustments and adopt an annual budget. In addition to the two year budget, staff is proposing other changes to improve the City's budget process: • Streamlining the budget document, reducing duplicative information and improving readability. The line. item detail will not be provided with the Proposed Budget but reports will be made available as needed. The line item detail will be available online with the Adopted Budget. Further, the number of paper versions of the Proposed Budget will be significantly. reduced. These changes will eliminate much of the paper that has- been used to produce documents with a 3 short shelf life. Staff time needed to produce these documents will also be reduced. Improving the City's management system by paring down the goals, objectives. and service benchmarks to the few that best describe department core services. Departments will be accountable for their progress in achieving these goals. • Implementing expenditure control budgeting, which is an approach that promotes sound fiscal, management and offers flexibility and resources to respond to emerging or changing needs. It removes the "use it or lose it" approach to budgeting and replaces it with incentives and rewards for careful planning, strategic expenditure reductions, and creativity. Year-end departmental savings will be split between the department (1/3) and .the General Fund (2/3). Departments may use the funds for one-time needs, or bank the savings over multiple years. This practice has produced increased savings in other organizations that have adopted it. • Introducing "Emerging Issues" in place of "Community Priorities," which will identify the areas of special emphasis for the upcoming budget. Emerging Issues are discussed later in this report. The FY2011-13 budget process will continue the multi-pronged approach to resolving the structural deficit over the long run. The emphasis will be on maintaining level services. Spending is expected to remain relatively flaf and the budget does not anticipate new programs. Departments are being strongly discouraged from submitting enhancement requests. Instead, departments are proposing investments of City funds that will produce a positive return through long term cost savings or revenue generation by improved business practices or other efficiencies. Examples include expanding the fiber optic network, surveying and assessing beachfront property to update expired encroachment agreemehts, offering new permit services in parks, selected advertising on city Wi-Fi pages and transitioning to new technologies. Finally, the City will be negotiating with all of its bargaining units this year with a goal of ensuring that growth in compensation costs does not outpace the rate of revenue growth over the long term. Governor Brown's proposed State of California budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 presents certain risks to the City's financial future. The principle risk is the proposed elimination of redevelopment agencies. Many of the future public improvements in Santa Monica that have involved extensive community participation and anticipation are 4 planned to be financed by funds from the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency. In addition, the majority of funding for affordable housing ih Santa Monica comes from the Redevelopment Agency. In the absence of redevelopment funding, most, if not all, of these projects would be difficult, if not impossible, to complete. Community expectations following many years of planning and design would be unmet. In addition, Santa Monica's ability to meet its affordable housing policy goals, as well as regional housing requirements and the requirements of voter-approved Proposition R, would be severely compromised. Through its Mayor and staff, the City has voiced its opposition to the Governor's proposed plan and discussed the potential negative impacts with Santa Monica's representatives in Sacramento The League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association are leading cities and counties from throughout California to identify the clear negative economic and community impacts from the Governor's proposal. In addition, the mayors of the nine largest California cities met with the Governor and his staff to identify the severe impacts for California and to begin to consider alternatives. Finally, the Governor's proposal faces significant legal hurdles, including protections for tax increment in the California Constitution, additional protections provided by voter approval of Proposition 22 in November 2010, and Federal and State Constitutional prohibitions against impairment of contracts. The City and Agency entered into a cooperation agreement in August 2010 that obligates the Redevelopment Agency to make payments to the City to implement the planned projects and affordable housing. As the Governor's budget proposal makes provisions for the payment of existing debt obligations, supplemented by constitutional protections for existing contractual obligations, staff believes the planned projects in Santa Monica are protected from the Governor's actions. However, given the severity of the state's budget crisis, it is possible that the state might challenge some contractual obligations in order to appropriate more redevelopment money for state purposes. 5 In addition to the proposed elimination redevelopment agencies, the Governor's proposed budget includes other provisions that would negatively impact the City. For example, funding for the Library Transaction Based Reimbursement program and Public Library Foundation grants, which generate approximately $200,000 annually to the City, are eliminated in the State proposed budget. However, annual Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) funds are proposed to remain at $100,000: Five Year Forecast Each year, staff projects the status of the City's major funds for the coming five year period, focusing primarily on the General Fund. The projections begin with available fund balances at the end of the prior fiscal year. Staff then updates current year revenue projections based on receipts through the end of December and begins to build a forecast using updated economic information and assumptions about growth rates for both revenues and expenditures. These forecasts provide a framework for the development of the budgets for next two years. General Fund This year, three scenarios were prepared based on staff's assessment of the economic environment. The Baseline scenario provides staff's most likely forecast based on well- respected economic forecasts for the region, while the other scenarios examine the effects of less likely, or less expected, changes in the economic environment. Baseline Scenario The General Fund Baseline scenario incorporates revenue and expenditure assumptions that staff consider the most probable, based on currently available information. This scenario indicates a surplus of $4.8 million FY2011-12, primarily as a result of $25.0 million in budget closing strategies enacted over the past two years, combined with an improved economy. The $25.0 million includes a combination of $11.4 million in additional revenue, $12.O million in departmental reductions and $1.6 million in employee cost sharing and reduced performance bonuses. By the end of 6 FY2012-13, the General Fund is projected to have a deficit of $3.8 million, primarily due to increased retirement and medical benefit costs. Growth in expenditures outpaces revenue growth to result in an annual deficit of $12.3 million in FY2015-16. Total projected compensation increases, including CPI adjustments (1.25% for FY2011- 12; 2.5% for FY2012-13 and FY2013-14~ 3% for FY2014-15 and FY2015-16) and increases in benefit costs, range between 3.5% and 6.4% during the term of the forecast. The table below details these increases by component. Increase Total Salaries and Wages: CPI Adjustment Step Increases Health Insurance PERS Other Benefits 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 0.5% 3.e% 3.5% 4.1% 4.1% 1.25% 2.50% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.8% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 19.6%. 16.6% 8.7% 5.0% 4.7% 0.3% 1.8% 0.7% 0.8% -0.1 Total Projected Compensation Change 3.5% 6.4% 5.1 % 4.8% 4.8% As shown above, a significant contributor to the increase in -total compensation arises from required increases in employer contribution rates for the CaIPERS retirement system, primarily due to the impact of CaIPERS' investment losses during the recession and the anticipation that CaIPERS will lower its investment target from 7.75% to 7.5%: The retirement benefits CaIPERS pays are funded through annual contributions from member agencies. Historically, CaIPERS' investment earnings have paid 64 cents to 75 cents of every pension dollar. The impact of both the investment losses and the lower expected investment earnings rate going forward will significantly .increase member agency contribution rates. As a result, the City's General Fund retirement costs are projected to increase by $18.2 million, or 67% between FY2010-11 and FY2015-16. Health insurance costs are also projected to present significant increases, at 12% annually from FY12-13 through the end of the forecast period. 7 Revenues projected in the Baseline scenario include the impact of the new voter approved transaction and use tax (Measure Y) and the impact of the re-opening of Santa Monica Place. Revenues are also bolstered by a significant rebound in tourism and increased parking revenues based on rate revisions. The forecast also includes the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area's repayment of a $20 million loan obligation to the General Fund over 16 years, as detailed in Amendments to Promissory Notes #1 and #6 executed by the direction of the Redevelopment Agency on January 17, 2011. The repayment of this debt obligation by the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area is consistent with the Agency's November 16, 1999 directive and the Redevelopment Agency's existing Five-Year Implementation Plan, which noted that all funds net of the affordable housing set aside and debt obligations in this project area would be allocated to affordable housing. The Five-Year Implementation Plan will be updated at its mid-term review in 2012 to reflect the decreased funding for affordable housing. Worst Case Scenario The Worst Case Scenario assumes slower revenue growth in most of the major tax sources than assumed in the Baseline Scenario. Additionally, this scenario assumes higher inflation rates (2.5% in FY2011-12 and FY2012-13; 3% in FY2013-14; 3.5% in FY2014-15; and 4% in FY2015-16) than the baseline scenario resulting in greater labor and supplies costs. See Attachment A for the detailed assumption changes. Under the Worst Case Scenario, the surpluses in FY2010-11 and FY2011-12 are reduced from the Baseline Scenario by $0.3 million and $2.3 million, respectively, and the deficit in occurring in FY2012-13 is $8.0 million growing to $26.3 million by the last year of the forecast, nearly double the deficit in the Baseline Scenario. Best Case Scenario Finally, the Best Case Scenario assumes higher growth in sales and transaction taxes, property taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and business license taxes than the Baseline scenario. Additionally, the scenario assumes no CPI increase for salaries and most 8 supplies and expense items for the first two years of the forecast. The scenario also assumes lower medical premium cost escalations than the Baseline scenario and assumes that CaIPERS will not lower its investment return assumptions, which results in a lower growth rate for compensation costs. Under the Best Case Scenario, the forecast shows a surplus each year of the forecast ranging from $1.9 million in the current year increasing to $11.1 million in FY2012-13 before reducing some. It is important to note that under all scenarios, the General Fund Five Year Forecast assumes the Capital Improvement Program expenditures (CIP) will be equal to the FY2010-11 budget of $13.3 million, which is approximately half of historical spending patterns and is mostly allocated to on-going maintenance programs. Growth rates in expenditures do include maintenance costs for some new CIP projects scheduled for completion, in particular, operating costs associated with the new .Pico Library. In addition to General Fund projections, the Forecast also includes projections for other .major funds including some that show structural imbalances in their forecasts. These were intended to be self-supporting, but are currently subsidized and require subsidization by the General Fund during the projected forecast period: These funds are projected to require continuing annual subsidies which could total as much as $8.0 million in a single year. A more detailed discussion of the assumptions used in all scenarios is available in Attachment A. Other Funds Other major funds that are included in the Five Year Forecast fall into two categories: Enterprise funds that are operated to generate sufficient revenues to sustain necessary operation and capital needs: o Solid Waste o Wastewater o Water 9 • Non-General funds that are intended to be self-supporting but which require use of one-time funds or General Fund subsidies in order to meet their operating and capital needs: o Airport/Special Aviation o Big Blue Bus o Beach/Beach House o Cemetery o Civic Auditorium (subsidy will depend on future operating agreement) o Pier For these funds, only the baseline scenario was developed. Further details on these funds are provided in Attachment A. Redevelopment Funds Many of the future public improvements in Santa Monica that have involved extensive community participation and anticipation are planned to be financed by funds from the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency.. The improvements include Palisades Garden Walk Park, the Pico Neighborhood Library, joint use recreational improvements at Santa Monica High School, the Civic Center early childhood education center, renovation of the Civic Auditorium, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to the Exposition Light Rail stations. In addition, the majority of funding for affordable housing in Santa Monica comes from the Redevelopment Agency. As noted earlier, the Governor has proposed the elimination of redevelopment areas, which provides a significant risk to the future fiscal health of the City. Staff will continue to monitor the proposal as it goes forward and report significant developments to Council Emerging Issues During the months of November and December, six neighborhood meetings were conducted by the City Manager's Office in partnership with the six active neighborhood associations. Comments were received at the neighborhood meetings, both through discussions and on comment cards. Further public input was provided through a-mail to the budget e- mail address (budget@smgov.net) and the City Manager's a-mail address 10 (manager@smgov.net), as well as through conventional postal mail: Community input is summarized in the following categories. Mobility/Connectivity Mobility and parking issues continue to be of major concern among residents. Residents expressed frustration with traffic and parking in their neighborhoods and concerns about the effects that continued development will have on parking and mobility. While acknowledging that longer-term solutions are in progress, residents expressed a need for more immediate actions, including increased enforcement of traffic laws and parking restrictions. Bicycle infrastructure such as additional bike lanes, bike racks and storage facilities were suggested to encourage ridership and ensure safety. A "bike drop- off only" site at schools, partnering with area schools for student education, and targeting education to areas where bike racks are located were some of the suggestions to encourage bike safety and increase ridership. Public Safety and Violence Prevention Residents expressed concerns about public safety and a desire for police presence. Programs that focus on preventing youth violence and -gang involvement are a neighborhood priority. Community members are concerned about pedestrian and bike safety. Residents also expressed the need for additional education and enforcement of traffic laws for bicycle riders who continue to use sidewalks and roadways incorrectly. Livable Neighborhoods Residents expressed their desire that neighborhoods remain aesthetically pleasing, clean, and quiet. Residents were affected by noise, air and other pollutants from a variety of sources including the Resource Recovery Center, 11 Santa Monica Airport, sports bars,-late night deliveries, traffic, leaf blowers, trash and illegal dumping. Some residents expressed concerns about the impacts of illegal dumping in alleys and scavenging through dumpsters. Youth Services Residents requested that the City prioritize childcare for the City's working poor and expand early childhood programs and services, with a particular focus on those programs geared towards 0-5 year olds. Some residents encouraged the City to implement a strategic plan that develops study and learning .skills beginning in the toddler years and later emphasizes preparation for college. In addition to the emerging issues noted above, the City's Leadership Team recently formulated the following citywide emerging issues: • Fiscal /Economic Sustainability -ensure that the City continues prudent financial planning to allow for a sustained level of service to the community. Address fiscal challenges in a measured way to reduce or avoid the negative impacts to the City's residents, employees and infrastructure. Continue to adopt strategies that promote a business friendly environment. • Pedestrian Safety -employ strategies through street design, traffic control devices, new technology and signage, as well as education and enforcement to better protect pedestrians while providing reasonable traffic flow on City streets. • Water Self Sufficiency - develop a plan to achieve 100% self-sufficiency on local water sources by 2020. This issue will be discussed with Council at an upcoming study sessioh in March. More detailed summaries of each Community Meeting are included irr Attachment B, as well as letters from the City's Commissions and Boards. In addition, public comments may be offered during the February 8 Council meeting r= 12 Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate budget impact as a result of receiving the information provided in this report. Direction provided by City Council based on information in this staff report and public input received during the Council meetings will- assist in determining the direction to be taken in developing the FY2011-13 biennial budget. Prepared by: David Carr, Budget Administrator Approved: Forwarded to Council: (~~~~`"" Carol Swindell Director of Finance ~~~~ . od Gould -City Manager Attachments: A -Five Year Forecast B -Community Priority Update and Community Comments 13 ATTACHMENT A Five-Year Financial Forecast FY2011-12 through FY2015-16 Economic Update National and State Economies On the national level, the economy has been growing at a relatively slow pace after emerging from the worst recession since World War II. The fourth quarter of 2010 will be the sixth consecutive quarter of increased growth as measured by Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Retail sales, consumer spending, and. consumer confidence have all showed recent signs of improvement. The United States stock market, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, has increased over 80% from the low point of March 2009. However, there still are some troubling indications ih certain areas of the economy. The December unemployment rate was 9.4%, a decline from November, but. still at the one of the. highest levels in over twenty-five years. The housing market has bottomed out, but not shown significant recovery. Sales of existing homes in December were down 2.9% from December 2009 and the median price for the same period decreased 1%. Foreclosures are still at or near record highs. A potential crisis in the commercial real estate market is showing signs of easing. Moderate economic growth in the 3-4% range is expected over the next few years. The unemployment rate is expected to begin to decrease, but still remain over 9% throughout 2011 before reaching the 8-8.5% range by the end of 2012. While inflation is relatively low, it has been increasing in recent months, and some analysts believe that increasing government debt will result in high inflation sometime in the next few years. The California economy has been plagued by many of the same issues confronting the national economy. The State unemployment rate was 12.5% in December. The housing market has improved but remains soft. While December foreclosures were at the lowest level in three years, new home sales in December were down 13% from one year earlier and median prices were down 3% for the same period. Over 38% of home sales involved foreclosed properties. Personal income and retail sales are expected to increase slightly in 2011 and show a greater rate of increase in 2012 One of the biggest threats to the California economy continues to be the State budget. The latest estimates are that the State is facing a $25.4 billion deficit by the end of FY2011-12 absent corrective action. The Governor's proposed budget includes measures that could significantly impact the City -particularly the proposed end to redevelopment agencies. Santa Monica Economy Historically, Santa Monica has tended to be more resilieht than its neighbors in tough economic times due, in large part, to a relatively strong, diversified economy:- Unlike many cities, no single source of revenue accounts for more than 15% of total General Fund revenues. However, the recession has had a severe impact on Santa Monica tax revenues, particularly sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes (TOT). Both of these sources began to improve in FY2010-11 and will continue to increase over the A-1 forecast period. The most recent data indicates that receipts from new auto sales and leases, which account for over 20% of Santa Monica's sales tax revenues have recovered somewhat after the period of sharp declines, and the reopening of Santa Monica Place in August 2010 after an 18 month closure will provide a boost to revenues. In addition, the voter passage of Measure Y in November 2010, enacting a 0.5% transaction and use tax, will significantly increase City revenues. The voters also passed Measure YY, which asked Council to provide half of the Measure Y receipts to fund schools. The forecast assumes that Council will allocate half of the tax to the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District. On the negative side, property values in Santa Monica declined in FY2010-11 for only the second .time since the passage of Proposition 13 and only slight improvement is expected in FY2011-12. Interest rates remain at record low levels in the zero to five year maturity range where the City can legally invest. Most economists now expect. that it will be at least early to mid-2011 before the Federal Reserve begins to increase short term interest rates. The extended period of record low interest rates has reduced City investment income significantly. Five Year Forecast of Maior Funds Each year, staff projects the status of the City's major funds for the coming five year period, with a primary focus on the General Fund. The projections begin with available fund balances at the end of last fiscal year (FY2009-10, in this case), update current revenue received to date (FY2010-11), update economic forecast information, project revenue growth, identify expenditure growth assumptions and project expenditure growth. These forecasts set the stage for the development of the budget for next year by identifying potential budget challenges early so that they can be addressed in a measured way. The assumptions used in preparing the FY2011-12 through FY2015-16 Five Year Forecast reflect a review of information .concerning the national, state, regional, and local economies. A number of respected sources of data were used, including the UCLA Graduate School of Management, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), Beacon Economics, Bloomberg, the chief economists of several different financial institutions, and various consulting firms. The volatility of economic data will require continued review and adjustment as we develop the FY2011-13 Biennial Budget. General Fund Three scenarios -Baseline, Best, and Worst are developed for the General Fund. For the other major funds, only a Baseline scenario is produced. BUDGETARY EFFECTS The Baseline and Worst case scenarios both project a structural deficit for the last four years of .the forecast. A structural deficit is defined as a budget where ongoing A-2 revenues are not sufficient to cover ongoing expenditures at current service levels. The Best Case scenario does not show a deficit during the forecast period. The forecast does not include the use of any one-time funds, including economic uncertainty funds, which could be used for one-time expenditures. The Baseline scenario shows a General Fund deficit beginning in FY2012-13 of $3.8 million growing to .$12.3 million in the fifth year of the Forecast. The Worst Case scenario shows the FY2012-13 deficit at $8.0 million growing to $26.3 million by the end of the forecast. The Best Case scenario shows a surplus in all years of the forecast ranging from $1.9 million to $8.4 million. The following table shows the projected fund balance under each scenario: Five-Year Fund Balance Forecast FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 BASELINE Sources $258.7 $274.1 $281.5 $291.2 $300.7 $310.7 Uses $257.0 $269.3 $285.3 $301.4. $312.9 $323.0 Surplus/(Deficit) '$1.7 $4:8 ($3.8) ($10.2) ($12.2) `($12.3) "WORST"CAS E Sources $258.4 $272.4 $278.7 $286.4 $294.7 $303.6 Uses $257.0 $269.9 $286.7 $304.3 $317.2 $329.9 Surplus/(Deficit) $1.4 $25 ($8.0} ($17.9)` ($225) ($26:3) "BEST" CASE Sources $259.0 $275.6 $283.7 $294.5 $305.0 $316.0 Uses $257..1 $265.5 $272.6 $288.3 $298.6 $307.6 Surplus/(Deficit) $1.9 $10.1 $11.1 $6.2 $64 "$8.4 REVENUE PROJECTIONS Baseline As noted above, the baseline forecast assumes that while the recession is over, the economic recovery will be moderate. Growth in the major economy-driven tax revenues, such as sales taxes, business license taxes, and property taxes, are all expected. to be below historical trends for a large part, and in some cases, all of the period. Tourism has rebounded strongly after two down years and is expected to continue to be strong throughout the forecast period. Overall, annual revenue growth is projected to be in the 3-3.5% range plus the additional impacts of the re-opening of Santa Monica Place and the impact of the-new voter-approved transaction and use tax. A-3 The FY2010-11 estimated actual revenues are the starting point for revenue projections for future years. These revenues have been updated to reflect current year-to-date actual receipts. Overall, revenue adjustments in FY2010-11 reflect an increase of $7.2 million, or 2.8% more than budgeted. The major increases were from parking revenues, primarily due to attendant parking rate revisions ($3.7 million); transient occupancy taxes ($2.7 million); the one quarter of the new transaction-and use taxes (Measure Y) ($2.2 million); and other taxes ($1.2 million). The parking revenues from increased rates will be set aside to finance parking improvements in the downtown. The forecast also assumes that one half of the transaction and use tax will be allocated to the Schools. Revenue increases are partially offset by less than anticipated utility users taxes (-$0.9 million); investment income (-$0.6 million); sales taxes (-$0.4 million); and business license taxes (-$0.3 million). Details of the revenue changes are presented in the Mid- Year 2011-12 staff report, presented to Council on February 8, 2011. Future years' revenue growth is based on a variety of factors, depending upon the revenue source. The major General Fund tax revenue sources are projected for the Baseline scenario as follows: • Utility Users Tax -Revenues derived from natural gas are projected to grow 3% annually. Cable television services forecast a stable. growth factor of 3.5% during the. forecast period based on historical averages. The telephone portion is decreased. at 3.5% per year, reflecting decreases in hardwire and wireless services. Taxes from electric utilities are driven by Southern California Edison (SCE) rates and reflect increases ranging from 1.1% to 4.4% annually. Taxes derived from the sale of water and wastewater are forecast to mirror the rate increases passed. by City Council. The results are the following growth in overall UUT revenues: FY2011-12 - 0.2%, FY2012-13 - 1.3%, FY2013-14 - 0.7%, FY2014-15 - 1.2%, and FY2015-16 - 2%. • Sales Tax -Revenues are expected to increase by 6.6% percent in FY2011-12, which includes the reopening of Santa Monica Place. Growth for FY2012-13 and beyond is projected- to be approximately 3.4% annually. These rates of growth are slightly below long. term historical averages. • Transaction and Use Tax -This is a new source of revenue generated as a result of new one-half cent tax approved by voters in November 2010 (Measure Y). The tax. is generally assessed like the sales tax, with the most notable exceptions being autos and durable goods. The tax will be assessed only on autos that are registered in Santa Monica. Certain items, such as appliances, purchased in Santa Monica for delivery outside the City will not be assessed the tax, but if those items are delivered to an address in Santa Monica the tax will apply. One quarter's taxes are anticipated in FY2010-11 ($2.2 million). Approximately $11.4 million is expected in the FY2011-12, the first full year of implementation. Throughout the remainder of the forecast period, revenues are expected to increase at a rate commensurate with sales tax growth. It is also anticipated that one-half of these revenues will be passed on to the Santa A-4 Monica/Malibu Unified School District to support school, educational, and afterschool programs. • Property Tax -The forecast assumes that the significant slump in the housing and commercial real estate markets will continue to affect Santa Monica. The State recently announced that the annual Prop 13 adjustment in assessed valuation, usually 2%, will be slightly negative (.75%). This is the second year in a row where the adjustment will be negative and these two years mark the first negative adjustments since Prop 13 was enacted: Although the housing market is expected to begin recovery, the commercial real estate market is weakening as office vacancy rates are increasing. Based on this environment, it is anticipated that FY2011-12 assessed value in Santa Monica will grow 1% ih FY2011-12 after dropping ih FY2010-11. The growth rates for the remainder of the forecast are expected to increase gradually until reaching 4% in FY2015-16, which is still well below growth rates in the years preceding the recession. Revenues from unsecured property taxes are projected to remain flat- over the forecast period, while delinquent taxes, are expected to return to typical levels after three years of above normal receipts. Statutory pass-throughs from the Redevelopment Agency are projected to grow at a rate commensurate with tax increment growth in the Earthquake Redevelopment Recovery Project Area, and Public Safety Augmentation Funds (Prop 172) are projected to grow at a rate essentially equal to the increases in sales taxes. • Business License Tax -the slow economy experienced over the last several years is expected to continue to impact business license revenues. FY2011-12 revenues (which will be based on calendar year 2010 gross receipts) is expected to be flat with FY2010-11 levels with the exception of a small increase generated by the reopening of Santa- Monica Place. The full year impact of Santa Monica Place will be realized in FY2012-13 when revenues are projected to increase by 4.2%. Revenues for the remainder of the forecast period are expected to resume growth rates slightly lower than historical trends. Transient Occupancy Tax -Tourism has rebounded strongly in Santa Monica in 2011 increasing both occupancy and room rental rates. While occupancy rates are expected to level off at the current high levels (80-85% range), rates are expected to continue to increase after falling sharply in FY 2008-09 and FY2009- 10. Additionally, two properties that were closed and demolished will open as a new facility some time in FY2011-12. Based on this and information provided by PKF Consulting and the Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau, revenues are projected to increase by 8.2% in FY2011-12; 6.2% in FY2012-13; 4.5% in FY 2013-14, and 4% annually for the last two years of the forecast. Revenues can be affected by certain geo-political events as well as world economic conditions and an increase in the number of luxury hotel rooms in the local area. The baseline scenario does not include the impact of any new hotels or hotel remodels other than the one mentioned above. Based on the above, the General Fund revenues grow from $258.8 million in this fiscal year to $310.7 million in the fifth year of the projection (FY2015-16). The chart below A-5 shows growth in total revenues available for operations and capital in the General Fund by year. Other sources of funds, such as the use of designations, are not included. General Fund Revenues Baseline Scenario c 0 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 All Other Fees/Charges ~ OtherTaxes sTransientOccupancy Tax Business License Tax <_ Property Tax ~ Sales, Transaction and Use Tax ® Utility Users Tax The Five Year Financial Forecast also provides two alternative revenue scenarios for Santa Monica. These scenarios include a "Worst Case" alternative that shows slower revenue growth than the Baseline and the "Best Case" scenarios that reflect higher revenues. Further detail on the difference between the Baseline and Worst Case alternatives are detailed below: Worst Case • Property Tax - Assumes a significant impact of the commercial real estate slump and lingering impacts of the housing downturn on-Santa Monica. This scenario assumes annual property .tax growth rates will be flat in the first year of the forecast, and then grow only 1.5% in FY2012-13 and 2% annually thereafter. • Utility Users Tax - Assumes a faster erosion of telephone and cable service revenues as more of these services are accessed through Internet access, which is non-taxable. • Sales Tax/Transaction and Use Tax -Assumes that revenues from Santa Monica Place will be 75% of the baseline projection. In addition, growth rates used for major tax categories such as vehicle sales and general consumer goods are about 0.5% less than those used for the baseline scenario. Except for the re- opening of Santa Monica Place, this scenario assumes FY2010-11 taxes will be flat with FY2009-10 levels. • Transient Occupancy Tax -This scenario assumes that the major impact of the recovery in tourism was realized in late in the last half of FY2009-10 and in A-6 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 Fiscal Year FY2010-11. For the forecast period, revenues are projected to increase 3.5 - 4% annually based on rate changes. • Business License Tax -Forecast assumes that revenues will increase annually at about one-half the historical average rate (2.7%). In addition, lower sales from Santa Monica Place are built in. Should all the pessimistic assumptions occur, the total loss of revenue over the forecast period would be $22.4 million. Best Case The Best Case Scenario assumes that economic recovery in Santa Monica will be stronger. .Further detail on the difference between the Baseline and Best Case alternatives are detailed below: • Sales/Transaction and Use Tax -Projections assume an additional 10% in revenues from Santa Monica Place,. in addition to what is assumed in the baseline forecast. This scenario also assumes that annual growth rates in most other tax categories will be 0.5% greater that baseline forecast assumptions Property Taxes -The scenario assumes that the growth rate in assessed valuation will be 2% in FY2011-12 and 1% greater than the baseline forecast until the last year of the forecast. • Transient Occupancy Taxes -Assumes higher rate increases (8% and 5% respectively) in the first two years of the forecast. Growth rates in the final three years of this scenario are essentially the same as in the baseline forecast. The forecast does not include the impact of two new hotels that are currently in the predevelopment process as the timing of development is unlikely to occur during the forecast period. Business License Taxes -For this scenario, growth rates in FY2011-12 and FY2012-13 are essentially the same as for the baseline scenario. For the last three years of the forecast. period, growth rates reflect long term historical averages and are nearly double that of the baseline scenario (5.4%). These modifications increase General Fund revenues approximately $16.6 million over the forecast period. EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS Baseline Scenario The baseline scenario projects that operating expenditures will increase 4-4.7% in most years with a 6.3% increase in FY2012-13 due to a sharp increase in CaIPERS rates and continued high health insurance .rate increases. Labor costs, including associated fringe benefits, comprise 76% of the FY2010-11 General Fund operating budget city- wide. As noted earlier, the General Fund retirement costs are projected to increase by A-7 $18.2 million, or 67% between FY2010-11 and FY2015-16. The projected increases in operating costs outpace revenue growth leading to a structural imbalance beginning in FY2012-13. Growth in Health Insurance and CaIPERS Rates Annual Total Costs ur $50 c $45 ~ $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 zs i zor is i 10% 5% 0% -< Health Insurance g PERS unn Health Insuwnce CaIPERS ~Reven ue Growih FY2077-72 FY20t2-43 FY2073t4 FV20t4t5 FY20t5-16 1 Revenue growth rate is net of parking revenues designated to finance parking improvements and't/2 of Measure Y revenues expected to be passed on to the Schools. A-8 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Percentage Growth vs. Revenue Growths Expenditure Scenario Assumptions The assumptions used for expenditures in the various scenarios are detailed in the following paragraphs. Salaries and wages are escalated each year by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the local area, and a 1% factor to account for applicable annual step increases. Based on this, the baseline forecast assumes that salaries escalate at 2.25% in FY2011-12; 3.5% in FY2012-13 and FY 2013-14; and 4% for the remaining two years of the forecast. The Worst Case scenario assumes higher escalation factors in all years of the forecast. The Best Case assumes no escalation factors in the first two years of the forecast and then CPI equal to the baseline forecast in the remaining years. Actual increases will vary depending on the outcome of labor negotiations. Other expenditure assumptions in the forecasts include: • Medical insurance costs -Baseline and Worst case assumptions assume a 5.5% increase in FY2011-12 and a 12% annual increase thereafter. -The Baseline assumes that the employee share will remain at the current rate of 5% of medical premium costs while the Worst Case assumes those reimbursements will terminate. The Best Case scenario assumes medical premium costs will only increase 8% per year and the employee reimbursement share will remain at the current level. Retirement costs -Reflect actuarial projections over the forecast period. The Baseline and Worst case scenarios assume CaIPERS will lower its annual investment target assumption from 7.75% to 7.5%. The Best Case assumes the 7.75% target rate will be maintained. The retirement benefits CaIPERS pays are funded through annual contributions from member agencies. Historically, CaIPERS' investment earnings have paid 64 cents to 75 cents of every pension dollar: The impact of both the investment losses and the lower expected investment earnings rate going forward will significantly increase member contribution rates. In general, supplies and expenses are projected to increase at CPI rates of 1.25% in FY2011-12; 2.5% in FY2012-13 and FY 2013-14; and 3% thereafter. • Capital Improvement expenditures are primarily flat with FY2010-11 levels of $13.3 million. The projects are expected to be limited to ongoing maintenance of infrastructure. • The forecast assumes subsidies or loans at some point during the during the forecast period to the Pier, Civic, Beach, Airport, and Civic funds. The annual subsidies are projected to range from $4.2 million to nearly $8.0 million. Further details byfund are provided below. • The forecast assumes that the new Pico Library will be in full operation in FY2013-14, with annual operating costs of $1.2 million and additional one-time costs of $1.5 million for materials and the purchase of computer equipment in the opening year. A-9 NON-SUBSIDIZED ENTERPRISE FUNDS Resource Recovery & Recycling The City entered into apublic/private partnership for transfer and recycling services in November 2008. The Five-Year Forecast for Resource Recovery and Recycling assumes status quo operations under the current partnership agreement with a new Resource Recovery and Recycling center opening in late FY2013-14. Applying current baseline assumptions, the Five-Year Financial Forecast for the Resource Recovery and Recycling Fund shows operating revenues are sufficient to cover current operations but the Fund has a negative fund balance currently and for all years of the forecast period as a result of the $32.0 million capital expenditure for the new Resource Recovery and Recycling center. Staff is currently exploring contract changes that would reduce the cost of these partnership agreements. Even so, a rate increase will likely be required. Staff will return to Council at a later date when the proposal is finalized. Water Fund The Five-Year Financial Forecast includes the rate increases approved by Council on July 8, 2008. The forecast for the Water Fund shows that the Water Fund will be self- sufficient for the forecast period. The Fund maintains an operating reserve of 25% of its operating budget, a capital reserve of 50% of its capital budget, and a $1.0 million rate stabilization reserve. The fund is projected to maintain a positive balance in each year, ending Year 5 with an estimated fund balance of $20.6 million. Wastewater Fund The Five-Year Financial Forecast is prepared with the rate increases approved by Council on July 8, 2008. The forecast for the Wastewater Fund shows that the Wastewater Fund will be self-sufficient for the forecast period. The Fund maintains an operating reserve of 25% of its operating budget, a capital reserve of 50% of its capital budget, and a $2.0 million rate stabilization reserve. A capital reserve for capital costs relating to the. Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated. by the City of Los Angeles, is maintained at 16.7% of its capital budget. The fund is projected to maintain a positive balance in each year, ending Year 5 with an estimated fund balance of $g.8 million. SUBSIDIZED NON-GENERAL FUNDS OR FUNDS WITH STRUCTURAL DEFICITS Airport Fund Applying current baseline assumptions, the Five-Year Financial Forecast for the Airport Fund, including the Special Aviation Fund, shows that the Airport Fund will not be self- sufficient starting in FY2012-13 as expenditures exceed revenue projections. Revenue projections are conservative for the forecast period due to a decline in aircraft operations and vacancies of rental properties. Irrespective of the Airport's operational A-10 future, in FY2015-16 the Airport's rental lease contracts are open for renewal and leases should be increased to market rates, increasing revenues by approximately $10.0 million beginning in FY2015-16. In FY2016-17, with available fund balance; the fund will begin repaying its General Fund loans totaling $10.0 million. Operating expenditure increases are based on projected baseline assumptions. Projected Capital Improvement Program expenditures during the forecast period of FY2011-12 to FY2015-16 include the basic fleet, computer, and telecommunication expenditures for every year. Capital Improvement Program funds are also planned to be programmed for Airport Paving/Rehabilitation, Runway/TaxiwaylParking Lot Slurry Seal, South Side Improvement Project, and Security Enhancement Project expenditures during the forecast period. The fund maintains no operating or capital reserves for unknown needs. Beach and Beach House Fund The five-year forecast indicates that annual Beach Fund operating revenues will contiriue to exceed annual operating expenditures that support the overall operation and maintenance of Santa Monica State Beach. Beach parking revenue is the single largest Beach revenue source, and while it is weather dependent, it is projected to grow by 2 percent based on the average growth in the last three years. Beach parking revenue projections also include a proposed parking rate increase in FY2013-14. The related Beach House Fund supports the Annenberg Community Beach House that began operations in FY2009-10. This fund continues to generate revenue from user fees, parking, concessions and private events to partially subsidize its operations with the remainder funded from the Beach Fund. This model was put in place during the planning process for the facility a number of years ago. At mid-year in FY2009-10, the Beach House private event revenue projections were adjusted downward due to the industry-wide downturn in corporate event activity thus increasing the initially projected subsidy. The adjusted Beach House revenue projections are being met and are assumed as a baseline projection in the forecast. No expenditure increases are projected beyond general cost-of-living increases. Based on these assumptions, the Beach House will require an annual subsidy from the Beach Fund ranging from $2.4 - $2.9 million during the forecast period. Community and Cultural Services staff continues to work to examine expenditures and the business model for event rentals to identify options for addressing the amount of subsidy required over the long term. Considering the required subsidy for the Beach House, the Beach Fund will require a General Fund subsidy of approximately $1.0 million beginning. in FY2013-14, growing to $2.4 million in FY2015-16. While the- Beach and Beach House are special revenue funds, the General Fund is assumed to subsidize these funds in the Five-Year Forecast. Big Blue Bus Forecasting for the Big Blue Bus (BBB) provides unique challenges, since a majority of the Bus' funding is not controlled by the City,. but is provided by Los Angeles County A-11 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in the form of grant subsidy funds per a formula share allocation. Annual allocations of funds not spent in the year of allocation are available up to two years later for use by the transit system. The majority of the subsidies available to the Big Blue Bus, including Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, and Proposition A and Proposition C funds are based on sales taxes collected in the County of Los Angeles, and are influenced by the same economic factors that affect these revenues. For the purposes of this forecast, these subsidy funds are increased slightly based on Metro forecasts and Big Blue Bus staff assessments. Applying current baseline assumptions, the Five-Year Financial. Forecast for the Big Blue Bus Fund shows that the BBB Fund has an operating structural deficit as revenues are not sufficient to cover current operations. The BBB has an operating deficit of $1.8 million in FY2010-11 growing to $11.1 million in FY2015-16. The BBB is able to close this operating structural deficit in the first three years of the forecast period by using one-time funds. However, without additional one-time funds, additional revenue. sources or cost reductions, the BBB fund is unbalanced beginning in FY2014-15., Potential new revenue sources include the extension of the federal alternative fuel tax credit, a transit-oriented development program, and implementation of digital advertisements, estimated to generate $2.0 million to $6.0 million annually is the sale of digital advertisement signs. BBB is currently working on the barriers that currently prohibit a digital ad program and will continue to actively pursue this additional revenue source. The forecast also does not assume any fare increases during the forecast period. Cemetery Fund The forecast reflects the continued implementation of the Cemetery Business Plan, which was adopted by Council in April 2009 for implementation in FY2009-10. -The Business Plan was developed to address various issues, including three financial goals: to achieve fiscally sustainable cemetery operations, to repay General Fund loans, and to increase the Cemetery and Mausoleum Perpetual Care Fund to a level that can sustain Cemetery operations in perpetuity. The forecast reflects the full implementation of the Cemetery Business Plan with inventory development, .removal of residency requirements, enhanced advertising and promotional programs, and the adoption of a new fee schedule. The forecast also includes the implementation of mortuary services. The Mortuary originally projected to be operational by July 2010 is still under construction and is now projected to open in the late spring of 2011. Applying current baseline assumptions, the Five-Year Financial Forecast for the Cemetery Fund shows that it will not be self-sufficient during the forecast period as expenditures exceed revenue projections. The Cemetery Fund will require a General Fund subsidy of approximately $1.4 million in FY2010-11 and an annual subsidy ranging from $670,000 in FY2011-12 to approximately $50,000 in FY2015-16. The Cemetery's Five-Year Forecast does not include any scheduled repayment of previous A-12 -loans totaling $4.5 million. Revenue projections are conservative for the forecast period due to unknown levels of business that will be generated by the. mortuary and the current economic downturn. Operating expenditure increases are based on projected baseline assumptions. Projected Capital Improvement Program expenditures during the forecast period of FY2011-12 to FY2015-16 include only the basic fleet, computer, and telecommunication expenditures for every year. The fund maintains no operating or capital reserves for unknown needs. Civic Auditorium The City is currently in negotiations with the Nederlander Organization to partner with the City in operating a remodeled Civic Auditorium. The Civic Auditorium Five-Year Financial Forecast assumes the Civic Auditorium will be closed during FY2012-13 and FY2013-14 for renovations. Non-event parking related revenues and expenditures have been transferred to Parking Operations in the General Fund. During the closure period operating expenditure reductions resulting from the closure have been included in the forecast. The Civic Auditorium Fund requires a General Fund subsidy of $0.9 million in FY2010-11 and up to an annual subsidy of $2.2 million during the forecast period. Any additional adjustments based on negotiation outcomes will be made to future financial updates. Pier Fund Based on the Forecast the Pier Fund will require annual subsidies from the General Fund in all fiscal years of the Forecast ranging from $1.4 million to $3.8 million. Only a small ($0.1 million) subsidy is required in FY2010-11 due to a one-time payment of $1.6 million related to reassignment of the Pacific Park (ease. The primary drivers for future subsidies are necessary capital improvements. However, an annual operating subsidy ranging from $0.7 million to $1.2 million is also required. Capital Improvement Projects include Newcomb Deck Infrastructure of $5.8 million, $0.7 million for Pier Infrastructure Improvements; Lighting Upgrades of $1.0 million; Urban Design Elements of $1.2 million; Pier Master Plan $0.5 million, and Pier Stairs and Ramp Improvements of $0.2 million. CIPs in the forecast period also include the basic fleet, computer; and telecommunication expenditures. These projects address maintenance of public facilities and potential health and safety concerns, the potential for deriving new revenues, and aesthetic improvements that will preserve the character of the Pier while also drawing and retaining residents and visitors to this world-famous venue. Redevelopment Governor Brown's proposed State of California budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 proposed elimination of redevelopment .agencies. Many of the future public.. improvements in Santa Monica that have involved extensive community participation and anticipation are planned to be financed by funds from the Santa Monica A-13 Redevelopment Agency. The improvements include Palisades Garden Walk Park, the Pico Neighborhood Library, joint use recreational improvements at Santa Monica High School, the Civic Center early childhood education center, renovation of the Civic Auditorium, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to the Exposition Light Rail stations. In addition, the majority of funding for affordable housing in Santa Monica comes from the Redevelopment Agency. In the absence of redevelopment funding, most, if not all, of these projects would be difficult, if not impossible, to complete. Community expectations following many years of planning and design would be unmet. In addition, Santa Monica's ability to meet its affordable housing policy goals, as well as regional housing requirements and the requirements of voter-approved Proposition R, would be severely compromised. The City and Agency entered into a cooperation agreement in Au4ust 2010 that obligates the Redevelopment Agency to make payments to the City to implement the planned projects and affordable housing. As the Governor's budget proposal makes provisions for the payment of existing debt obligations, supplemented by constitutional protections for existing contractual obligations, staff believes the planned projects in Santa Monica are protected from the Governor's actions. However, given the severity of the state's budget crisis, it is possible that the state might challenge some contractual obligations in order to appropriate more redevelopment money for state purposes. The forecast also includes the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area's repayment of a $20 million loan obligation to the General Fund over 16 years, as detailed in Amendments to Promissory Notes #1 and #6 executed by the direction of the Redevelopment Agency on January 17, 2011. The repayment of this debt obligation by the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area is consistent with the Agency's November 16, 1999 directive and the Redevelopment Agency's existing Five-Year Implementation Plarr, which noted that all funds net of the affordable housing set aside and debt obligations in this project area would be allocated to affordable housing. The Five-Year Implementation Plan will be updated at its mid-term review in 2012 to reflect the decreased funding for affordable housing. A-14 ATTACHMENT B "Can We Talk Meetings" During November and December 2010 the City of Santa Monica conducted a series. of community meetings designed to engage the public in dialogue with City staff to share ideas, get an update on projects, and talk about the local economy. Six community meetings were held between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. in locations throughout the City: 205 community members signed-in during the meetings November 8 Ocean Park Neighborhood held at SMASH/John Muir School (55) November 15 Wilshire Montana Neighborhood held at Ken Edwards Center (18) November 17 Pico Neighborhood held at Virginia Avenue Park (26) November 30 Sunset Park Neighborhood held at Grant Elementary School (60) December 2 North of Montana Neighborhood held at Montana Branch Library (18) December 6 Mid-City Neighbors held at McKinley Elementary School (28)' Four common themes emerged; which are reflected as proposed FY2011-13 Emerging Issues. • Mobility/Connectivity -enhanced bicycle and pedestrian safety and education, improved traffic flow, improved parking, and additional bicycle infrastructure • Livable Neighborhoods -improved neighborhood beauty; decreased noise and air pollution, increased and improved bicycle amenities, and increased communication and outreach to residents • Public Safety and Violence Prevention - providing positive alternatives for youth, increased gang prevention, better enforcement of traffic and bicycle laws, and increased crime prevention measures • Youth Services -prioritize childcare to working poor and expand early childhood programs and services Meeting notes from Community Budget Meeting with Ocean Park Association held at John Muir Elementary School on November 8, 2010 Public Safety • Concern about recent shootings and gang violence, specifically on the Santa Monica / Venice border • Request for better lighting on 7a' Street • Concern about destructive element that follows when homeless population go to neighborhoods for uncollected household recyclables B-1 Bike Lane Infrastructure and SaFety Concerns • Request for increased education directed at bicyclists who use sidewalks to ride bikes, increased enforcement against violators, and changing violations from misdemeanors to tickets • Request for increase in dedicated bicycle infrastructure to ensure bicycle trip completion • Request for bike lane on Lincoln Boulevard when ownership shifts from State to City Buses/T'ransportation Concerns • ' Due to the narrowness of Hill Street, can that portion of Line 2 use electric buses, smaller buses, or be realigned to Main Street where the street is wider? • Are the two stops at the top of Hill St at 4a' Street necessary considering the number of passengers that get on and off there? Quality of Life • Inquiry regarding how the new Sales Tax Revenue will be spent • Considering the recent defeat of Malibu's Measure A Parcel Tax and the recent passing of Measure Y passing, will Malibu be paying thew fair share towards SMMUSD? • Request for additional after school programming • Request for additional enforcement of the smoking ban on Main Street, 3`d Street Promenade, and at ATM machines and bus stops • Request for additional enforcement and zero tolerance for smoking on the beach • Budget money for debris collection in Borderline Neighborhood alleys and a semi- annually sweep up of leaves in alleys Community Infrastructure • Beach interim restrooms are unpleasant and inconvenient during construction • $4.2 million for beach restrooms is expensive to justify in this economy • More notice should be provided to residents for sewer lateral replacements; residents should be included in negotiations with contractors for the portion residents are responsible to pay for • Sidewalk on the south side of Ocean Park Boulevard between Neilson Way and Main Street are very restrictive; fire hydrants, power poles, TV and phone vaults create big obstacles for pedestrians and are too congested, specifically during the Farmers Market on Sunday The Economy • Inquiry about recent auto dealership sales revenue activity and consistency • Catering issues prevent the Beach House from achieving its full potential revenue stream; encourage events that allow catering trucks Sustainability and the Environment e Request to sell the City's discarded hybrid vehicles to local people at a discounted price to encourage more people to use them and make them more affordable • The City has not provided an easy way to collect recyclables; request for more enforcement and organized efforts to get household recyclables off the street B-2 Additional Items • What is the future of Community Corp upon the current executive director's departure? • Concern over the City's long term pension obligations • Concern over the increased commercialization ofpub&c space in Santa Monica • Concern over homeless support services losing its venue during the Civic Auditorium construction • Residents request to be involved in decisions that affect their neighborhoods (zoning, Big Blue Bus routes, etc.) and suggest outreach prior to the community meetings Meeting notes from Community Budget Meeting with Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition held at Ken Edwards Center on November 15, 2010 Community Safety • When will more Emergency Preparedness programs be available? Bike Lane Infrastructure and Safety Concerns • More education should be directed at bicyclists who use sidewalks or roadways incorrectly • Santa Monica Police should be on bikes as an example • More helmet safety should available for bicyclists Buses/Transportation Concerns • Request for the Big Blue Bus stop currently at a midblock location between Wilshire and Arizona to be moved back to the original location on 4th Street near Wilshire Boulevard (in front of the Santa Monica Women's Club) Youth Services • Continue to prioritize childcare and the working poor Quality of Life • Consider a dog park in Wilshire-Montana neighborhood, possibly from revenue generated from an increased effort to enforce the dog license fee • Concem about amount of illegal dumping in alleys Development • Does the City track the additional revenue and expenditures that result from developer agreements and large developments? Sustainability and the Environment • Santa Monica's recycling program is not as advanced as other cities • Request for landscaping bins for multi-family dwellings B-3 Additional Concerns • How many employees does the City have and is everyone eligible for a pension? • Does the number of liquor licenses and bars correspond to the Police budget? Meeting notes from Community Budget Meeting with Pico Neighborhood Association held at Virginia Avenue Park on November 17, 2010 Public Safety • More patrols are needed in the neighborhood for prevention, not only to fight crime • More enforcement against aggressive drivers in vehicles to decrease the high number of accidents to both pedestrians and bicycle riders • Mountain View Mobile Home Park often has street lights that are out Bike Lane Infrastructure and Safety Concerns • The City needs to increase the number and quality of bike storage facilities to discourage theft and encourage bike riding as a mode of transportation • More funding for bike lanes and safety education • Bicycle safety education should be targeted in areas where there are bike racks • Bicyclists do not obey the laws of the road • Bike lanes needed on Olympic and Colorado, east and west bike lanes need to be marked Buses/Transportation Concerns • Santa Monica College students should be given free ridership on buses Transportation Management -Traffic • Stewart Street at Olympic Boulevard has one lane for southbound traffic while two lanes tum left, causing congestion Youth Services • Increase funds to early childcare services focusing on age 0-5 • More programs and services for 0-5 year olds available at Virginia Avenue Park • Continue to prioritize the youth task force and youth violence prevention • Implement a strategic plan to develop the skills to study and team beginning at the toddler years; this plan should stress preparation of youth for college • Can Measure Y revenue be used to fund eazly childhood education classes and other programs that have been cut at Mazine Park due to budget reductions? • The City should seek out new public-private partnerships for early childhood education such as the Growing Place Quality of Life • Make the Urban Forest Task Force a budget priority to ensure tree management, maintenance, and planning • Resource Recovery Center is too loud at 3:00 - 4:00 a.m. B-4 Resource Recovery Center has an odor and generates dust that blows onto Stewart Park The City should address the lack ofmulti-family low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente Boulevard; a moratorium should be placed on low income housing in the Pico Neighborhood until 500 units ofmulti-family (not SRO or elderly) housing has been developed between Wilshire and San Vicente The basketball courts at Stewart Park should have lights Community Infrastructure • When will CalTrans build the remaining part of the sound wall on the south side of the 10 freeway? • How big will the Expo buffer be, how much will it cost the City and what will be the City's role in the design? What will the impact be on the area? • What will be the impact of changes to the Transfer Station project on the area? Pico Library • The Pico Branch Library should hire teachers and monitors rather than librarians to interact with area youth Addifional Items • Neighborhood conservation applications should be relocated to Landmarks Commission to avoid conflict of interest with the City • The City model should be to hire locally for City projects • The City should ensure that all the development happening in the Pico Neighborhood results in jobs to that community (ie not high-tech jobs) • How does the City benefit from federal stimulus money for green industry? Meeting notes from Community Budget Meeting with Friends of Sunset Park held at Grant Elementary School on November 30, 2010 Santa Monica Airport • Concerns over the options that will be available to the City when the agreement expires with the FAA in 2015 • -The Airport is considered a recreational airport but does not have recreational hours • Request for the City to close the airport in 2015 • Air quality and noise are horrific for residents • Request to eliminate flight schools, limit take offs and landings, eliminate seeing aircraft • Concerns about the safety of the FAA's proposal to install an EMAS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) to stop planes that overshoot the runway • Suggest that the Airport start operations''/z hour later and close %z hour earlier each day Public Safety • Concerns that the Expo Station at 17a' Street and Colorado Boulevard will impact crime in that neighborhood B-5 Bike Lane Infrastructure and Safety Concerns • Increase bike safety education, particularly for bicycle riders who use sidewalks • Increase bike mobility as a way to decrease crime, obesity and traffic congestion • The City should collaborate with schools to educate students on safe biking to school • One side of each school should include a "bike drop off only" Buses/Transportation Concerns • Residents should get incentives to encourage Big Blue Bus ridership similar to the free ridership given to Santa Monica College students • Suggest slowing down the Big Blue Bus' Route #8 • Information Item related to the restriping pilot project on Ocean Park Boulevard should be better publicized • Santa Monica College has too much access Youth Services The City should seek out more grants for early childhood education at places such as The Growing Place Quality of Life • The City should plant trees with healing qualities around hospitals and schools Development • The recent water rate hikes to Santa Monica residents are due to a water shortage caused by increased development Customer Service • Coordinate street cleaning day so that it occurs after trash pick-up day • Street pressure washers run at 9:00 a.m. when the sidewalks are filled with pedestrians • Improve Pico Boulevard curb and sidewalk washing; residents who clean their sidewalks are ticketed • Consider picking up trash more o$en in the alleys between 2"a and 3`d Streets so the trash does not smell • Request for City owned restrooms to be open later in the evening Additional Items • Continue funding for digitization of the Library's Santa Monica Evening Outlook database of digitized back issues • When will the City be able to provide citywide wireless? • Can the MTBE settlement be used to lower water rates to Santa Monica residents? • Identify and prioritize the services which are essential to residents versus essential to employers or visitors B-6 Friends of Sunset Park Association's Priorities Identified in Writing or E-mail Correspondence Land Use & Circulation Protect Sunset Park from cut-through traffic generated by large development projects. The LUCE shows traffic congestion increasing between now and 2030 on Lincoln Blvd. and the Cloverfield/23rd corridor. These are the only "through" north-south streets in Sunset Park. FOSP opposes large development projects in Santa Monica that will result in increased cut-through traffic in our neighborhood, including development agreements in the former LMSD, the Special Office District, and the hospital district, and the continued expansion of Santa Monica College. The City's concern about significant traffic impacts from the proposed 1.3 million sq ft Bundy Village and Medical Park seems in contrast to the approval of the 1 million sq ft Bergamot Transit Village Center, which would also impact Sunset Park and other residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica. Hold a public hearing related to the re-striping of Ocean Park Blvd. and release relevant data. This 6-month pilot project included re-striping Ocean Park Blvd. from Lincoln to 25a'. This project began in December 2007 and was made permanent with no public hearing despite promises from city staff. Results of the resident survey and data concerning daily traffic counts and traffic accidents on the nearest parallel streets (Pearl and Oak) were never made available to FOSP. Rather than another community meeting, a City Council Information Item that is posted online would allow residents to see trade- offs and communicate their opinions to Council. Without an Info Item, the term "pilot project" may have been used as a ruse to lull residents into going along with the project without going through the proper channels. Along with the traffic signal synchronization program, could LADOT be persuaded to adjust the traffic sign at OPB/GatewayBundy so more eastbound cars could turn south on Bundy per signal in the afternoon.- That would greatly reduce the afternoon OPB congestion, especially the commuter traffic generated by Santa Monica Business Park on OPB between 27th and Centinela. Route Santa Monica College vehicular traffic from the 500-space parking structure under the new Student Services/Administration Building (currently under construction) onto Pico Blvd. rather than alleys and narrow residential streets. Do not allow SMC to use alleys behind and next to homes (20th Court and Pico Court), as well as the driveway entrance on Pearl St. just west of 20th, for vehicular access. SMC-generated traffic already impacts 20th St. (25,427 daily car trips) and Pearl St. (4,178 daily car trips). The intersection of 20th & Pearl is one of only a handful ofnon-signalized intersections in Santa Monica that already has an "F" Level-of-Service rating. SMPD counts show 130 JAMS students crossing that intersection daily. 500 new parking spaces could generate another 3,000 daily car trips. FOSP does not have an exact estimate because SMC never did a traffic analysis for this new parking structure. Work with SMC officials to mitigate trafTc impacts from its 2010 Master Plan Update. The Final EIR included the following: a. a net increase of 5,678 daily weekday car trips, b. 36 intersections with "significant and unavoidable impact," and c. T3 street segments with "significant and unavoidable impacts" (including Pearl St., B-7 14th, 16th, 20th, and 23rd). Meanwhile, SMC officials budgeted $681,700 in July 2009 on advertising to recruit additional students from out-of--town and around the world. The Master Plan Final EIR showed 34,288 students enrolled in 2010, up from 29,771 students in 2005. The "significant" traffic impacts caused by this continual growth in enrollment are unacceptable to Sunset Park residents. City staff's recent suggestion to install parking meters in front of homes on 20th St. would merely cause more misery for residents. FOSP is curious if the City is planning to install parking meters in front of homes in the Wilmont neighborhood. Monitor the SMC 2010 Master Plan Update demolition and construction projects. The plan includes demolishing the 3-story cement Corsair Stadium on 16th St. (across the street from homes) and the following facilities on or near Pearl St. (across the street from John Adams Middle School): the Liberal Arts building, the Letters and Sciences building, the Math Complex, the Library Village, the P.E. building, and the ESL building. These demolition/constmction projects will result in huge amounts of landfill waste, concrete dust and other air pollutants, possible asbestos removal, noise and vibrations from up to 50 diesel haul trucks per day on Pearl St. and 16th St. (currently posted "No trucks over 3 tons"), and other short-term construction and long-term operational air quality impacts. The SCAQMD June 2010 comment on the DEIR stated that "AQMD staff is concerned that the lead agency [SMC] failed to quantify localized air quality impacts from oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions during project construction and operation." Much of the demolition and diesel truck traffic will occur very close to the outdoor playground at the John Adams Child Development Center/Head StartJCalifomia State Pre-school Program at 2320 17th St. (just south of Pearl St.) and according to college documents, Corsair Stadium includes more than 600 feet of street frontage along 16th St. and more than 200 feet of street frontage along Pearl St. Residents along 16th St. whose homes suffered structural damage during the construction of the Swim Center are rightly concerned about possible damage that may result from the demolition and replacement of the much larger stadium structure. Regarding noise, college documents state that construction activities that exceed 80 decibels will occur between 10 AM and 3 PM --perfect timing for students at John Adams Middle School, particularly those who take classes in the music building at Pearl and 17th. Residents are counting on the city to monitor 2010 Master Plan Update construction activity, as SMC continues to replace every single structure on the Main Campus. When the Planning Department publishes notices of public hearings and community meetings in local newspapers, we request that those notices also be (a) emailed to all city- recognized neighborhood organizations (a development project in one neighborhood may also affect adjacent neighborhoods), and (b) posted on the city web site. Also the City should review notification requirements, public process requirements, and exemptions as the zoning ordinances are updated. The City should not approve changes to the neighborhood without adequate notification of residents or adequate public process, such as approving CUP's to serve alcohol in restaurants, approving small and large child care businesses in Rl zones, approving affordable housing projects of up to 50 units, and adding bus lines on narrow residential streets. During the LUCE update process, residents were told that 94% of the city would be protected and preserved. To protect neighborhoods, the City should develop strategies B-8 that express community values regarding mass and lot coverage appropriate to the neighborhoods such as: a) Embed zoning ordinances with neighborhood characteristics b) Provide incentives or other tools to tie preservation of courtyard-style buildings to preservation of affordable rental housing, and preservation of the Village Trailer Park to preservation of affordable home ownership c) Develop voluntary options, such as design guidelines, for various styles with design details included. After the draft process review that Frances and Hal Phipps recently outlined in meetings with residents, we fear that few Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts will be created in Santa Monica. If that process does go into effect, we request that City staff with expertise in neighborhood conservation be designated to work with residents, and that the public hearings be held at the Landmarks Commission (which focuses on conservation/preservation) rather than at the Planning Commission (which focuses on development). Overdevelopment • 1000 block Pine St. -Increasing development and traffic; Losing our neighborhood • 1400 block Ashland -Overdevelopment • 1600 block Ashland -Increased development causing crowding; Airport safety • 2000 block 14th St. -Overdevelopment, traffic • 2300 block 21st St. -Overdevelopment and heavy traffic • 2400 block 23rd St. -Development and traffic; Parking; Pedestrian safety • 3000 block Margaret Lane -Overdevelopment (traffic); Airport safety; Crime and safety; Santa Monica College's continuing expansion • The overdevelopment and overbuilding in our city is Leading to unsustainable congestion. Many existing buildings are for lease yet the building continues. Buses/Transportation Concerns • Reduce the impact ofcollege-serving Big Blue Bus service on Sunset Park residents. In May 2007, BBB held a community meeting at Muir/SMASH about adding bus routes in Sunset Park on 20th St., 17th St., 14th St., and Pearl St. without sending postcards or flyers to residents on those streets. In August 2007, from one Crosstown bus every half hour, BBB added the "Sunset Ride" (an SMC intercampus route), the "Line 6 SMC Commuter," and the "Bundy Evening Shuttle" on 17th St. SMC routed its intercampus shuttle that serves the 11th St. Madison Site campus onto 20th and Pearl. Santa Monica residents are urged to walk and ride bicycles but Sunset Park residents who complained about the increase of buses running past and idling in front of their homes were told that if the college-serving routes didn't stop right in front of the Main Campus, neither SMC students nor staff would take the bus because they couldn't walk to the Main Campus from arterials such as Pico or Ocean Park Blvd. Residents were promised newer, quieter 30-foot buses would be used on both the Crosstown and Sunset Rides but the older 40- foot buses are still being used on the Sunset Ride as of November 2010. • There are certain lines that seem to be only for SMC students. Stops do not need to be on residential streets, turning residents' yards into bus stops (particularly 20th and Pearl). B-9 Stops can be relocated to Peazl closer to the college or onto Pico. Is there any information about how many Sunset Park residents are utilizing these routes? Santa Monica Airport • Continue pursuing implementation of the ban on Category C and D aircraft at SMO. • Continue pursuing implementation of standard Runway Safety Areas at SMO. • Continue working with other agencies to develop toxicity standards for ultrafine particles, with the goal of protecting residents impacted by jet operations at SMO. • Continue working with the city-retained aviation consultant to find an alternative to the 250-heading that was tested by the FAA from December 2009 to June 2010. • Now that the test has concluded, continue working with pilots to persuade them to follow the Golf Course Turn stipulated in the 1984 Agreement. • Consider limiting the number of flight schools at SMO due to the impact on residents of both Santa Monica and Los Angeles. • Begin a public process to discuss what will happen in 2015, when the 1984 Agreement ends. • Redirect airport resources to close down the airport when the current lease runs out. Public safety/Emergency preparedness • Continue to improve communication between the Police Department and residents, using the santamonicapd.org web site, Crime Mapping, the Neighborhood Resource Officers, the Crime Prevention Officers, the Citizen Police Academy, the Community Bulletins, and other means. • Reduce activity in alleys involving homeless people and non-residents of Santa Monica. • Continue to address pedestrian safety issues (especially around the SMC Main Campus, on 23rd St. south of Ocean Park Blvd., and at the Pico/28th/Stewart intersection). • Continue to address bicycle safety issues, including failure by some adult cyclists to adhere to traffic rules by using sidewalks on streets such as OPB that have bike lanes, by ignoring stop signs, by not wearing helmets, and by riding at night without easily-visible lights or reflectors. • Reduce delays in emailing out SMPD Community Bulletins. • Create a Community Bulletin email system for the Fire Department, or allow them to use the Police Deparhnent Community Bulletin system, in order to communicate with residents regarding Emergency Preparedness, DART training, CERT training, fire safety issues regarding Christmas trees and decorations, fireworks safety issues, etc. Public landscape • Activate the city web site for the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force, just like the other city Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces, so residents will know when and where the meetings are being held and access agendas and minutes. (This seems to be a Brown Act issue.) • Post information to help residents whose property is damaged by city trees, i.e, tree roots buckling sidewalks on private property, damaging plumbing, causing sewer back-ups, etc. B-10 Sustainability and the Environment • Continue publicizing existing and new city programs, such as the Free Community "Shred" Event. • Include in leafblower flyer instructions to gardeners that, with a muzzle velocity of 150 miles per hour, lealblowers blow dust particles, including herbicides, pesticides, and other contaminants such as fecal matter, up from the ground into the air: This is especially troubling for residents who suffer from asthma, emphysema, and allergies. • Extend the OSE department education and outreach program about the leafblower ban to the local school district and to the city-hired tree trimming companies currently trimming many blocks of ficus trees in Sunset Park. • Use the Community Bulletin system to remind residents about safe disposal practices for electronic waste, hazardous waste, and hazardous medical waste (such as syringes, which must be taken to UCLA or Hyperion for safe disposal). Human Services • Continue the new Housing First approach to assist the homeless population. Housing • Continue to publicize the availability of low income housing in the city. • Modify the Torca loan repayment policy so borrowers don't lose their homes. • Preserve the Village Trailer Park in order to preserve affordable home ownership. Public works • Replace the temporary barrier at Lincoln & Wilson Place with apermanent bamer -- arequest that has been repeated at the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Sunset Park "Can We Talk?" meetings. This is apparently a "public benefit" that was promised to residents and funded in 1992. Additional concerns • Continue and expand inclusion opportunities for persons with disabilities. • Protect children from inadvertent exposure to pornography on public library computers being used by adults. • Include in the press releases and announcements that City Department heads will attend the "Can We Talk" Community Budget Meetings and will be available to answer questions. • Council members should have to disclose when they are voting on matters that pertain to any of their election contributors. B-11 Meeting notes from Community Budget Meeting with North of Montana Association held at Montana Branch Library on December2, 2010 Public Safety • Concerns over overnight parking and people sleeping in vehicles including mobile homes Bike Lane Infrastructure and Safety Concerns • Bike sharrows should not be on dark streets • Increase in bicycle education to deal with the different views on cycling Buses/Transportation Concerns • Big Blue Bus eliminated discounts for students so kids cannot afford to take the bus Parking and Traffic Concerns • Concerns over non-resident parking congestion in Montana neighborhood • Confusion about when Montana residents have to get vehicles off streets Community Infrastructure • Concern over effect of California Incline closure and clarity of deadlines The Economy • Will the new sales tax have a negative impact on local merchants? • Concerns over City funding gap Customer Service • Reproduce the holiday parking and parking regulation information in Seascape and make it available to residents Meeting notes from Community Budget Meeting with Mid-City Neighbors held at McKinley Elementary School on December 6, 2010 Public Safety • Concern about vacant buildings in the area • Request to increase speed enforcement • Increase patrols of alleys for homeless people and illegal parking • Start DUI program that includes late night check points for Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, LEAD training from ABC for bartenders, inside checks by both SMPD and SMFD, and late night patrols of bars B-12 Land Use & Circulation • Concern about overdevelopment in neighborhood • Lack of parking continues to be a problem • Request for preferential parking in the neighborhood and to restart regular patrol to all hours of enforcement • The City should require that St. John's Medical Center start on a parking plan immediately • Trucks should be cited if parked in red zones to establish a baseline for LUCE traffic concerns for future building projects • Broad Theatre parking at SMC Madison Campus needs to improve for patrons; the neighborhood traffic plan that was promised was never started Bike Lane Infrastructure and Safety Concerns • Request for more bicycle education Humau Services • SMPD Domestic Violence Unit should network with SMMUSD and other social service groups in the City • Social Services should add a program and hold workshops for Santa Monicans for Renters Rights control board, landlords, tenants and other interested people related to "hoarders" Homelessness • Concems that the homeless hide when homeless counts are announced in the press Quality of Life • Concern about noise pollution in neighborhood; SMPD should log complaints to identify area bars that generate the noise • Concern about the sports bars in the neighborhood • Concern about late deliveries in the neighborhood Retrofitting • Soft story retrofitting needs to be completed by Building and Safety Sustainability and the Environment • Leaf blowers are. noisy and create pollution • The City should make composting servicesavailable • The City should create a recycling program for drugs Customer Service • Concern about illegal dumping in alleys • Alley trash bins and lids should always be replaced to avoid public health issues B-13 CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARKS COMMISSION BUDGET RECOMAtIEND,ATIONS FOR FISCA! YEAR 2011-2072 January 5, 2011 Honorable Mayor Bloom and Council Members, in tgday's difficult economic times, if "Flat is the view Up" as the City Manager has so eloquently stated, then the Landmarks Commission requests tha# you: 1, Maintairi the current level of Planning Staff and Preservation Consultant support to the Commission without compromise; 2. Guarantee the full allocation of dedicafed funds for completion and immediate implementation of the recently updated Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as is provided by prior Council action; 3. Implement Planning and Building Staff preservation awareness training in conjunction with the newly updated HRl and database. On behalf of my fellow Commissioners, I thank you all for.your continued support of our efforts fo safeguard the broad complement of valued cultural resources within ourgreat city and to improve the community's awareness of and apprecia#ion for this unique history that makes Santa Monica "a place like no other"! With all due regards. B-14 cnr er Santa Moalen' To: Rod Gould, City M From; Barbara Stinchfield, ~~ Julie Rusk, Manage Da#e; December 21.2010 Subject: Commissions' FY201 12 Budget Priorities Purpose of Document Submitted: Attached are letteis specifying recommended budget priorities for FY2011-2012 from the four Commissions staffed by the Human Services Division in addition to the Child Care and Early Education Task Force. The Social Services Commission also provided specific Community Development (CD} Program FY 2011-15 funding rationale recommendations based largely on its Executive Director Conversation Series (see attached report). The following highlights the major recommendations of each Commission and the Task Force: . Socia! Services Commission: CD Program funding rationale recommendations include clearly defining Santa Monica residency, ensuring City funds target those who meet that definition, reduction in duplication of services, and increased emphasis on more intensive services and on performance and affective outcomes. With respect to FY 2011-12 budget priorities, the .Commission supports con#inued funding of programs that address homelessness, youth (gang and violence prevention), special needs youth, and seniors. Commission for the Senior Community: Prioritizes expanded funding for affordable housing and- home accommodations for seniors and people with disabilities, Dial-A-Ride hours of operation and door-through-door services, talking traffic signals at key intersections, and programs that improve independent living and are delivered in-home. Commission on the Status of Women: Requests consideration of more focused affordable housing and housing re#ention resources to specific populations, such as seniors and female-headed households, and maintaining support for domestic violence programs and programs that strengthen girls'. academic and career success. Disabilities Commission: Recommends priority for universally accessible playgrounds, installation of talking traffic signals at strategic intersections, exploring an incentive-based visitability ordinance and expansion of Dial-A-Ride services. Child Care and Early Education Task Farce: Requests continuing support for child care services, expansion of the Preschool Early Mental Health Intervention and Prevention Administrative Office Police Acfivities League Senior Center _ 1665 Main Street, Roam 212 1401 Olympic Boulevard 1450 Ocean Avenue Sarrta Monica, CA 90401 -Sonia Moniq, CA 90404 Sarrta Nronica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 458-8701 Tel: (310} 456.8988 TeC (310) 458-8644 TDD: {310} 458-86% TDD: (310} 458-8696 TOD: {310) 458-8696 FAX {310) 456-3380 FAX: (310) 45&8995 FAX: {310) 917-6637 B-15 Virginia Avenue Park 2200 Virginia Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 Tel: (310y 458-8686 TDD: (370)456-E3696 FAX: (310) 399-4326 Youth Office a; Reed Park 1133 7" Street Santa Monica, CA 90403 Tel: (310) 458$540 TDD: (310) 458-8696 FAX: (310)451-3569 Program, moving forward with the Civic Center Child Care Project, and ensuring eady childhood services are integrated into the upcoming Urginia Avenue Park Library. Please distribute copies of the letters to members of the City Council for their consideration. Document Reviewed By: Robin Davidson, Human Services Administrator F:U-IumanSenriceslShare~P, NEW Share DrivetBoards and CommissionslCommissron Liaisons Team1FY20i0-11\91-i2 Commission Budget PdorNesTransmittalMemadoc B-16 Social Services Commission _ 1685 Main 5{reel PO Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 City of .~Rll1EH IVIO-41L'~" December 20, 2010 Dear City Council Members: The Social Services Commission would like to share our recommended Community Development Program funding rationale. recommendations and budget priorities for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. As for the budget priorities far the new Fiscal Year, we would like to continue focusing on and adequately funding these key areas:.homelessness, youth (gang and violence prevention), special needs youth, and seniors. Across these broad areas of service and in partnership wi#h the service providers, the City has made positive and quantifiable progress addressing the various needs. In addition to recommending that the aggregate total allocated for these services matches the previous year, we recommend that City staff reevaluate exactly how the funds are allocated. Throughout most of 2010, the Social Services Commission has been hosting an Executive Director Conversation Series with presentations by ALL social service providers receiving funding from the City of Santa Monica. While we do not claim to be experts on each organization and issue, we are much more informed about who does what, how, where, with what success and the various challenges they face. While these remain our overarching priorities for the new Fiscal Year, the Executive Director Series has prepared us to take on a larger role in supporting the City's efforts to address the challenges and better allocate funds so that the services provided are even more effective. Regafding the Community Development Program FY 2011-14 funding rationale, the points we would like to see strongly considered, monitored and measured across all areas of service are: 1. The provision of deeper, more intensive services in order to effectively demonstrate long-term, meaningful impact and quality outcomes, except in limited and specific instances where broader services may be more appropriate. Quality. outcomes result from in-depth services, data- driven and evidence-based practices. 2. That the funds provided by the City of Santa Monica go to Santa Monica residents and not to non-residents/people of surrounding areas. Now a "Santa Monica resident" is defined is a difficult and important issue for the City to work through. Also, ensuring adjacent cities do their fair share providing similar services is crucial to Santa Monica's long- and short- term success. tel: 310 458-8709 m fax: 310 458-3386 ® TDD: 310 458-8595 B-17 3. The emphasis an performance and effective outcomes. Determining how well agencies are genuinely performing; identifying and addressing real challenges and performance issues; reporting shortralls, not just successes; measuring outcomes in a methodologically sound way; and ensuring that outcomes are meaningful ones. 4. Any overlap in services by the various agencies. The funding of multiple agencies to provide the same or similar services should be minimized. The City should encourage efforts to consolidate andlor eliminate duplication of services across the various service areas for a more holistic approach.. More cross-service-area collaboration would reduce duplication and create potential cost savings if only one or a .-more limited number of agencies provides a given serv'sce. Lastly, the Commission recommends the following specific language become part of the Minimum Eligibility Requirements and Selection Criteria used to choose agency partners. Minimum Eligibility Requirements The City Council should include a clear, operational definition of "Santa Monica resident" for the purposes of funding. Selection Criteria 1. Place more emphasis on measuring outcomes in a methodologically sound way and ensuring that the outcomes are meaningful ones. 2. Priority will be given to proposals utilizing evidenced-based practices. 3. Services must be performed within the City of Santa Monica in some fashion, and, at the very least, agency staff must be accessible to Santa Monica residents or co-located in the City, with proposals demonstrating that agency staff members are directly connected to Santa Monica residents. The Commission appreciates the opportunity to provide input regarding the budget priorities and looks forward to participating in the upcoming RFP process. Sincerely, ~'~tl~Y~~h'~~lL~ Christopher J. Taylor Chair B-18 CITY OF SANTA MONICA Social Services Commission Working Draft of the 2010 Executive Director Conversation Series Report December 13, 2010 HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION Community and Cultural Services Department 1b85 Main Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone {310} 458-8701 FAX (310) 458-3380 TDD {310} 458-8695 Website: www~.smeov,netJhsd B-19 Introduction and Overview At its May 24, 2010 meeting, the Santa Monica Social Services Commission (SSC) launched its Executive Director Conversation Series (ED Series) to assist the Commission in becoming more familiar with the agencies and programs funded by the City through the Community Development Program. The ED Series was particularly timely given the upcoming new grant cycle and planned release of the CD Program's request for proposals in early 2011. The SSC felt the information would be useful in providing input that would help shape the RFP and subsequently making CD Program funding rewmmendations for the FY 2011-14 grant cycle. The ED Series ran from May through November 2010, with presentations by 3 to 4 agencies at each monthly Commission meeting. Presentations were grouped by type of service, representing the CD Program's major program areas: Children, Qlder Youth and Families, Senior Services, Disability Services, Community Services and Homeless Services. Prior to each meeting, the SSC was provided a summary sheet and brochure and/or flyers for each program to be considered. Each summary sheet described the program, who it serves, and its annual budget, mission, service levels, outputs and outcomes. Each executive director was asked to highlight the following information in their presentation: ® Agency and program mission and purpose • Target population for services • Documented outcomes, successes and challenges • Approach to collaboration with other organizations and. partners • Changes or trends that may impact the agency in the future (populations served, outcomes and funding}. Executive directors were asked to address those questions specifically for their Santa Monica programs and Santa Monica residents/program participants and to avoid more regional program information or trends unless they impacted Santa Monica. Following each presentation, the Commission asked the executive director a series of questions and City staff recorded and maintained an inventory of the issues for the Commission's reference, which are outlined in the report's attachment. Further, the Commission often posed broader questions regarding evolving needs and funding challenges to all the executive directors present at a given meeting. B-20 Four Overarching Issues of Focus by the Commission During the seven months of presentations, there were four overarching issues of particular concern to Commissioners, which crossed service areas. They are: • Death of Services and Long Term Impact: depth of services versus more superficial or wider breadth of services; serving those in need in a more intensive way in contrast to serving a larger number of people more superficially with the potential for less long term impact; documenting long term impact beyond six months or a year (which currently seems to be the maximum impact programs currently measure). • Serving Santa Monica Residents and Non-Residents; Regional Concerns: guarantee programs serve SM residents with concern that City of San#a Monica dollars go to 5arita Monica residents and not to non-residents/people of surrounding areas; how "SM resident" is defined; ensuring adjacent cities do their fair share for those needs and services that are regional ones • Performance and Effective Outcome Measurement: determining how well agencies are genuinely performing; what are their real challenges and performance issues; reporting shortfalls, not just successes; measuring outcomes in a methodologically sound way and ensuring the outcomes are meaningful ones. • Duplication of services: funding of multiple agencies to provide the same or similar services; ways to consolidate duplication, even across service areas for a more holistic approach; consider more cross service-area collaboration to reduce need for duplication; potential reduction in costs to provide services if one or a more limited number of agencies provided a given service. Some overarching issues were more central to some service areas thari others. For example, serving SM residents and the definition of SM residency were most emphasized in the Homeless and Children, Older Youth and Families presentations. Farmulating Recommendations for the Funding Rationale The information provided during the ED Series has been used by the Commission to develop an to #ormulate its recommendations for the CD Program's funding rationale at the Commission's December 6, 2010 meeting. Later, the Commission will consider those same issues and information for making recommendations for programs to be funded in the CD Program FY 2011-14 grant cycle, and for the City's FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 two-year budget cycle. The Commission focused most intently. on the four overarching issues to help formulate recommendations relevant to the RFP's minimum eligibility requirements and selection criteria B-21 as well as the funding rationale's broader focus, rather than providing recommendations that relate to specific service area priorities.- The Commission's funding rationale recommendations, which were transmitted to City staff on December 9, 2010, are as fiollows: General Approach These recommendations are basically a reiteration of the four overarching issues, with some additional details integrated. • Priority should be placed on providing deeper, more intensive services in order to effectively demonstrate long-term, meaning#ul impact and quality outcomes, except in limited and specific instances where broader services maybe more appropriate. Quality outcomes result from in-depth services, data-driven and evidehce-based. practices. • The City should ensure that programs serve Santa Monica residents, that City of Santa Monica dollars go to Santa Monica residents and not to non-residents/people of surrounding areas; how "Santa Monica resident" is defined is a difficult and important issue for the City to work through; ensuring adjacent cities do their fair share forthose needs and servicesthat are regional ones is crucial. • Performance and effective outcome measurement is extremely important: determining how well agencies are genuinely performing; what the real challenges and performance issues are; reporting shortfalls, not just successes; measuring outcomes in a methodologically sourid way; and ensuring that outcomes are meaningful ones. • Funding of multiple agencies to provide the same or similar services should be minimized. The City should encourage efforts to consolidate and/or eliminate duplication of services across the various service areas for a more holistic approacfi. Agencies should be encouraged toconsider more.cross-service-area cotlaboration to reduce need for duplication, creating a potential reduction in costs to provide services if one or a more,limited number of agencies provides a given service. Minimum Elieibility Requirements • The City Council should include a clear, operational definition of "Santa Monica resident" for the purposes of funding. B-22 Selection Criteria • Highlight the importance of measuring outcomes, and adding language as follows: More emphasis should be placed on measuring outcomes in a methodologically sound way and ensuring that the outcomes are meaningful ones" • Be more specific when referring to "program'; instead using "program service delivery „ • Create a new bullet point that states, "Priority will be given to proposals utilizing evidenced-based practices." • With respect to outreach and location of services as mentioned in the fourth bullet paint, add language: "Services must be performed within the City of Santa Monica in some fashion, and, at the very least, agency staff must be accessible to Santa Monica residents or co-located in the City, with proposals demonstra#ing that agency staff members are directly connected to Santa Monica residents." Next Steps The Commission will transmit these recommendations to City Council later in December in its FY 2011-12 budget recommendation letter. In addition, the Commission will refer to these recommendations again when reviewing agency proposals submitted in response to the Request For Proposals to be released in the new year, and when making its funding recommendations for the FY 2011-15 grant cycle. B-23 Attachment A Presentation Motes The following are the notes from the seven Commission meetings at which executive directors presented. The issues or comments included below represent those that were of particular interest to the Commission. Meetine 2- Mav 24`h: Child and Youth Mental Health Agencies:.Dispute Resolution Services, EI Nido Family Centers & Family Services of Santa Monica 1. Domestic Violence appears on an increase/an issue that stands out 2. Agencies at schools are relied on for crisis intervention 3. Dept. of Mental Health funding is requiring specific best practices to be used and some clients' needs may not be met 4. Not good outcomes; costly to agency to measure them effectively 5. Deeper level of services versus serving more in a more shallow way 6. Teacher training in mental health identification and assessment so can identify kids promptly Meetine 2 -June 28t~`: Youth/Older Youth Proerammin6 Agencies: Jewish Vocational Services, Pico Youth and Family Center & Santa Monica College Pico Partnership/On the Move 1. Regional issues; are surrounding cities taking on their fair share to support youth? 2. Parent involvement/parent workshops 3. Measuring success: quantitatively and qualitatively; real outcomes 4. Depth of services; serving fewer but mare intensively for more impact Meetine 3 -July 26`h: Remainder of Child/Youth and Seniors/A~ine Agencies:- Saint John's Child and Family Development Center, Connections for Children, The Growing Place, Meals ari Wheels West & WISE & Healthy Aging Early Childhood/Mental Health 1. Early childhood experiences have long term impact on school success 2. Subsidies provide opportunities for quality early education while allowing parents to work 3. Implement ways for preschoolers to smoothly transition into kindergarten 4. Early identification for mental health/developmental disability Senior Services 1. Demand for home delivered meals has declined over the years; boomers not in need of services yet 2. Programs that support aging in-place and in community are most important; need iri- fiome services and opportunities to socialize 3. Streamlined, one-stop shops for easy program access; both homebound and more mobile seniors desire this, but needs may vary between the two populations B-24 4. Increase in demand for care management services Meeting 4 - August 23`d: Homeless Services Agencies: OPCC, St. Joseph's Center & Upward Bound House 1. Regional issues - is Venice area and Los Angeles doing its fair share and Santa Monica funds going to homeless of other areas 2. Need for more rental assistance and more affordable units for homeless to move into, especially with supportive housing (section 8 funding/vouchers is down); need a high subsidy rate because homeless income is so very low and rents are high; need for more landlords to accept vouchers of homeless 3. Tracking of longevity of success (more than just one year out} 4. depth versus breadth; should SM target its funds to very comprehensive services for only a limited number of homefess people to serve. more intensively; a. Use of registry and its tie to depth of services . b. Harder to serve (long-time homeless) versus newly homeless, who are easier to serve 5. High proportion of homeless are older adults with extreme medical and mental health needs 6. Success of respite careJOPCC collaboration with St. Johns . Meeting 5: September 27: Homeless Services Continued Agencies: Clare Foundation, New Directions; Step Up On Second & Westside Food Bank 1. Concerns about agencies over-serving non-residentsJuse of City of SM dollars for non- Santa Monica residents and homeless who are from neighboring areas; a. Tracking of homeless so we know who are SM homeless and who are not b. Definition of homeless person and of Santa Monica resident; relationship to who gets served with SM dollars; resident versus non-resident 2. Winter shelters -not in SM; transportation to/from shelters 3. Focus on coordinating with the VA 4. Role of foundation support: it has gone up for some programs, such as food bank Meeting 6: October25t~': Community Services/Housing Agencies: Chrysalis, Community Corporation of Santa Monica, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, & Venice Family Clinic 3. Employment -meeting huge increase iri demand through use of volunteers 2. Demonstration and tracking of long term success, especially beyond fi months; objective, clear outcomes and measurement 3. Depth versus breadth of services; for employment it seems depth is more critical; need for developing computer literacy; depth also more important for legal aid services 4. Serving Santa Monica residents vs. non-residents:. agencies should be serving them and have reliable way of determining residency; need to use consistent definition S. Providing stable housing for low-income 6. Impact of Health Care Reform on agency; provision of obesity and mental health services B-25 Meeting 7: November 22"d: Disability Services Agencies: Center for the partially Sighted, Westside Center for Independent Living, EmpowerTech & Common Ground 1. Serving of Santa Monica residents vs. non-residents, and providing outreach and services within the boundaries of Santa Monica 2. Collaborations with other agencies in Santa Monica 3. Overlap of services by agencies, particularly those serving youth and homeless services B-26 ~~ City of .~'a'lllta M®IIYC H'~ December 13, 2010 Disabitifies Commission 1685 Main Street PO Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 Honorable Richard Bloom, Mayor Members of the City Council Rod Gould, City Manager City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica CA 90401 Dear Mayor Bloom, City Council Members and Mr. Gouid: Thank you for seeking the Disabilities Commission's input on the City's FY2011-13 Budget Priorities. After hearing from the public; analyzing the Commission's priorities over the last several months and holding a joint meeting with the Commission for the Senior Community, the Commission respectfully requests that the following recommendations be given priority in the development of the budget: Install. universally accessible playgrounds at all new and renovated playgrounds and add universally designed elements to existing playgrounds The design of universally accessible playgrounds and play equipment allows children with various disabilities to participate and play with their peers who do not have disabilities in a manner traditionally not available in typical playgrounds. According to our research, the cost of universally accessible playgrounds varies widely, and elements can be incorporated to fit virtually any space or budget. The Commission appreciates that a feasibility study is planned for a universally accessible playgrcund at South Beach Park. However, as plans are considered for building additional or expandinglrenovating existing playgrounds around the City, particularly the Civic Center Parks currently in development, the Commission requests that all new and renovated playgrounds-are designed to be universally accessible and ail existing playgrounds fiave universally accessible elements. We would now like to see what it is long overdue for Santa Monica, as a major tourist destination (and a wonderful ptace to p(ay) -- to be among the list of cities that offers universally accessible playgrounds or playground elements to its residents and visitors with disabilities. 2. Install#alking traffic signals at strategic intersections The Commission is pleased that talking traffic controls have been instatled at the comers of Broadway and Ocean, Colorado and Ocean, and 23"' and Wilshire. After observing the improvement in the quality of life for those using the talking traffic signals, we recommend the City fund a program to replace the signals that emit chirping sounds at strategic, targeted intersections (to be determined by the Traffic Management Division in conjunction with input from the community) with talking traffic control units. The cost per intersection to update the units is approximately $6,000 each plus ongoing costs of approximately $500 per intersection per year for maintenance, according to the Transportation Management Division. Updating the units will benefit residents and visitors with vision, cognitive, and mobility impairments, and will be a tremendous safety improvement for all. tel: 31D-458-8701 ®TDD: 310-458-869fi a fax: 310-498-3380 B-27 3. Fund a feasibility study of an incentive-based visitability ordinance to apply to private home construction and housing development projects "visitability" refers to the accessibility of a dwelling for housing and receiving people with disabilities, particularly the elderly and people who have mobility impairments, especially those who use a wheelchair. Visitable dwellings enhance the life-cycle use of housing- people are better able to remain housed in the same dwelling as they age ("age in place"), as well as to remain in their homes during- periods of temporary, developing or permanent disabilities. Most older housing does not incorporate accessible elements; such as wide hallways and doorways, grab bars and wheelchair ramps. As a consequence, an incentive-based visitability ordinance wilt encourage homeowners and home builders to incorporate such elements without any legal obligation to do so. In the past, the Commission has recommended passing a visitability ordinance based on the Model Universal Design Local Ordinance adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This would provide a consistent, practical, and proven building and design requirement to incorporate universal design and visitability standards into new cons#ruction that will make specified dwelling units visitable by people with mobility impairments grid other disabilities. The Commission recognizes that the first step toward passing such an ordinance is a feasibility study and thus requests the City Council to take this first step. Santa Monica should join various other California and national cities in enacting a visitability ordinance which will significantly improve the quality of life far residents: This budget priority is shared by the Gommission for the Senior Community. 4. Expand dial-a-ride services Both seniors and people with disabilities greatly benefit from dial-a-ride services. The Commission was pleased to learn recently that dial-a-ride service has expanded its use of share-of-cost taxi trips, but believes that, in addition, dial-a-ride van services must expand. The Commission supports funding for expansion of dial-a-ride services to increase the breadth of destinations and the operating hours. Expanding van services will facilitate some evening travel, provide more regularly scheduled trips outside the immediate City limits and offer greater travel opportunities on the weekends including to destinations after-hours within Santa Monica for non-City events. In conjunction with the Commission for the Senior Community, the Disabilities Commission also srpports additional funding for the dial-a-ride door-through-door program. This service provides much-needed assistance to bath the senior and disability populations. These recommendations reflect the ongoing and urgent priorities voiced by the community and our commissioners. The Commission appreciates your consideration of these recommendations, and we look forward to the City's continuing commitment to accessibility, inclusion and civic participation. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact the Commission Staff Liaison, Janet Hand. Respectfully submitted, Christofer Arroyo Chair Marti McCarty Vice Chair F:ViumanServiceslShareW. NEW Share DrivetBOards and CommissionslDisabilifies CommissionlCorrespondencelDC Budoet revs fir 11-13.doc B-28 ill =_ [,ly of ;aaesniaa ~tl~a®eaeear' Decer„bet 1G, 2414 Currterii5siun Bur f61r :~~nigr ~urrtaxtut9iQy 1685 M21n strue-f - P~ f#ux L'2o0 S~aat7 hAonica, califQrnl~ t14~107~?,?Qt) I lonor-ahle Richard Bloom, Mayor Santa Monica City Gour,cii Rod Gould, City Manager City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, R©om `d44 Santa Monica, CA 94401 Dear Mayor t3loom, City Council Members.anci Mr. Gould. Fit our December 14, 2014 meeting, tf,e Commission for the Senior Cnrnmunity approved its budget priorities for the City CQUncii's oonsidaration, This year, the Commission held a special joint meeting wifh the Disabilities commission to identify issues of concern to both Gornrnissions' c:onstitueneias. Tire Commission for the Senior Community also raviewed materials and community input pertaining to the needs of seniors, and made recommendatitlns in fight of the upcoming Community Development Program funding process, and took into account current eeonomfc realities which unpack the City and the eider adults who line here. The overarching thane of fhe Commission for the Samar Community's budget priorities. is support for activities which allow seniors to age in place in their home and in their community. FEousing: Seniors need a safe and affc?rdabie borne that meets their changing needs as they age in piaca, The Commission has three specifio racornmendations related to housing: 1} adequate funding should be appropriated to increase opportunities for affordable senior housing,- especially given tha dramatic increase in the numE~er of Santa Monica seniors projected Duet the next 14 years, 2) Gity ordinances should be re-evaluated to ensure quality affordable housing for seniors, and aYchitectural design should take into account seniors'-need tc age fn (heir homes by requiring univers~i design and ensuring visitability. As such, the Commission for the Senior Community joins wish the E~isabilities Commission in its support for a feasibility study for a visitabiiity ordinance, 3) The Con,n,isslon reco€ntnends contit,uad support of and- expansion of home modification programs which allow seniors and those who are mobility or sensory in,pairecl to make safety and accessibility improvettiants which aifow there to remain 6, their homes. telc 310-458-8t01 + Tr?t~: ~1Q-+158-8696 s #ax; 310-45E3-3380 B-29 `1'r~ansportation: Maintaining the ability to navigate; Sarita Manica's neighbarhaods is a key component for s~rccessful wing in place, `I'hc Commission has two specific reaomrnendatians related to transportation: 1} Seniors and peaple with mobility ohalienyes need expanded hours and locations €or I?ial-A-hide services. Many alsa need assistance fratrr their door to the van, algid from the van tQ their appc?intn7ent, A successful Moor-Through-boor- program that meets this need has been irnplem~nted, The Gbrrrrnission far the Senior Community joins with the t?isabititles Garrrmission in recommending that the hours and locations served lay f?la1~A~t?ide be expanded and that the Boor-Through-Door program be sustained and exp~xndod, 2} The Commission far the Beni©r. Gc~mmunity joins with tha l~isabilifics Commission in recommending funding for the installation of talking traffic tights at targeted intersections In Santr3 Monica. Supportive Sarvices: The Gort~mission supparks funding fcr integrated services which direotiy support older adults to sustain their indepottdenee and age iri place In ih€~ir homes. In particular, services which are provided to-home should be prioritized.. On behalf of the Commission far the Senior Community I want to thank you foe your consideration of our priorities. Sincer'eiy, Raci7epe LeBlanc Chair B-30 e) City of Santa iifoetica" December,l4, 2010 Commission on the Status of Women 1685 Main Street Pa Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 Honorable Mayor Richard Bloom City Council Members City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, 90401 RE: 2011-2012 Budget for the City of Santa Monica Dear Mayor Bloom and City Council Members, The Commission on the Status of Women (GOSW), established in 1981, was chartered by the City Counci! to enhance the status of women and girls in Santa Monica. The CC~SW promotes this goal through investigation of, advocacy for, and policy development regarding issues relevant to women and girls in Santa Monica, and by identifying and publicizing leadership and career advancement opportunities far the women and girls of our community. Following a year-long process that included both analyses of priorities by individual Commissioners as well as community- input collected through several formal and informal surveys and a community forum in April 2010, the COSW developed a strategic plan to address key goals for the period 2010-2015: 1. Identify, publicize and support mentoring and leadership opportunities that serve the young women and gigs of Santa Monica. 2. Gain a better understanding about how lack of affordable housing affects the women of Santa Monica, and determine what rote the COSW should play to address this issue. 3. Raise awareness of and seek solutions for domestic violence and other safety issues impacting Santa Monica women and girls. 4. Foster career, political and volunteer advancement opportunities for Santa Monica women. 5. Identify and publicize resources in Santa Monica that support the needs of women and girls 6. Review and update "The Report on the Status of Warren & Girls in Santa Monica 2004° in light of 2010 census and other available data collected through surveys and reports commissioned by City departments, commissions and community partners. Many of the GOSW goals intersect with the budget priorities identified by the City. The following represents our suggestions far certain of the City's 2011-12 budget priorities as examined through the lens of the COSW's strategic priorities: Homelessness/Affordable Housing, We applaud and endorse the leadership role that the City has taken with respect to addressing the most vulnerable and chronically homeless individuals in our community. We note, however, that many more Santa Monica women, particularly those who are senior citizens or mothers in single parent households, live with a constant risk of homelessness because of the lack of affordable housing in Santa Monica, 1 tel: 310458-8701 ® fax: 310 458-338U a TDD: 370 458-8696 B-31 particularly multiple bedroom units. Surely keeping current members of our community housed is a critical step to addressing homelessness, and we believe that women comprise a majority of the currently housed population in Santa Monica who are at economic risk of homelessness. According to the Commission's Report on the Status of Women in Santa Monica 2004: Ten percent of Santa Monica's population has income below the United States Census poverty threshold of $8,501 per year for a single person and $17,650 per year for a family of four. Of that group, 56 percent are women. When the cost-of-living in Santa Monica is taken into account, along with women's lower earnings and the cost and availability of childcare, the actual percentage of women who experience poverty in Santa Monica is probably much higher. • Women comprise 63 percent of the poor population that are age 55 or alder, and that percentage increases rapidly with age. • Of Santa Monica residents receiving public assistance, the largest percentage is women: Sixty-five percent of the Santa Monica residents receiving government subsidized in- home living assistance are women. Ninety-five percent of the residents receiving CalWorks, the state's temporary- assistance to needy single parent households, are female. • Approximately 16 percent of Santa Monica residents experience some form of long- . lasting physical; mental or emotional disability. After age 65, women comprise 64 percent of disabled residents. • Among the approximately 12,500 residents identified in the census as age 65 and older, 75 percent were women. These statistics and observations are consistent with the 2008 data supporting the Rousing Element's description of San#a Monica's population. The City has declared that the reduction of street homelessness is a high priority, and has directed many resources to understand the scope of homelessness in Santa Monica and to identify appropriate housing opportunities. As a component of homelessness prevention, we encourage the City; in conversation with other community stakeholders, to assess, quantify, and develop strategies to address the homelessness risk to Santa Monica's "special needs' groups - - the elderly, female-headed households, large families, disabled persons -who often spend a disproportionate amount of their income to secure safie and decent housing, and are sometimes subject to discrimination based on lheir specific needs or circumstances. As noted above, women comprise the majority of these categories. Santa Monica women participating in our 2009 COSW survey of women's top priorities identfed lack of affordable housing as a key issue of concern. The resources allocated to addressing the homelessness of 900 persons in Santa Monica must continue to be balanced with a proportionately appropriate allocation of resources to address affordable housing needs of a much larger population, and should also include resources to support more vigilant enforcement of development agreements that violate affordable housing provisions. Youth.. Throughout its existence, COSW has developed special relationships with several pity and community-based programs that have particular focus on issues impacting girls. The most enduring of these has been our partnership with Rosie's Girls, acity-sponsored program designed to build leadership confidence in middle school girls through the exploration of nan- traditiohal vocations, and with the YWCA. The City should maintain its support of Rosie's Girls 2 B-32 for the valuable part the program plays in programming that supports girls in Santa Monica. Additionally, we commend the YWCA for the part it plays in the City's new Youth Resource Team Policy Group and because of its ongoing investment in the development of girls locally. We also endorse the allocation of funds to increase access to employment for girls, to provide college-bound students with college preparatory and fihancial support, and to implement the City-wide program sponsored by Chief Jackman, the COSW and the Westside Domestic Violence Network to reduce male violence. This last point segues naturally to a COSW priority which seems absent from those articulated by the City: fo raise awareness of and seek. solutions for domestic violence and. other safety issues impacting Santa Monica women and girls. Domestic Violence and other Safety Issues. COSW is a stakeholder in the Westside Domestic Violence Network organization (WDVN), which is comprised of domestic violence psychiatric counselors and social workers, shelters operators and other service providers, healthcare clinics, prosecutors, police representatives and legal aid attorneys. WDVN is sponsored by Sojoum, another Santa Monica agency that provides battered women and their children a safe space to regroup, rebuild, and reestablish their self-esteem and lives. The WDVN and Sojourn have undertaken leadership roles in initiating the current city-wide program modeled after the work of Jackson Katz to reduce male violence. However, the funding for this violence reduction program should not come at the expense of budget allocations for the core program that the WDVN and its fiscal sponsor, Sojourn, espouses: support and shelter for victims of domestic violence and the development of training resources for professionals who work to help domestic violence victims. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. Sihcerely, ~~`"`~~/ Sarah Stegemoeller, Chair Commission on the Status of Women B-33 S A N T A M o N 1 c A Child Care Early Education Task ®rce December 15, 2010 Honorable Richard Bloom, Mayor Santa Monica City Gouncil Rod Gould, City Manager City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mayor Bloom, City Council Members and Mr. Gould: The Santa Monica Child Care and Early Education Task Force (Task Force) deeply appreciates the longstanding commitment of the Council to the quality of life for young children and their families in Santa Monica. As you begin your budget planning for the coming two years, we urge you to make the following issues a top priority: Maintain suooort for existino child care services There continues to be an urgent need for child care services in our community. The child care subsidy program and after school child care services provide much needed economic stability to low income Santa Monica families. While City funds cannot and should not supplant state child care funding, the precarious condition of state funding for all social services underscores the severity of the need. The Preschool Early Intervention and Violence Prevention Project, administered by Family Service of Santa Monica provides staff training and parenting education at six Santa Monica preschools focused on helping children with challenging behaviors. With the collaboration of the Early Developmental Screening and Intervention Initiative {EDSI) at UCtA these centers also: received additional services aimed at identifying developmental problems and special needs at ah early age. Santa Monica College played an important role by offering classes to staff and other early childhood educators. The above partnerships have greatly enriched the project. We look to continued involvement of the above agencies and other like minded organizations as we plan far the future. Program evaluations have identified numerous benefits to staff, parents and children. The Task Force is pleased to be a part of the City's new Youth Resource Team. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the many agencies represented on the Team in developing. B-34 comprehensive program for the elimination of youth violence in Santa Monica beginning with our youngest children and continuing through childhood and adolescence. We believe that the Preschool Early Intervention and Violence Prevention Project can serve as a foundation for the development of a preventive focus which can be embedded in a program of much needed interventions at later ages. The collaboration with UCl.R and EDSI included the pilot implementation of a neighborhood- based Early Development Index-which the Task Force believes provides a breakthrough framework for evaluating and effectively targeting preventive efforts to reduce violence. Direct City staff to establish and implement a Civic Genter Child Care Proiect timeline immediately The Civic Center Child Care Project, while generously funded by the Council over a year ago has taken a back seat to numerous other proposed initiatives. The Task Force is deeply disturbed that the project is still in limbo. Once again we ask that you direct appropriate. staff to establish a timeline which will ensure fhe rapid implementation of this long delayed and much needed project. We cannot express too strongly our dismay and disappointment of the lack of progress on this project. Support Virginia Park Library The proposed new library has fhe potential to provide a much needed focal point for a wide range of library services to children and families in the Pico neighborhood. We urge you to ensure that these services extend from the earliest months of a child's life and that parent involvement be a key component of the library's outreach. We offer the expertise and commitment of Task Force members to achieving that end. Revise language in the Community Priorities FY2011-12 document The City's Community Priorities document does not accurately reflect the extraordinary scope of Santa Monica's commitment to the children. and families of Santa Monica. The "Youth" section should be replaced by "Children, Youth and Families" in future documents or an additional section for "Children and Families"should be added. The concept of addressing root problems under the Sustairiabiiity section of Community Priorities should be expanded to include nurturing and sustaining human potential, with specific reference to addressing the root problems of youth violence. In the Education section, we recommend that there be an explicit statement to the effect that education begins at birth. Sincerely, Richard Cohen Chair B-35 rovide us your feedback and tell us what you want included in the budget priorities for the upcoming FY2011-12 and FY2012-13 budget. Please complete and return this farm at the end of the meeting or mail it back to us at City Manager's Office, 1685 Main Street, Room 249, Santa Monica, CA 94441, You can also post your feedback at www.smgov.net/budget or email your comments to bUdQ@t(p7St1l~OV.C12f. Thank you! ~~ ~,t_o t.~5 ~~ ©~ ~: ~~ ~o its 0~ a~ ~ ~e C ~~~ ~ ~~ ~2SS m B-36 tephanie Manglaras From: Candace Tysdal Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:32 PM To: Stephanie Manglaras; David Carr Subject: FW: FOSP: Big Blue Bus &SMC From: Kate Vernez Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:30 PM To: Carol-Swindell; Elaine Polachek; Candace Tysdal Subject: FW: FOSP: Big Blue Bus 8c SMC From: Kate Vernez Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:52 AM To: 'ZinaJosephs@aol.com' Cc: Stephanie Negriff Subject: RE: FOSP: Big Blue Bus &SMC Zina, thanks again for being in touch on the Big Blue Bus issues. In addition to our conversation, I wanted you to have BBB's response. Please let us know if you need additional information. All transit lines operated on 20`" St. were approved by the City Council following extensive outreach with the Friends of Sunset Park and other members of the community. Since the implementation of the Mini Blue Sunset Ride and the Line 6 Commuter, BBB has made numerous adjustments to address neighborhood concerns. As a result, neither of these bus lines stops to board or alight passengers on 20'" St between Pearl and Ocean Park Blvd. BBB has also purchased small hybrid electric buses on the Sunset Ride, which are the cleanest and quietest buses on the market today. We apologize to Ms. Thixton that there have been occasions when a bus scheduled to travel west on Pearl St has instead turned east on Pearl to 20'" St. BBB continues to communicate to its operators that it is essential to maintain the established route, although unanticipated detours, due to traffic congestion or other issues are inevitable." Let me know if you need something more. From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com [mailto:ZinaJosephs@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October O5, 2010 8:33 AM To: Kate Vernez Cc: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom Subject: FOSP: Big Blue Bus &SMC Dear Kate, The email below from Laura Thixton is a continuation of one of the issues I wrote to you about last week, asking for your advice. - 20th and Pearl is a very narrow intersection. -Chief Jackman assigned a crossing guard there a few years ago after we requested a "count," which found that, in addition to all the SMC students who park in the neighborhood, 130 K-12 students cross there every dav. - It's one of only a half dozen non-signalized intersections in the city that are rated "F" LOS. B-37 There are about 20.000 daily car trips on 20th, which is only one lane in each direction at Pearl -That section of 20th St. between Pico and Ocean Park Blvd. has gone from one bus line in 2007 (the old #11 Crosstown) to 4 bus lines (the other 3 are college-serving lines -- Line 6 SMC Commuter, the Sunset Ride, and the inter-campus shuttle). -The Line 6 bus route already involves traveling north on 20th and then turning west onto Pearl. This requires eastbound drivers waiting at the stop sign to back u so the bus can negotiate the turn. This is an extremely dangerous situation for both drivers and pedestrians. - In the email exchange below, Laura Thixton, FOSP Executive Vice President, who owns a home at 20th and Pearl, is describing buses traveling a route unknown to the head of BBB traveling east on Pearl and turning north on 20th, also a dangerous turn at that narrow intersection. This situation at 20th and Pearl is dangerous for pedestrians, both K-12 students and SMC students walking to class, and it is unacceptable to residents in the neighborhood. Zina Josephs Friends of Sunset Park From: It h ixto n @ya h oo. co m To: Stephanie.Negriff@SMGOV.NET, Dan.Dawson@SMGOV.NET, Tim.Jackman@SMGOV.NET, Artis.Williams@SMGOV.NET, Traffic.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET, Rod.Gould@SMGOV.NET; Vasquez_Albert@smc.edu, Lucy.Dyke@SMGOV.NET CC: ZinaJosephs@aol.com, regula@americaconnections.com, saychinso@yahoo.com, sharmcgeen@aol.com, jthixton1@yahoo.com, thixoso13@yahoo.com, tthixton@yahoo.com, tfinn@metropolitanpacific.com Sent: 10/5/2010 8:06:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Re; Big Blue Bus &SMC Ms. Negriff: This problem persists regardless of your assurance. This morning at approx. 7:54 a.m. I observed BBB # 4001 traveling eastbound on Pearl St. making a left turn onto 20th St. Laura Thixton From: Stephanie Negriff <Stephanie.Negriff@SMGOV.NET> To: Laura Thixton <Ithixton@yahoo.com>; Dan Dawson <Dan.Dawson@SMGOV.NET'>; Tim Jackman <TimJackman@SMGOV.NET>; Ards Williams <Artis.Williams@SMGOV.NET>; Traffic Mailbox <Traffic.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; RodGould <Rod.Gould@SMGOV.NEr>; SMC Director Police and Safety Dept. <Vasquez_Albert@smc.edu>; Lucy Dyke <Lucy.Dyke@SMGOV.NET> Cc: "Zina)osephs@aol.com" <ZinaJosephs@aol.com>; Regula Ziegler <regula@americaconnections.com>; "saychinso@yahoo.com" <saychinso@yahoo.com>; "sharmcgeen@aol.com" <sharmcgeen@aol.mm>; Ju ]u <jthixtoni@yahoo.com>; Sherman Teensy <thixosol3@yahoo.com>; Sweet Pea <tthixton@yahoo.com>; "tfinn@metropolitanpacific.com" <tfinn@metropolitanpacific.com> Sent: Tue, September 7, 2010 5:11:47 PM Subject: RE: Big Blue Bus &SMC Ms. Thixton- Thank you for the information. To clarify, there should be no buses traveling eastbound on Pearl St . to 20'" and turning left on 20'". I have given specific instructions to not place any additional buses on 20'" St . ,other than the scheduled service. We have asked SMCPD for assistance in monitoring traffic around the campus, so that buses can move through their designated routes and have been in contact with them almost daily, since last Monday. B-38 he inclusion of the bus number and time of your observation will allow us to identify the operator who was off route, so that we can investigate the operators driving behavior and take any necessary corrective actions to avoid future errors. Your assistance is appreciated. Stephanie Negriff From: Laura Thixton [mailtoathixton@yahoo.mm] Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 9:31 AM To: Dan Dawson ;Stephanie Negriff; Tim Jackman ; Artis Williams; TrafFic Mailbox; Rod Gould ;SMC Director Police and Safety Dept.; Lucy Dyke Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com; Regula Ziegler; saychinso@yahoo.com ;sharmcgeen@aol.com ; Ju Ju; Sherman Teensy; Sweet Pea; tFinn@metropolitanpacific.com Subject: Fw: Big Blue Bus &SMC Mr. Dawson, In furtherance to my below email, please be advised that again this morning at 7:47 a.m. BBB No. 4817 with a banner entitled "SMC Shuttle" was traveling eastbound on Pearl between 17th and 20th; and made a left turn onto 20th St. (north bound). This bus rolled through the stop sign (not making a complete stop) and while turning left onto 20th St. dangerously disregarded two pedestrian already in the middle of the crosswalk and came so near to a person (that was legally parked on the east side of 20th St.) getting out from their car -that they were startled. In order to complete this turn the bus had to (1) wait for the person to fully exit their car and shut their door; and, (2) wait for the southbound car on 20th St. to back-up. I was located outside on the comer of 20th & Pearl and witnessed this unfortunate scene. I don't understand the driver's logic in running the stop sign and disregarding the pedestrians; perhaps because traffic was a bit light this morning, or was in a huny, but it doesn't matter. The driver was reckless. This is extremely frustrating and disappointing especially in light of your lack of full disclosure regarding SMC's bus lines and your unfulfilled assurances. The BBB has not only been disingenuous, but dangerously negligent. I understand that you are currently out of the office, but I have left a voicemail message regarding this issue. Please contact me; if I do not hear from you I will be contacting you. Note that I will be unreachable from 9/8 - 9/20, but perhaps we can speak after this time period. Laura Thixton Mobile : (310) 266-7396 ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Laura Thixton <Ithixton@yahoo.com> To: dan.dawson@smgov.net; stephanie.negriff@smgov.net ;Chief Jackman <Tim.Jackman@smgov.net>; artis.williams@smgov.net; trafFc@smgov.net; rod.gould@smgov.net; SMC Director Police and Safety Dept. <Vasquez_Albert@smc.edu>; lucy.dyke@smgov.net Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com; Regula Ziegler <regula@americaconnections.com>; saychinso@yahoo.com ; sharmcgeen@aol.com ; Ju Ju <jthixtonl@yahoo.com>; Sweet Pea <tthixton@yahoo.com>; Sherman Teensy <thixosol3@yahoo.com>; tfinn@metropolitanpacific.com Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 9:07:59 AM Subject: Big Blue Bus &SMC Dear Mr. Dawson: B-39 hank you for your notification (below) regarding your increased service benefiting Santa Monica College ("SMC"). I would like to take this opportunity to put you and the Big Blue Bus ("BBB") on notice of a few incidents that have occurred since the beginning of SMC's fall semester (August 30, 2010). This morning I witnessed a 40' BBB traveling eastbound on Pearl Street (between 17th St: and 20th St.) which made a left turn onto 20th St . As you know there is not a designated BBB line that runs eastbound on Pearl St. (which is designated by the LUCE as "residential"). As you are also aware this particular intersection (at last count) has over 100 buses (4 separate designated bus routes) traveling through it. In addition, I have also noticed "Training" buses traveling down 20th St. between Pico and Ocean Park Blvd. (which is designated by the LUCE as an "Avenue Minor"). 40' buses traversing this neighborhood on undesignated routes as well as "Training" buses only add to the confusion and congestion that has devastated this intersection of Sunset Park . I strongly reiterate my request to you on behalf of the BBB to educate your drivers to remain on their designated routes and not deviate. I also request that you train your drivers on other streets that are not as inundated as 20th & Pearl . Next week the neighborhood's preschool, grammar and middle school children begin their semester and with this added and unnecessary bus traffic you are putting' all at risk. Please stop and be responsible. It would be greatly appreciated if you would notify all concerned that this is a residential neighborhood and to perform their job accordingly (this includes watching their speed). This has been a continuing chronic problem for approximately 4 years now and I am at a loss as to why you and Stephanie Negriff can't get these poorly executed bus lines straight. The BBB on behalf of SMC are sharing this neighborhood and we ask that you take this notification seriously and sensitively. I would also like to point out that in your below email you indicate that the BBB would be "coordinating traffzc control with both SMC and the Santa Monica Police Department, including extra supervision at the intersection of Pearl and 20th Street, to ensure that traffic flows as smoothly as possibly during these first few weeks of school. " You have failed to do this as well. There has been no presence of traffic control at this intersection. Should you wish to discuss this matter in more detail, please feel free to contact me at the below number. Your anticipated courtesy and cooperation is appreciated Sincerely, Laura Thixton Mobile : (310) 266-7396 From: "ZinaJosephs@aol.com" <ZinaJosephs@aol.com> To: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 12:23:46 PM Subject: FOSP: Big Blue Bus &SMC Dear all, The fall semester at Santa Monica College begins on August 30th. Below is a notice from the Big Blue Bus Company regarding some of the college-serving bus lines. Boo Also, the new bus fares go into effect on August 29th. Additional information is available at www.Bif;BlueBus.com Dear Residents of Sunset Park , As you may know, Santa Monica College's fall semester begins on August 30, and we wanted to send you a reminder that the Big Blue Bus will be adding extra buses to Lines 6, 7, Rapid 7 and the Sunset Ride during the first few weeks of the semester to accommodate the larger number of students who will use our services during this time. As part of the overall plan, we also wanted to let you know that we will be putting longer 40-foot buses into service on the Sunset Ride due to the increased passenger loads expected on this line. We will be coordinating traffic control with both Santa Monica College and the Santa Monica Police Department, including extra supervision at the intersection of Pearl and 20`h Street , to ensure that traffic flows as smoothly as possible during these first few weeks of school. We understand the concerns you may have about the temporary increase in traffic and the use of larger vehicles in your neighborhoods, and we appreciate your patience as we make these necessary short-term service changesin yourarea. Dan Dawson Customer Relations Manager Big Blue Bus 1660 7th St Santa Monica, CA 90041 310-458-1975 x 5831 B-41 tephanie Manglaras From: Candace Tysdal Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:32 PM To: Stephanie Manglaras; David Carr Subject: FW: FOSP and SMC concerns -advice needed From: Kate Vernez Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:31 PM To: Carol Swindell; Elaine Polachek; Candace Tysdal Subject: FW: FOSP and SMC concerns -advice needed From: Kate Vernez Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:46 PM To: 'ZinaJosephs@aol.com' Cc: Stephanie Negriff; Ellen Gelbard; Eileen Fogarty Subject: RE: FOSP and SMC concerns -advice needed Zina-I've followed up with BBB, Planning and SMC. As we discussed, most of the issues are items that you have discussed with SMC and I recommend that you consider contacting Don Girard to pursue open items . The information below is from the Planning Department and hopefully will give you additional answers .Please let me know if you want me to set a meeting with City staff on any of this information. Thanks again for your patience in my sorting through the issues. Land Use and Circulation Element Classification LUCE designates 20`h Street in this area as "Avenue Minor". Its function is to serve local auto and bicycle trips. It just east of SMC, one of the Cites most significant trip generators, and connects directly to I-10 westbound on-ramp and 1- 10 eastbound off-ramp: Findings - A review of accident data at the intersection of 20th/Pearl shows only three accidents in the last three years, and all three accidents involved two motor vehicles and were property damage only. - There is no record of pedestrian accidents at the intersection of 20`h/Pearl in the last three years. - A school Crossing Guard is posted at the intersection of 20`h/Pearl from 7 to 9AM and 2 to 4PM on school days. BBB volumes and observed movements as documented in Ms. Joseph's emails are consistent with staff observations. Staff believes that the vast majority of vehicles using the intersection of 20th/Pearl are either 1) travelling to/from nearby primary schools, or 2) travelling to/from SMC and/or looking for available street parking. Recommendations B-42 Work with SMC staff to address student parking needs. Cooperatively identify solutions to provide sufficient parking and reduce vehicle traffic. - Implement mu{ti-space parking meter pilot test program on 20`h adjacent to SMC to better manage on-street parking resources. Explore the installation of additional parking meters on surrounding streets. - BBB to take the lead to address bus routing and movements. From: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom [mailto:Zina]osephs@aoLcom] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:16 PM To: Kate Vernez Subject: Re: FOSP and SMC concerns -advice needed Thank you, Kate. How long do you think it will take for the responses to come back? Zina In a message dated 9!30/2010 2:05:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Kate.Vernez@SMGOV.NET writes: I've asked BBB-and Planning to prepare a response. What do you think of waiting to see the answers and then setting needed meetings? From: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom [mailto:ZinaJosephs@aoLcom] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 5:31 PM To: Kate Vernez Subject: Re: FOSP and SMC concerns -advice needed Thanks, Kate. In a message dated 9/27/2010 5:14:13 P. M. Pacific Daylight Time, Kate.Vernez@SMGOV.NET writes: Thanks Zina---give me a little time to sort through the best path on the issues and come up with a suggestion on meetingsJmeetingfnr you. From: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom [mailto:ZinaJosephs@aoLcom] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:17 PM To: Kate Vernez Cc: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom Subject: FOSP and SMC concerns -advice needed B1}3 Kate, The FOSP Board and College Committee would like to meet with someone in the city to discuss concerns about SMC and the neighborhood. Here are some of the issues: 1. 20th and Pearl -There is ongoing concern about congestion from cars, SMC-serving Big Blue Buses (4 bus lines), and pedestrians (JAMS and SMC students) 20th and Pearl. This is one of the few unsignalized intersections in the city which has an "F" Level of Service (LOS) rating. According to SMPD counts, 130 JAMS students cross there every day. Some of the BBB buses make left turns at this intersection, which is so narrow that cars waiting at the stop sign have to back up to allow the buses to pass. One FOSP member who had hoped to raise his two young children in the home his grandfather built in 1949 on the NW corner of Pearl and 20th has now given up and moved away due to the constant noise and pollution from cars and from the BBB bus stop less than 10 feet from the eastern wall of his home. What can the city do to reduce vehicle and bus traffic at this intersection, protect children walking to school, and provide residents with peace and quiet in their homes? 2. When the new Admin/Student Services building on Pico near 20th is completed, with its 500-space underground parking garage (this could generate up to 3,000 daily car trips), cars will enter and exit that using a driveway onto Pearl just west of 20th, as well as 20th "Court (behind homes on the west side of 20th, with entrances just north of Pearl and just south of Pico, between an apartment building and the Union 76 gas station, rather than using an arterial (Pico Blvd.). It was mentioned at an SMC Board of Trustees meeting that the city re wired the college to have that exit/entrance onto Pearl to avoid having all traffic from the parking structure on Pico. What can the city do to keep fraffic from the new SMC Admin/Student Services parking structure from further exacerbating the existing problems at Pearl and 20th, and from passing behind and next to residents' homes? 3. The recently approved 2010 SMC Master Plan Update calls for demolishing and rebuilding every SMC structure on the north side of Pearl Street between 16th and 20th, with uo to 50 diesel haul trucks ep r day carrying away debris and delivering construction material for years to come, presumably on Pearl, 16th and 20th (all residential streets). B-44 John Adams Middle School and the JAMS pre-school are on the south side of Pearl between 16th and 17th. JAMS and WiII Rogers Elementary students who live in both Sunset Park and the Pico neighborhood walk to and from school on 16th and Pearl. 16th and 20th between Pearl and Pico are narrow residential streets. What can the city do to protect pre-school and school children, as well as residents on Pearl, 16th, and 20th from the noise and air pollution caused by (a)demolition-generated dust and debris, (b) construction machinery, and (c) diesel haul trucks? 4. Although we didn't see it in the Draft EIR or the Final EIR, the rebuilt Corsair Stadium will include a drop-off "plaza" on the east side of 16th, right across the street from homes. To approach that drop-off from the south, drivers will either have to drive north on 16th from Ocean Park Blvd., or use a combination of Pearl, 14th, or 20th, to access the drop-off. These are all designated "residential" streets by the city. What can the city do to protect narrow residential streets in Sunset Park from Corsair Stadium traffic? And what can the city do to protect nearby residents from noise (amplification) and bright lights from events at Corsair Stadium? In general, we feel that any traffic circulation request by SMC should have neighborhood input before the city makes a traffic circulation decision (including BBB routes) because these all impact Sunset Park residents. But, for example, when we question college-serving Big Blue Bus routes that impact Sunset Park residents, BBB officials say that they're merely serving the needs of the college (which subsidizes them), and SMC officials say that BBB makes all the routing decisions. It's a great Catch-22, where each party passes the buck to the other, and neither takes responsibility for decisions which adversely affect residents. Also, we're curious about the effect on property tax revenue of SMC's continual purchase of property around the city. The college currently owns the following: -the 40-acre Main Campus,. -all the little houses it purchased on the south side of Pearl between 17th and 20th, - nearly all the frontage on the south side of Pico between 14th and 16th (it recently paid $4 million for the WISE and Healthy Aging adult daycare building), -the NE corner of Pico and 14th, used as a parking lot (the adjacent YWCA wanted this parcel to expand) B-45 - the Admin Building on Pico and 27th, -the Airport Arts Campus on Airport Avenue, -the Olympic Shuttle Lot, -the Academy for Entertainment & Technology on Stewart, -the Performing Arts block (10th to 11th, Santa Monica Blvd. to Arizona), - an office building on the NW corner of 10th and Santa Monica Blvd., and -the Emeritus College on 2nd St. Attached is a letter which the FOSP Board sent to the SMC Board of Trustees at the time they were approving the Final EIR for the 2010 Master Plan Update. They approved the Final EIR in August. So now we're wondering how to proceed. Should we try to meet with Lucy Dyke alone, or try meet with the City Manager and Lucy and Stephanie Negriff and whichever city department would monitor the ongoing SMC constmctidn projects, or what? Thank you for any advice you can offer. Best regards, Zina Josephs B-46 tephanie Manglaras From; Lynn Gephart <Igephart@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:01 PM To: Budget Mailbox Subject: Friends of Sunset Park -Can We Talk? I regret very much that due to my small children, I will be unable to attend tonight's session. However - I just wanted to take a moment and indicate some areas of interest/conceru for me: 1) Airport - I hope the city will continue it's fight with the FAA against C/D aircraft. Or that those resources can be redirected for simply closing. down the airport when the current lease runs out: 2) Development/Congestion -The overdevelopment and overbuilding in our city is leading to unsustainable congestion. I see many, many exisiting buildings for lease, yet the building continues. I don't know what the solution is, but the city cannot sustain the current pattern. 3) Elections -The city council members should have to disclose when they are voting on matters that pertain to any oftheir election contributors. 4) Big Blue Bus -there are certain lines that seem to only be for SMC students. There is no reason why resident's yards need to become the busstop. Pearl & 20th - I'm talking about you. There is no reason why any stops on residential streets need to be there. The stops can be relocated to Pearl closer to the college or onto PICO. I'm curious how many Sunset Park residents are utilizing these routes - I'd bet it's almost none. Thanks, Lynn B-47 tephanie Manglaras From: Finance Mailbox Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:30 AM To: Jennifer Young Subject: FW: Ocean Park re-striping -Yes From: Bob Brode [bbrode@brandx.net] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:07 PM To: Budget Mailbox Subject: Ocean Park re-striping -- Yes Not really much of a budget item I expect, but since FOSP made a (negative) issue of it at the Sunset Park "Can We Talk" meeting: I'm a 20-year resident of Sunset Park (50 years in Santa Monica), a member of FOSP, and I think the re-striping is a great improvement. It makes Ocean Park less of a freeway and more of a street, and facilitates bike lanes, turn lanes and parking. The assertion by some that it has increased congestion I find untrue, at least in my own experience -- it was already very congested at rush hours, and the lack of turn lanes previously meant that it was effectively one lane at peak times anyway. I don't particularly notice increased traffic on Oak and Pearl. If it's decreased average speed between 11th and 16th (though I'm not sure it has), that's a good thing, as excessive speed there in the past was the source of several bad accidents. I expect that those who approve or are neutral are much less likely to speak up than those who are unhappy, or maybe just dislike change. Bob Brode 2811 11th Street B-48 tephanie Manalaras From: Carol Swindell Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:20 PM To: Elaine Polachek; Rod Gould; Eileen Fogarty Cc: Candace Tysdal; Stephanie Manglaras; David Carr Subject: RE: FOSP: Airport -Flight school permits, etc. Staff sent out a request to departments last week and responses are due back to us tomorrow. We're following up on the items below as well. From: Elaine Polachek Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:07 PM To: Rod Gould; Eileen Fogarty; Carol Swindell Subject: RE: FOSP: Airport -Flight school permits, etc. Carol's staff is coordination the preparation of a response to FOSP's list of issues From: Rod Gould Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:03 PM To: Elaine Polachek; Eileen Fogarty Subject: FW: FOSP: Airport -Flight school permits, etc. From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com [mailto:ZinaJosephs@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:34 PM To: Rod Gould Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Subject: FOSP: Airport -Flight school permits, etc. Dear Rod, 1. Thank you for your response below. 1 hope the City Attorney's Office can come up with some findings that will justify denying the permit applications. 2. A belated "thank vou" for the Can We Talk meeting at Grant Elementary. We really do appreciate you and the city staff putting in the long hours to do these repeated meetings in the various neighborhoods. And 1 apologize for the delay in starting the Grant meeting - I was busy getting nervous about our presentation and just wasn't watching the time. 3. Missino concerns -Regarding the list of "concerns" that we gave you, I just bought a new computer table and, in cleaning out my old computer desk yesterday, discovered some FOSP membership forms that had slid down behind a shelf. Here are the "concerns" that were missing from the list we gave you Tuesday evening. 1000 block Pine St. -Increasing development and traffic; Losing our neighborhood 1400 block Ashland -Overdevelopment 1600 block Ashland -Increased development causing crowding; Airport safety 2000 block 14th St. -Overdevelopment, traffic 2300 block 21st St. -Overdevelopment and heavy traffic 2400 block 23rd St. -Development and traffic; Parking; Pedestrian safety 3000 block Margaret Lane -Overdevelopment (traffic); Airport safety; Crime and safety; Santa Monica College's continuing expansion 4. Questioning staff --Also, at the Can We Talk meeting, you invited us to ask questions of any of the stafF members who were in attendance. In the announcement for the "Can We Talk" meetings (which ran again in the Mirrortoday), it doesn't B-49 ay anything about the city. department heads attending the meetings and being available to answer questions. It just says that you're going to be at the meeting and that you'll talk about "neighborhood projects, the economy and our future." Perhaps that could be added next year. 5. Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping, Lincoln to 25th --About the OPB re-striping 6-month "pilot project" that started in December 2007, I'm sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but this pilot project has felt to Sunset Park residents kind of similar to the FAA 6-month "test." after which a new system that impacts residents essentially becomes permanent without a public process. It might be helpful if staff prepared an Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping Information Item on the City Council agenda, as Eileen promised last May (see email below,) rather than organizing another rancorous community meeting. Here's the information that we haven't received yet: 1) resident survey results, and 2) "before and after" accident data and daily traffic counts for Pearl St., Oak St., and Hill St., not just for OPB and for Ashland (3 blocks south of OPB). If the information is posted online as an Information Item for City Council, residents could more clearly see the "trade-offs" -fewer serious traffic accidents vs. gridlock during rush hour. Or, perhaps stated another way, "safety vs. convenience." Then, residents in Sunset Park and Ocean Park who still have concerns could communicate their opinions directly to the City Council One of the Council members warned me in 2007 that if Traffic Management re-striped Ocean Park Blvd., as it had re- striped Montana Avenue some years earlier, that we would never be able to go back to 4 lanes. That the term "pilot project" was being used as sort of a ruse to lull residents into going along with the project without causing too much trouble. Without an Information Item, he will have been proven correct. 6. I know it's wishful thinking, but along with the traffic signal synchronization program underway in Santa Monica, if LADOT could be persuaded to adjust the traffic sign at OPB/Gateway/Bundy so that more than just a few eastbound cars could turn south on Bundy per signal in the afternoon, that adjustment would greatly reduce the afternoon OPB congestion problem, especially the commuter traffic generated by Santa Monica Business Park (on OPB between 27th and Centinela). From: Eileen.Fogarty@SMGOV.NET To: ZinaJosephs@aol.com CC: Lucy.Dyke@SMGOV.NET; EIIen.Gelbard@SMGOV.NET, Lee.Swain@SMGOV.NET Sent: 5/11/2010 4:43:50 P:M. Pacific Standard Time Subj: RE: Ocean Park Blvd. re-paving/re-striping (25th-Lincoln) Hi Zina, We are issuing an Information Item shortly stating that the current configuration will be retained. The safety data shows approximately 50% fewer accidents on Ocean Park Boulevard as a result of the current striping. We will let you know when the Information Item has been released. From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com [mailto:ZinaJosephs@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May ii, 2010 9:24 AM To: Eileen Fogarty; Lee E. Swain Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Subject: Ocean Park Blvd. re-paving/re-striping (25th-Lincoln) Dear Eileen and Lee, The city is in the process of re-paving Ocean Park Blvd. from Lincoln to 25th St. It appears, from the temporary markings, that it will continue as one-lane in each direction. B-50 he City Manager had told me several months ago that the Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping pilot project evaluation would be on a City Council agenda this spring. I have not seen that agenda item. Transportation Management has never presented data to the community comparing daily traffic counts and traffic accidents on the parallel streets of Oak and Pearl, before and after the re-striping was done on OPB. I emailed Lucy Dyke about this on May 5th and have had no response. Is the re-striping now considered permanent? If not, why is the city re-paving the street before that's been decided? ~ Best regards, Zina Josephs tt#YkY43liitt#i**tii**!f**3f Ff*k*'.IFF%!F!!:! %lhiF*k}tt#*fftikfktiltttt*tY[*in*f*i>hil+t*#*!Ff%*F%f:IFF%f:lklF%! In a message dated 12/3/2010 11:1230 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Rod.Gould@SMGOV.NET writes: Zina, Thank you for hosting us on Tuesday. I hope you and the Board of FOSP and your neighbors felt the time was well spent. I am in the process of denying these two lease applications. To be sure that we can defense any challenge form the leaseholders, the City Attorney's Office is preparing the findings that I will use to buttress my decision. Thank you for the added testimony. -Rod From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com [mailto:Zina]osephs@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010.11:02 AM To: Rod Gould Cc: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom Subject: FOSP: Airport -Flight school use permits December 4, 2010 Dear Mr. Gould, The Board of Directors of Sunset Park supports the Airport Commission recommendation of November 22, 2010 that you denv the use permit applications for two new flight schools at Santa Monica Airport (SMO). As the data recently compiled by FOSP members John and Vivien Fairweather demonstrates, most of the Saturday departures from SMO that they and others observed were touch-and-go or taxi-and- gotakeoffs by students pilots. (See the attachment - we handed you a hard copy of this document at the November 30 "Can We Talk?" meeting. And before opening, be aware that the attachment is 6.2M8.) Af the November 22nd Airport Commission meeting, we were also struck by the statement of one of the applicants, whose school is based in Long Beach, that he wants to expand to SMO for the convenience of a few of his students who live in West Los Angeles. So for the convenience of a few West Los Angeles residents, hundreds of Santa Monica residents would have to put up with the additional noise, pollution, and safety risks associated with repeated landings and takeoffs of planes using leaded fuel. While the jets use kerosene, the piston-powered planes still use leaded gasoline. The Golf Course Turn tends to bring these planes over both the Marine Park playground and the playground of the Growing Place Marine Park Campus, afull-day nonprofit pre-school, partially funded by city grants, which serves children ages 3 months to 5 years. B-51 In addition, the repeated touch-and-go "loop pattern" that student pilots fly (west to Lincoln Blvd., south to Venice Blvd., east toward the 405, and back around to land again heading west) affects residents not only in Sunset Park but also in Venice, Mar Vista, and West Los Angeles. For these reasons, we urge you to deny the use permits for the two new flight schools at SMO. Respecttully, Board of Directors Friends of Sunset Park B-52 Stephanie Manglaras From: Greg Mullen Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:10 AM To: Stephanie Manglaras; Jory Wolf Subject: RE: Friends of Sunset Park I had correspondence with Zina regarding this issue earlier in the year...see below. Here is the essence of the response: Library policy regarding access to the Internet and all other resources is based upon First Amendment protections and the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights. The premise is that public libraries have a special role in our society as a place for public access to information and that there should not be any policy or practice that limits access to Constitutionally-protected material At the same time, the Library is committed to maintaining a safe environment for children. That is why we have separate spaces for children's study areas, collections and computers. We develop websites to direct children to quality resources and provide guidance to parents and caregivers on how to help ensure safe use of the Internet. Let me know if you need any additional info. From: Greg Mullen Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:17 PM To: 'ZinaJosephs@aoi.com' Cc: Rod Gould; Tim Jackman; Marsha Moutrie; Claudia Fishier; Catherine Ronan; Library Board; Jaime Hernandez; Scott Pace; Artis Williams; Elaine Polachek Subject: RE: FOSP: Exposing children to pornography Dear Ms. Josephs, Thank you for your message and for your interest in the Santa Monica Public Library. I know that you and the members of the Friends of Sunset Park have been strong supporters and active users of the Library. As you point out, I have had correspondence with Mr. and Ms. Thixton on this topic. We had a conversation last week in which I explained our policies. I also described actions we are taking to help limit inadvertent exposure to material that might be interpreted as disturbing or offensive. Library policy regarding access to the Internet and all other resources is based upon First Amendment protections and the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights. The premise is that public libraries have a special role in our society as a place for public access to information and that there should not be any policy or practice that limits access to Constitutionally-protected material. At the same time, the Library is committed to maintaining a safe environment for children. That is why we have separate spaces for children's study areas, collections and computers. We develop websites to direct children to quality resources and provide guidance to parents and caregivers on how to help ensure safe-use of the Internet. B-53 The Library's senior staff met recently to discuss the topic of inadvertent viewing of public Internet computer screens. We identified several steps we can take to further address this concern. We will: - Ensure that privacy screens are on the public Internet computers and replace lost ar damaged screens promptly; - Ensure that the screens are used by the public, - Explore ways to relocate popular collections so that they are not adjacent to Internet computers; - Explore options to face Internet computer screens away from the primary paths of travel through the Library; and, - Continue to provide parents and caregivers with information about the Library's Internet policy when they register a child for a Library card. Thank you again for your interest in Library policy. As a librarian, I recognize the importance of maintaining access to information. As the father of three I share your concern for children and will work with staff to maintain a safe, healthy environment. Sincerely, Greg Greg Mullen City Librarian Santa Monica Public Library From: Stephanie Manglaras Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:01 AM To: Jory Wolf; Greg Mullen Subject: Friends of Sunset Park I am coordinating comments to FOSP based on their recommendations provided at the community budget meeting. Not sure which one of you would be better to comment on this:. Protect children from inadvertent exposure to pornography on public library computers being used by adults. Any response? Thanks! Stephanie Manglaras Acting Senior Budget Analyst, City of Santa Monica (310) 458-8272 B-54 tephanie Manalaras From: ZinaJosephs@aoLcom Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:40 AM To: Rod Gould Cc: Kate Vernez; Stephanie Manglaras; Eileen Fogarty; Lucy Dyke; Bob Trimborn; Tim Jackman; Artis Williams; Scott Ferguson; Suzanne Post; Council Mailbox; ZinaJosephs@aoLcom Subject: FOSP: Letter of thanks to the City Manager January 18, 2011 Rod Gould City Manager City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Rod, Friends of Sunset Park will be holding its Annual General Membership Meeting on Saturday, May 21st, at 1:30 PM. We would like to invite to you speak at the meeting, if your schedule allows. We expect 90-100 attendees. Secondly, the FOSP Board of Directors would like to thank you for the following: 1. Holding the "Can We Talk?" meeting at Grant School on November 30th, bringing staff to the meeting, asking the Planning Director to commit to informing residents by February 15th about the results of the Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping pilot project (begun in 2007), and having staff send written responses to the FOSP Board recommendations (this last item was a "first"); 2. Denying the use permit applications for two new flight schools at Santa Monica Airport; and 3. Recommending to City Council that it hire former FAA Assistant Administrator for Airports Kirk Shaffer to lobby the FAA to accept an alternative to the 250 heading, that it hire The RAND Corporation to study the future of SMO, and that it hire Point C to facilitate a public process regarding the future of SMO. Also, we would like to commend the Santa Monica Police Department for its successful apprehension of three suspected residential burglars in the 2300 block of 21st Street early Sunday morning, January 16th. We are grateful to our NRO, Artis Williams, for keeping us informed, at the time, as to what was happening. One 21st St. resident, in whose bathroom one of the suspects was found hiding, wrote later that morning that the police officers came quickly, that they made her feel protected, and that SMPD is "the best." And finally, we would like tp commend the Santa Monica Fire Department for a highly effective all-day Disaster Assistance Response Team Training (DART) on January 15th, coordinated by Suzanne Post. Thirty residents and Shutters employees are now prepared to help with the following Urban Search & Rescue and Disaster First Aid activities: --put out a fire using an extinguisher, --shut off gas, water, and electricity or break open a jammed door; -methodically search a building for victims; -- use a crowbar to lift a heavy object off a person who's pinned underneath; -- do a primary triage evaluation; -- do a secondary "head to toe" evaluation; --immobilize fractured limbs; --lift and move victims; -- prepare ahead of time by using government web sites such the city's own Emergency Preparedness link and "The Great California Shake Out," by contacting the city's Emergency Services Coordinator; and -- at the time of an emergency, tune in to AM-1680 KRSM. Sincerely, B-55 Zina Josephs (on behalf of the FOSP Board of Directors) cc: Kate Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Manglaras, Acting Senior Budget Analyst Eileen Fogarty, Planning Director Lucy Dyke, Transportation Management Bob Trimbom, Airport Director Tim Jackman, Chief of Police Artis Williams, Neighborhood Resource Officer Scott Ferguson, Fire Chief Suzanne Post, Fire Safety Coordinator City Couhcil B-56 tephanie Manglaras From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:21 PM To: Stephanie Manglaras Subject: Re: City Comments Thanks very much, Stephanie! This is the first time we've received a written response like this -amazing! Zina In a message dated 12/22/2010 2:38:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Steghanie.ManolarasCo~SMGOV.NET writes: Zina -Attached are responses to the FOSP Recommendations from the Community Budget Meetings. Let me know if you need anything further. Happy Holidays! Stephanie Manglaras Acting Senior Budget Analyst, City of Santa Monica (310) 458-8272 8-57 Friends of Sunset Park "Can We Talk?" -- November 30, 2010 FOSP recommendations for budget priorities for FY 2011-12, based upon email from members, written comments on membership forms, and discussions at monthly FOSP Board meetings: 1. Land Use & Circulation a. Protect Sunset Park from cut-through traffic generated by large development projects. The LUCE shows traffic congestion increasing between now and 2030 on Lincoln Blvd. and the Cloverfield/23rd corridor. These are the only two "through" north-south streets in Sunset Park. This is unacceptable. The FOSP Board opposes large development projects anywhere in Santa Monica that will increase cut- through traffic in our neighborhood. This includes development agreements in the former LMSD, the Special Office District, and the hospital district, as well as the continued expansion of Santa Monica College. For example, it would make no sense for the Planning Department to express concern about significant traffic impacts from the proposed 1.3 million sq ft Bundy Village and Medical Park, but approve the 1 million sq ft Bergamot Transit Village Center, which would also impact Sunset Park and other residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica. The City has not approved the Papermate site application. The Papermate EIR scoping meeting is scheduled for December 8, The community is encouraged to participate in the Bergamot Area Plan meeting scheduled in February. The Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMs) project will improve traffic signal operations for transit along the Lincoln Blvd. corridor, which will ultimately benefit all users of Lincoln. Furthermore, the relinquishment of Lincoln Blvd. from Caltrans to the City will allow for much-needed repaving of Lincoln, which will also benefit all users. At the Cloverfield/I-10 interchange, City staff are evaluating traffic signal timing improvements to improve north-south flows, and the City will be working with Caltrans to make capacity enhancements to the ramps. b. Hold a public hearing re the re-striping of Ocean Park Blvd., and release relevant data. The 6-month "pilot project" re-striping of Ocean Park Blvd. from Lincoln to 25th, which began in December 2007, was made permanent with no public hearing, despite promises from city staff. The results of the resident "survey" were never shared with FOSP by the Transportation Management Division. "Before and after" data concerning daily traffic counts and traffic accidents on the nearest parallel streets, Pearl and Oak, were never made available to FOSP. An Information Item will be provided regarding the restriping of Ocean Park Blvd. c. Route Santa Monica College vehicular traffic from the 500-space parking structure under the new Student Services/Administration Building (currently under construction) onto Pico Blvd. rather than alleys and narrow residential streets. Do not allow SMC to use alleys behind and next to homes (20"' Court and Pico Court), as well as the driveway entrance on Pearl St. just west of 20~", for vehicular access. SMC-generated traffic already impacts 20`" St. (25,427 daily car trips) and Pearl St. (4,178 daily cartrips). B-58 The intersection of 20~" & Pearl is one of only a handful of non-signalized intersections in Santa Monica that already has an "F" Level-of-Service rating. SMPD counts show 130 JAMS students crossing that intersection daily. 500 new parking spaces could generate another 3,000 daily car trips. (We don't have an exact estimate because SMC never did a traffic analysis for this new parking structure.) SMC facility planning and/or construction are not under City jurisdiction. d. Work with SMC officials to mitigate traffic impacts from its 2010 Master Plan Update. The Final EIR included the following: i. a net increase of 5,678 daily weekday car trips, ii. 36 intersections with "significant and unavoidable impact," and iii. 13 street segments with "significant and unavoidable impacts" (including Pearl St., 14th, 16th, 20th, and 23rd). Meanwhile, SMC officials budgeted $681,700 in July 2009 on advertising to recruit additional students from out-of-town and around the world. The Master Plan Final EIR showed 34,288 students enrolled in 2010, up from 29,771 students in 2005. The "significant" traffic impacts caused by this continual growth iri enrollment are unacceptable to Sunset Park residents. And city staffs recent suggestion to install parking meters in front of homes on 20~" St. would solve nothing and merely cause more misery for residents. (We're wondering whether the city also planning to install parking meters in front of homes in the Wilmont neighborhood.) Any plans for the installation of new parking meters will take into account residential parking concerns. We will continue to work with SMC to identify options for reducing the volume of vehicle trips associated with the college. e. Reduce the impact of college-serving Big Blue Bus service on Sunset Park residents. In May 2007, BBB held a community meeting at Muir/SMASH about adding bus routes in Sunset Park on 20"' St., 17'h St., 14`" St., and Pearl St. without sending postcards orflyering residences on those streets. In August 2007, from one Crosstown bus every half hour, BBB added the "Sunset Ride" (an SMC intercampus route), the "Line 6 SMC Commuter," and the "Bundy Evening Shuttle" on '17~' St. SMC also routed its own intercampus shuttle that serves the 11'" St. Madison Site campus onto 20`" and Pearl. While Santa Monica residents were being urged to walk and ride bicycles everywhere, Sunset Park residents who complained about a gazillion buses per day suddenly running past and idling in front of their homes were told that if the college-serving routes didn't stop right in front of the Main Campus, neither SMC students nor staff would take the bus, that they couldn't possibly walk to the Main Campus from arterials such as Pico or Ocean Park Blvd. And although residents were promised that the newer, quieter 30-foot buses would be used on both the Crosstown and Sunset Rides, the older 4D-foot buses were still being used on the Sunset Ride as of November 2010. Big Blue Bus continues to monitortransit service demand on bus routes serving Santa Monica College and the community and is making every effort to operate smaller buses on 20`h street as demand warrants. Big Blue Bus will be ordering the remaining 10 community-bus vehicles this year which will help our effort to operate 30-ft buses on these routes. A notice to proceed (NTP) will be issued in February, following City Council authorization to change the fuel technology from hybrid to compressed natural gas. The delivery date, which is contingent on the date of the NTP, is anticipated to be approximately December 2011. f. Monitor the SMC 2010 Master Plan Update demolition and construction projects. The plan includes demolishing the 3-story cement Corsair Stadium on 16th St. (across the street from homes) and B-59 the following facilities on or near Pearl St. (across the street from John Adams Middle School): the Liberal Arts building, the Letters and Sciences building, the Math Complex, the Library Village, the P.E. building, and the ESL building. These demolition/construction projects will result in huge amounts of landfill waste, concrete dust and other air pollutants, possible asbestos removal, noise and vibrations from up to 50 diesel haul trucks per day on Pearl St. and 16th St. (currently posted "No trucks over 3 tons"), and other short-term construction and long-term operational air quality impacts. The SCAOMD June 2010 comment on the DEIR stated that "AOMD staff is concerned that the lead agency [SMC] failed to quantify localized air quality impacts from oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions during project construction and operation." Much of the demolition and diesel truck traffic will occur very close to the outdoor playground at the John Adams Child Development Center/Head Start/Califomia State Pre-school Program at 2320 17th St. Qust south of Pearl St.) And, according to college documents, Corsair Stadium includes more than 600 feet of street frontage along 16th St. and more than 200 feet of street frontage along Pearl St. Residents along 16th St. whose homes suffered structural damage during the construction of the Swim Center are rightly concerned about possible damage that may result from the demolition and replacement of the much larger stadium structure. Regarding noise, college documents state that construction activities that exceed 80 decibels will occur between 10 AM and 3 PM -- perfect timing for students at John Adams Middle School, particularly those who take classes in the music building at Pearl and 17th. Residents are counting on the city to monitor 2010 Master Plan Update construction activity, as SMC continues to replace every single structure on the Main Campus. Although Building Code plan review, Building permitteam and inspections are under the purview of the Division of the State Architect, the college must follow local construction hours and noise requirements Accordingly, Building and Safety will provide enforcement of these regulations. g. Notification i. When the Planning Department publishes notices of public hearings and community meetings in local newspapers, we request that those notices also be (a) emailed to all city-recognized neighborhood organizations (a development project in one neighborhood may also affect adjacent neighborhoods), and (b) posted on the city web site. ii. Review notification requirements, public process requirements, and exemptions as the zoning ordinances are updated. Stop approving changes to the neighborhood without adequate notification of residents or adequate public process, such as approving CUP's to serve alcohol in restaurants, approving small and large child care businesses in R1 zones, approving affordable housing projects of up t0 50 units, and adding bus lines on narrow residential streets. New efforts to expand community outreach and input on development projects include a broader notification radius for community meetings and phone calls to neighborhood group representatives inviting them to both community meetings and project public hearings. h. Neighborhood conservation -During the LUCE update process, residents were told that 94% of the city would be protected/preserved. To protect the neighborhoods, we need to develop strategies that express, for example, community values regarding mass and lot coverage that are appropriate to the neighborhoods. Those might include: a) embedding zoning ordinances with neighborhood characteristics, B-60 b) providing incentives or other tools to tie, for example, preservation of courtyard-style buildings to preservation of affordable rental housing, and preservation of the Village Trailer Park to preservation of affordable home ownership, and c) developing voluntary options such as design guidelines for various styles, with design details included After reviewing the draft process that Frances and Hal Phipps recently outlined in meetings with residents, we fear that very few Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts will ever be created in Santa Monica. However, if that process does go into effect, we request that a city staff person with expertise in neighborhood conservation be designated to work with residents, and that the public hearings be held at the Landmarks Commission (which focuses on conservation/preservation), rather than at the Planning Commission (which focuses on development). We received very preliminary input from community members as to appropriate process. Comments from community regarding increased staff support and expertise in developing overlay are being incorporated. We will hold further meetings with community to discuss neighborhood conservation 2. Santa Monica Airport (SMO) a. Continue pursuing implementation of the ban on Category C and D aircraft at SMO. The City is currently in the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals vigorously pursuing its appeal of the FAA's Directors Determination. The case was heard on Oetober 14, 2010. The City is currently waiting for the Court's ruling on the matter. b. Continue pursuing implementation of standard Runway Safety Areas at SMO. The City continues to seek appropriate Runway Safety Areas through its adoption of the Runway Safety Ordinance on March 25, 2008 which banned C and D aircraft and subsequent discussions with the FAA. The matter is currently held in abeyance pending the outcome of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. c. Continue working with other agencies to develop toxicity standards for ultrafine particles, with the goal of protecting residents impacted by jet operations at SMO. The City continues to workwith South Coast Air Quality Management District on studies of aircraft emissions, including the recent completion of another monitoring study in September. It also participated in a landmark study with the US Environmental Protection Agency on the impact of leaded aviation fuel. All of these efforts are focused on generating appropriate regulations on emissions by the federal government -which maintains its preemption and jurisdiction in setting standards in accordance with the provision of the Clean Air Act. The City continues to look for opportunities for additional environmental work with appropriate regional, state and federal agencies to conduct further studies. d. Continue working with the city-retained aviation consultant to find an alternative to the 250-heading that was tested by the FAA from December 2009 to June 2010. The City has engaged numerous consultants to study the impacts of the FAA's proposed 250 heading and recommend alternatives to the FAA proposal. The City has also strongly urged the FAA not to adopt the proposed change to the IFR departure procedures for piston-powered aircraft and if it decides to move forward with the proposal, to conduct a full environmental analysis of such a proposal to provide for a full and transparent public process. e. Now that the test has concluded, continue working with pilots to persuade them to follow the Golf Course Turn stipulated in the 1984 Agreement. B-61 Airport staff continues to aggressively outreach to pilots and flight schools regarding the recommend noise abatement procedures through direct contact, publications, participation in flight instructor clinics, and through contact with chief pi€ots of companies that routinely use the Airport. f. Consider limiting the number of flight schools at SMO due to the impact on residents of both Santa Monica and Los Angeles. The proposed Santa Monica Airport Commercial Operations Permits for Angel City Flyers. and The Flight Academy are currently under review by the City Manager and City Attorney`s Office. g. Begin a public process to discuss what will happen in 2015, when the 1984 Agreement ends. As City Manager Rod Gould noted at the meeting, the City is in the process of developing a comprehensive study and public process on this issue. 3. Public safety/Emergency areparedness a. Continue to improve communication between the Police Department and residents, using the santamonicapd.org web site, Crime Mapping, the Neighborhood Resource Officers, the Crime Prevention Officers, the Citizen Police Academy, the Community Bulletins, and other means. There are plans to upgrade the Crime Mapping system to a new version that offers more information and in an enhanced format. In the interim, the existing site remains in production and we have joined a regional crime mapping system (crimemapping.com)rohich will also be used by LAPD in the near future, so residents in the Sunset Park area have a way to get information for the entire community surrounding them. The Los Angeles Times also receives our data for publication. b. Reduce activity in alleys involving homeless people and non-residents of Santa Monica. Patrol watch commanders (Lt. Lowe; Heineman, and Marhaba) will bring attention to the homeless issues with the assistance of NRO Williams who will communicate with the Homeless Liaison Program (HLP) team. NRO Unit will be teaming up with Solid Waste to address the trash/bulky items that are dumped in the alleys. By removing these items (furniture, mattresses) along with extra patrols, we can reduce the number of homeless individuals that congregate in the alley. NRO Williams has also advised residents to report any illegal dumping to SMPD and has given residents information on the Bulky Item pick-up service offered by Solid Waste. He continues to attend neighborhood watch meetings and encourages residents to install motion sensor lightingto enhance safety and discourage illegal activity. NRO Williams has shared information with residents on laws regarding people living in their vehicles. He has explained the laws and given information to those who call regarding these offenses, including information about who to call and when (PD dispatch at 310-458-8491 for people living in vehicles between the hours of 0200 and 0600 and Traffic Services at 310-458-2226 for vehicles left standing for more than 72 hours). Fire Department staff continues to work with Police Department and Human Services staff regarding provision of homeless services; since 2007 records show a 27% decrease in the homeless population in Santa Monica. c. Continue to address pedestrian safety issues (especially around the SMC Main Campus, on 23`d St. south of Ocean Park Blvd., and at the Pico/28'"7Stewart intersection). See answer for (d) below B-62 d. Continue to address bicycle safety issues, including failure by some adult cyclists to adhere to traffic rules by using sidewalks on streets such as OPB that have bike lanes, by ignoring stop signs, by not wearing helmets, and by riding at night without easily-visible lights or reflectors. Chief Jackman spoke about the issue of cyclists and enforcement the night of the budget meeting, and bicycle enforcement has increased significantly in the past 45 days. We are also doing more Red Light, Intersection and Speed Operations {RISO). Traffic Services Lt. Lindsey has been informed and the watch commanders will encourage the beat car to pay attention to traffic in the College area. Santa Monica College Police Chief Vasquez has also been contacted regarding these concerns. Traffic Enforcement Unit (Motors and Commercial Enforcement) implemented a comprehensive citywide traffic safety program to reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries through a combination of education and enforcement. The unit has received traffic enforcement related grants to combat the unique traffic problems in areas such as Sunset Park. Strategies include: 1. Collaborative proactive programs with ather agencies and with the support of organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD}, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration {NHTSA), and the California Office of Traffic Safety {OTS). 2. Ongoing meetings with Traffic Engineering to identify areas that have a higher concentration of accidents, alcohol-related incidents, and other traffic violations. 3. Saturatiori patrol targeting certain areas such as Lincoln Blvd, the Pico and Ocean Park Corridors. Traffic conducts a number of pedestrian stings and checkpoints in areas of the City that have been identified to have higher levels of drivers impaired by alcohol and or drivers operating vehicles without proper operating licenses. This year the Traffic Unit has conducted checkpoints, saturated patrols and pedestrian sting operations in Sunset Park Areas -1700 block of Ocean Park, 1700 - 2400 elock of Pico Blvd, and Lincoln Blvd (between Pico and the south city limits}. NRO Williams has teamed up with Traftic Enforcement to address bicycle themed complaints (riding an the sidewalk, failing to stop for stop signs etc.} and pedestrian related offenses (jaywalking, vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk}. He has also written blogs and Santa Monica Daily Press articles to informlremind motorists and cyclists about state and local laws for operating theirvehicles. (NRO Williams is a former traffic officer and has a passion for resolving traffic and pedestrian safety issues.} e. Reduce delays in emailing out SMPD Community Bulletins. NRO Williams routinely sends a-mail communications to FOSP and they are timely and frequent. Sgt. Trisler is looking into this issue of community fax J bulletins. NROs have met with CPC Mike Cveyich and will be compiling a (ist of current neighborhood watch block captains to add them to the current list of neighborhood a-mail blast list. The "blast".gives citizens a quick update on police activity in their area so the phone Tines in dispatch and the watch commanders office do not become flooded with calls requesting information. This system works when an NRO is at work and able to send out information, but there are times when they are unavailable and cannot provide info to the neighborhood. B-63 f. Create a Community Bulletin email system for the Fire Department, or allow them to use the Police Department Community Bulletin system, in order to communicate with residents regarding Emergency Preparedness, DART training, CERT training, fire safety issues regarding Christmas trees and decorations, fireworks safety issues,-etc. The City is in the process of implementing an Alert Notification System and the Fire Department is involved 'in that project (as is the Police Department). This will likely become the City's primary form of official notifications for emergencies or even community events. Contained within the emerging Strategic Planning efforts, the Fire Department plans to enhance communicatian efforts, both internal and external. Communications with neighborhood groups will be accomplished through use of a Community Bulletin Notification system that will disseminate important Fire Department information to neighborhood groups. This system will be similar to that already successfully by the Police Department. The City is currently implementing an Alert and Notification system which will enable residents to be notified of incident and event information. This new system will allow individuals to opt in and select the type of information that they wish to receive. This system will be operational in the spring. 4. Public landscape a. Activate the city web site for the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force, just like the other city Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces, so residents will know when and where the meetings are being held and access agendas and minutes. (This seems to be a Brown Act issue.) Urban forest Task Force website is up and running at www.santamonicatrees.com. b. Post information to help residents whose property is damaged by city trees, i.e; tree roots buckling sidewalks on private property, damaging plumbing, causing sewer back-ups, etc. Public Landscape staff will work with Public Works staff to create guidelines for residents with sidewalk and utility issues that are a result of public trees. These will be posted on Public Landscape website by 1/30/11. 5. Sustainability and Environment a. Continue publicizing existing and new city programs, such as the Free Community "Shred" Event Continue publicizing existing and new city programs, such as the Free Community "Shred" Event. The Office of Sustainability and the Environment will continue to publicize all community events related to sustainability and the environment on its website (www.sustainablesm.org) , in Seascape, ahd through the Santa Monica Sustainable Community newsletter. To sign up for the newsletter please visit the OSE website here: http://www.smgov. net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/Sustainable_Sa nta_Mon ica_Newsletter.aspx b. Regarding the Leafblower Ordinance: i. Include in the flyer instructions to gardeners the fact that, with a muzzle velocity of 150 miles per hour, leafblowers blow dust particles, including herbicides, pesticides, and other contaminants such as fecal matter, up from the ground into the air. This is especially troubling for residents who suffer from asthma, emphysema, and allergies. The flyers produced for the landscape professionals were completed and printed in October 2010. They include general information on air quality, particulate matter and pollution generated by leaf blowers and include a link to our website (www.sustainablesm.org/leafblower) where more detailed information similar to that you described is presented. For reasons of size and clarity, the information included in the flyers B-64 was limited to the most essential information, with additional information posted on the website. OSE staff will also be presenting much more detailed information to landscape professionals during a series of classes beginning in January so this in#ormation will definitely reach the landscaper community. ii. Extend the OSE department education and outreach program about the leafblower ban to the local school district and to the city-hired tree trimming companies currently trimming many blocks of ficus trees in Sunset Park. OSE staff has worked with Community and Cultural Services Public Landscaping staff to notify all city contractors working on maintenance of public landscapes and trees regarding mandatory compliance with the ordinance. OSE staff has also contacted maintenance staff aT the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District to inform them of the ordinance and identify alternative methods of managing leaves and other debris. c. Use the Community Bulletin system to remind residents about safe disposal practices for electronic waste, hazardous waste, and hazardous medical waste (such as syringes, which must be taken to UCLA or Hyperion for safe disposal). The Community Bulletin system typically has not been used for programmatic outreach (such as outreach on hazardous materials disposal) to neighborhood organizations, however OSE will investigate the possibility/feasibility of including this type of information In the future. 6. Human Services a. Continue the new Housing First approach to assist the homeless population. We will continue the new Housing First approach fo assist the homeless population. 7. Housing a. Continue to publicize the availability of low income housing in the city. The City will continue to include a data base of all affiordable housing addresses on the City's website. b. Modify the Torca loan repayment policy so borrowers don't lose their homes. Staff is reviewing the requirements of the TORGA Shared Appreciation Loan Program, assessing any potential defaults associated with existing Idans, and evaluating program flexibility that could assist participants at risk of default. c. Preserve the Village Trailer Park in order to preserve affordable home ownership. The Council added Policy D24.14 to the LUCE. It provides "Explore means to sustain Village Trailer Park's economic viability by incorporating it into a larger multi-property master plan, if feasible, or by the transfer of development rights that have as a goal, preserving existing housing as an integral part of a new mixed-use project." The Village Trailer Park owner has filed a notice of closure of the park, and the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding tolling the closure notice period while he applies for a Development Agreement that would convert the park into other uses. Two adjacent properties are also seeking development approvals and the Policy cited above encourages all involved to explore some means to preserve the mobile homes as part of a coordinated master plan. Due to the fact that state law provides Park owners rights to close parks so long as they meet the requirements of the Mobile home Residency Laws, this is a matter of complex negotiations at this point. 8. Public works a. Replace the temporary barrier at Lincoln & Wilson Place with a permanent barrier - a request that has been repeated at the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Sunset Park "Can We Talk?" meetings. This is apparently a "public benefit" that was promised to residents and funded in 1992. B-65 his has been prioritized by the City previously as part of the Borderline Neighborhood Improvements. This project, which wili address this suggestion, has been awarded and construction should begin in January. This project also addresses the 2nd item under Public Works concerns: "When will Wilson Place Street Improvements, funded in 1992, be completed?" 9. Other concerns a. Continue and expand inclusion opportunities for persons with disabilities. We will continue our efforts toward inclusion of persons with disabilities in our programs, and seek opportunities for expansion. This past year saw the launch of Accessible Santa Monica (www.smgov.net/accessiblesm), a web portal centralizing information about programs and services of interest to persons with disabilities. The site also serves as a public education tool on disability awareness. The Fire Department continues to provide training and information on fire safety and emergency preparedness to address the needs of persons with disabilities. A special section ded"icated to residents with disabilities is available on the Fire Department website at http://santamonicafire.orglGontent.aspx?id=7793. Extensive information on disaster preparedness planning and agencies offering assistance are available to residents and neighborhood groups. b. Protect children from inadvertent exposure to pornography on public library computers being used by adults. Library policy regarding access to the Internet and al€ other resources is based upon First Amendment protections and the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights. The premise is that public libraries have a special role in our society as a place for public access to information and that there should not be any policy or practice that limits access to Constitutionally-protected material. At the same time, the Library is committed to maintaining a safe environment for children. That is why we have separate spaces for children's study areas, collections and computers. We develop websites to direct children to quality resources and provide guidance to parents and caregivers on how to help ensure safe use of the Internet. **lSIFFFF#StikHiii~t*+*f*FhF:I:!%1%*tllYitift*t+**+S+%IFFf*FHtt*ktt*i*f'.!!:!S*}k4ktfi~iiY*[»*!F*FF!/ttiti*k*[Ytii#*+*!f**F Additional comments communicated through a-mail From: ZinaJosephsCo~aol.com [mailto:ZinaloseohsCo~aol.coml Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:34 PM To: Rod Gould 1. Missing concerns - 1000 block Pine St. -Increasing development and traffic; Losing our neighborhood 1400 block Ashland -Overdevelopment 1600 block Ashland -Increased development causing crowding; Airport safety 2000 block 14th St. -Overdevelopment, traffic 2300 block 21st St. -Overdevelopment and heavy traffic. 2400 block 23rd St. -Development and traffic; Parking; Pedestrian safety 3000 block Margaret Lane -Overdevelopment (traffic); Airport safety; Crime grid safety; Santa Monica College's continuing expansion B-66 The specific issues raised in the a-mail are probably related to spill-over traffic into neighborhoods; as the residential development in the single family areas is all in-fill and there's been very little else occurring in the other areas mentioned. PCD shares neighbors' concerns about the impacts of averdevelopment. The recently adopted Land Use and Circulation Element calls for a change in the way the City approaches these issues. It includes a strong neighborhood conservation focus and a commitment to reduce the number of peak period car trips in and out of the City. To implement these policies, the department is bringing forward an ordinance to implement the proposed "Tier System" that will reduce the threshold for projects to necessitate development agreements, planning Exposition Stations and access to them that emphasize access through transit, bicycle and walking. The department is also proposing a fee for new development to pay a fair share of the cost of a future, less auto-oriented transportation system and continuing to initiate programs and investments in neighborhood safety. 2. Questioning staff - At the Can We Talk meeting, you invited us to ask questions of any of the staff members who were in attendance. In the announcement for the "Can We Talk" meetings (which ran again in the Mirrortoday), it doesn't say anything about the city department heads attending the meetings and being available to answer questions. It just says that you're going to be at the meeting and that you'll talk about "neighborhood projects, the economy and our future." Perhaps that could be added next year. This is an excellent suggestion and we will include reference to city department heads attending the meetings and being available to answer questions. 3. Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping. Lincoln to 25th --About the OPB re-striping 6-month "pilot project" that started in December 2007, I'm sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but this pilot project has felt to Sunset Park residents kind of similar to the FAA 6-month "test." after which a new system that impacts residents essentially becomes permanent without a public process. It might be helpful if staff prepared an Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping Information Item on the City Council agenda, as Eileen promised last May (see email below,) rather than organizing another rancorous community meeting. Here's the information that we haven't received yet: 1) resident survey results, and 2) "before and after" accident data and daily traffic counts for Pearl St., Oak St., and Hill St., not just for OPB and for Ashland (3 blocks south of OPB). If the information is posted online as an Information Item for City Council, residents-could more clearly see the "trade-offs" -- fewer serious traffic accidents vs. gridlock during rush hour. Or, perhaps stated another way, "safety vs. convenience." Then, residents in Sunset Park and Ocean Park who still have concerns could communicate their opinions directly to the CRy Council. One of the Council members warned me in 2007 that if Traffic Management re-striped Ocean Park Blvd., as it had re-striped Montana Avenue some years earlier, that we would never be able to go back to 4 lanes. That the term "pilot project" was being used as sort of a ruse to lull residents into going along with the project without causing too much trouble. Without an Information Item, he will have been proven correct. An Information Item will be provided regarding the restriping of Ocean Park Blvd. 4. I know it's wishful thinking, but along with the traffic signal synchronization program underway in Santa Monica, if LADOT could be persuaded to adjust the traffic sign at OPB/Gateway/Bundy so that more than just a few eastbound cars-could turn south on Bundy per signal in the afternoon, that adjustment would B-67 reatly reduce the afternoon OPB congestion problem, especially the commuter traffic generated by Santa Monica Business Park (on OPB between 27th and Centinela). We have contacted LADOT to request modifications to the intersection of OPB/Gateway/Bundy (which is not City-owned). We have had numerous complaints about this location for the past few months and have put in a few calls to LADOT without any changes. From: Eileen.FooartvCa)SMGOV.NET To: ZinaJosephs(o~aol.com CC: Lucv.DvkeCa)SMGOV.NET, EIIen.GelbardCo~SMGOV.NET, Lee.Swainto7SMGOV.NET Sent: 5/11/2010 4:43:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time Subj: RE: Ocean Park Blvd. re-paving/re-striping (25th-Lincoln) Hi Zina, We are issuing an Information Item shortly stating that the current configuration will be retained. The safety data shows approximately 50% fewer accidents on Ocean Park Boulevard as a result of the current striping. Wewill let you know when the Information Item has been released. Prom: Zina7osephsCo~aol.com fmailto:Zina]oseohsCo~aol.coml Sent: Tuesday, May li, 2010 9:24 AM To: Eileen Fogarty; Lee E. Swain Cc: ZinaJoseohsCalaoLcom Subject: Ocean Park Blvd. re-paving/re-striping (25th-Lincoln) Dear Eileen and Lee, The city is in the process of re-paving Ocean Park Blvd. from Lincoln to 25th St. It appears, from the temporary markings, that it will continue as one-lane in each direction. The City Manager had told me several months ago that the Ocean Park Blvd. re-striping pilot project evaluation would be on a City Council agenda this spring. I have not seen that agenda item: Transportation Management has never presented data to the community comparing daily traffic counts and traffic accidents on the parallel streets of Oak and Pearl, before and after the re-striping was done on OPB. I emailed Lucy Dyke about this on May 5th and have had no response. Is the re-striping now considered permanent? If not, why is the city re-paving the street before that's been decided? Best regards, Zina Josephs B-68 Provide us your feedback and tell us what you want included in the budget priorities for the upcoming FY2011-22 and FY2012-13 budget. Please complete and return this form at the end of the meeting or mail it back to us at City Manager's Office, 1685 Main Street, Raom 209, Santa Moniea, CA 90401. You can also post your feedback at wwwsmgav.net/budget or email your comments to ~JU{~C1E;f(g7Stll OCL V.il@t. Thank you( ~~~~~~~~' ~~Q~~-r ~'fvNL'y ~''~ ° ~~J ~r,, `r` ~ ~ l~~~hf ~ Cam' ~` i /~~ B-69 Provide us your feedback and tell. us what you want included in the budget priorities for the upcoming FYZO11-12 and FY2O12-13 budget. Please complete and return this farm at the end of the meeting or mail it back to us at City Manager's Office, 1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401, You can also post your feedback at www.smgov,net/budget or email your comments to budget(C~SmgOV. net. Thank you! ,1-~,rPi-iv'~ ~~~ . ~S ~ ~~~" ~`~~~ ~~~~~ c~~~~ ~~ L~c~/"~ cS y~ ~~ ~~~~ ~':~~ B-70 Provide us your feedback and tell us what you want included in the budget priorities for the upcoming FY2011-12 and FY2012-13 budget. Please complete and return this farm at the end of the meeting or mail it back to us at City Manager's Office, 1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401._ You can also post your feedback at www.smgov.netJbudget or email your comments to bUCIC~G~(q~S111, O~ V.fl@t. Thank you! 5' ~G,~;use/`a"' ~ ~ t1. ~ea c.~, [ ~- Se ~ ~ ~ C-~.e~.vL ~ ~ jC (~ is V2 r' e'-~-SJ~" ~~-~•ed~ kl~~~ r~ ~ ~-tr.~7~'S f j ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~~5 lp~ 0 t9,~ S ~i L~ ~ r'~JP~,~$''{y" t~ °'~ v Q.eee e B-71 Stephanie Manglaras From: Paul Casey Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 6:09 PM To: Stephanie Negriff; 'Andrew Gledhill' Cc: Jacoline Ward; Stephanie Manglaras Subject: RE: Buses on Hill St Attachments: HiII 4th Passengers:xlsx Please find attached this yew's data from the 100% on-board passenger count. Paul Casey BBB x-5847 From: Stephanie Negriff Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:18 PM To: 'Andrew Gledhill' Cc: Jacoline Ward; Paul Casey; Stephanie Manglaras Subject: RE: Buses on HiII St I'll ask our Planner, Paul Casey to identify those stops and provide you with the data. It may also be helpful for him to provide you with the ridership on/off the bus along the entire segment of 4`h St from Hill to Pico, just in case residents are getting on/ off the bus at other bus stops on 4`" St. Stephanie From: Andrew Gledhill [mailto:andrew@pinkyvodka.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 2:32 PM To: Stephanie Negriff Cc: Jacoline Ward; Paul Casey; Stephanie Manglaras Subject: Re: Buses on Hill St Dear Stephanie; Thank you for the prompt reply. I'm interested in the two stops at the top of Hill St, where it meets 4th. I have the impression that the #2 bus often goes by in each direction with no-one much getting on or off. I'd be interested in any objective data on this, rather than my own presumptions. Thank you, Andrew On Nov 15, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Stephanie Negriff wrote: I always enjoythe opportunity to hearfrom the community and OPA has always been gracious and thoughtful in the feedback that they have given City staff at these annual outreach meetings. L B-72 he Big Blue Bus has recently completed its annual comprehensive ridership count, so there is no need to spend your day counting. Which bus stops are you interested in obtaining passenger counts from? We can provide you with whatever data you need. Best, Stephanie Negritf From: Jacoline Ward Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:51 AM To: Stephanie Negriff Subject: Buses on Hill St From: BBBIR Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:20 PM To: Jacoline Ward Subject: FW: Customer's comments or requests regarding other From: andrewCo~oinkwodka.com {andrewCa~pinkwodka.mml Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 3:07 PM To: bus-infoCalbiobluebus.com Subject: Customer's comments or requests regarding other Customer Information: ---------------- Customer Name: Andrew Gledhill Customer Address: 307 Hill St City: Santa Monica Zip Code: Email:andrewCa~pinkyvodka.com Home Phone: OfFce Phone: 310 913 7713 Customer's Comment/Requests ------------------------------------- Subject: other Message: Please forward to Stephanie Negriff, Director of Transit Services Dear Ms. Negriff, Thank you taking time to attend the OPA meeting on Monday. Do you already have data about how many people get on and off each bus on Hill St? I'd be prepared to spend a day counting, unless you already have this information? Thank you, Andrew Gledhill 310 913 713 B-73 s Line 2 Ridership source: 2010 Line-by-Line Analysis Bus Hill St. eastbound nearside 4th St. Hill St. westbound farside 4th St. 4th St. nor nearside 4th St. south farside 8 DAILY TOTAL FOR ALL 199._: 4$6_~ 142 '174 !. 108 59 >'' 4th ST. STOPS __...__ . B-74 tephanie Manglaras From: Michael Katz <katzfilm@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:36 PM To: Budget Mailbox . Subject: To the City Manager I appreciated your remarks at the Ocean Park Association annual meeting, Mr. Gould, and the handouts your offices provided. Upon careful perusal of zOcean Park neighborhood annual Paving Project, I was distressed to discoverthat of all the Essayist Streets -- Bentley, Ruskin, Goldsmith, and Longfellow -- only Ruskin Street is excluded from paving. Longfellow, Bentley, and Goldsmith shall be resurfaced, but not the much overlooked Ruskin. We should be paved during the same effort afforded our brother essayist streets, don't you think? Michael Katz 3016 Ruskin Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 B-75 tephanie Manglaras From: Patricia Stallone <pstall@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:30 AM To: Budget Mailbox Subject: Lateral Water and Sewage Pipe Replacement and Repair Subsidies T0: SM STAFF and COUNCIL: RE: Budget Planning DA: 11/10/10 I want to thank Ron Gould and the SM Staff and OPA for the meeting presentation and Q&A last Monday night. I am grateful to live in such an abundant town served by people of integrity and thoughtfulness: The following are recommendations that came to mind that I wish to share with all interested: Topic: Infrastructure repairs and improvements: Lateral water and sewage pipes. -Consider homeowners as stakeholders in improving the functioning oftheir own dwellings: -While digging up the streets, educate homeowners about replacing their lateral waste and water pipes while the street is open. -Consider using economy of scale to offer lower costs to homeowners to make those replacements. -Consider local neighborhood associations as allies in informing homeowners oftheir state mandated responsibility and the economic benefit of lateral pipe replacement. -Remove trees and/or any obstructions to these lateral lines while street is open so they won't be damaged in the future. Consider re- landscaping w/ lateral pipes in mind. -Consider subsidizing these lateral pipe replacements as a good investment in avertingfurther foreclosures on the people who pay property taxes. $10-$30,000 is more than most homeowners can afford, especially now. -Accept responsibility for the cost of pipe repair and replacement when caused by trees that are owned and maintained by the city. Other cities do. Topic: Water Conservation Expansion -Reinstate toilet rebates and expand water conservation incentives to include rental residents as other towns have done. Both landlords and renters must conserve. -Allow underground water gathering (eg. Tree People) in residential yards to capture rainwater and eliminate use of potable water for landscapes. Rain barrels are not enough. As we go forward in this deep "recession" to consider the best strategy to support what already exists, please consider that some of the homeowners need a little support as well. Not all of us are celebrities, slumlords or developers. Not all of us benefit from the tourist trade. Thank you again for coming out. It was informative and valuable. B-76 Patricia Stallone B-Z7 City ©f Santa Monica FY2011-12 and FY2012-13 Budget Planning ® Community Meetings Provide us your feedback and tell us what you want included in the l;udget priorities for the upcoming FY2011-12 and FY2012-13 budget. Please complete and return this form at the end of the meeting or mail it back to us at City Manager's Qffice,1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401. You can also past your feedback at www.smgov.netJbudget or email your comments to budgE;t _SmgQV.Clet. Thank you! ` ~ ~ _ ~ ~~?~ ~s M ~ ~- ~~' `~ ~~ ~.~~~~ -- ~.~~ ~~'~ ~~ ~~ __ ~ ~~~2~-rte ~~~_~-~''~ ~ `~; ~ ~~-- ~~ ~~~~~- .~ ~°~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ :-~-- ~- Aj)~p~- (~ ~' ~2 1~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~-- ~~~, ,. ~~~ tephanie Manglaras From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:55 PM To: Council Mailbox; Rod Gould; Eileen Fogarty; Elaine Polachek; Kate Vernez; Danielle Noble; Terese Toomey Cc: Jennifer Young; Rachel Waugh; Carol Swindell; Candace Tysdal Subject: FW: FUNDING FOR BIKES FYI From: hilda Bolden [mailto:omiboc@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:47 AM To: Budget Mailbox Subject: FUNDING FOR BIKES DEAR SIR: IT IS TIME TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING MONEY TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO USE BIKES AS A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. THANK YOU HILDA BOLDEN B-80 tephanie Manglaras From: Carol Swindell Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 3:41 PM To: Candace Tysdal; David Carr; Prema Krishnan; Stephanie Manglaras; Terese Toomey Cc: Jennifer Young Subject: FW: location of low income housing From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:56 PM To: Council Mailbox; Rod Gould; Andy Agle; Elaine Polachek; Kate Vernez; Danielle Noble; Terese Toomey Cc: Jennifer Young; Rachel Waugh; Carol Swindell; Candace Tysdal Subject: FW: location of low income housing FYI From: Mathew Millen [mailto:matmillen@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:49 PM To: Budget Mailbox Subject: location of low income housing The budget needs to address the LACK of multi family low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente Blvd..we need a moratorium on low income housing in the Pico Neighborhood, until 500 units of multi family (not SRO/elderly) housing has been developed between Wilshire and San Vicente Blvd thanks...mat millen B-81 tephanie Manglaras From: Qnmbear@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:16 PM To: Budget Mailbox Subject: Waller, the shoe shine man. Hey Guys and Ladys: I used to live in southern California and loved it. I hear a story about a shoe shine man who is working his fingers to the bone, trying to make a simple living, and as you well know, there are people around your city, and county that owe a lot of tax money. This man(Waller) owes a small amount to the city of Santa Monica, and the city wants to close him down. Is the economy that bad, and it sure makes Santa Monica look bad to push a little man around, when other people owe much more in fees and taxes than he does. This is something to think about, cause it doesn't look good to the reputation, and good will of your fair city. I can't believe this William Stetson of Canyon Lake Texas. B-82 8-B 2/08/2011 Item will be submitted separately by the department. 8-B 2/08/2011 RDD ~ $B City of Santa Monica" January 31, 2011 Recreation & Parks Commission 7685 Main Street PO Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 Mayor and City Council Members City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 FEB 8 2011 dREC~O ~~E , CITY L! ERg 2QFt JAid 3 I PF1-Z: 54 SAFITA MCPdlCA. GALtF. Subject: 2011-12 Budget Priorities: Recreation and Parks Commission Recommendations Dear Mayor Bloom and Council Members: The Recreation and Parks Commission met on January 21~`to formulate the following recommendations for your consideration as you make decisions on next years City budget priorities: (1) Ensure that the City maintain recreation programs and services without increasing fees to its residents. (2) Implement a comprehensive Bike Plan in the City including establishing a bikesharing program, consideration to develop bike transportation in development projects, and support in all due haste to establish pedestrian and bike safety programs. (3j Continue to plan for park use at the Fisher Lumber site adjacent to Memorial Park. (4) Support a stoping study for an arboretum in the City. (5) Begin construction of CivicCenter revitalization projects as described in the Civic Center Specific Plan. {6) Support the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School Districts joint use recreation facilRies including reopening Lincoln Pool for public use. (7) Ensure that the Community Forest is maintained and, in all available instances, increased. (8) Continue to support greening of the beach by decreasing the amount of asphak at our beaches. (9J Integrate more live performances in our parks- (10) As the City looks at greening parks, design them in a sustainable manner. tel: 370 458-8310 ~ ~ 201E