you you I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter. I'm going to get a letter That one there. Yeah. you Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Okay. Good evening, Santa Monica. Excuse me, Council. I'm welcoming the city of Santa Monica to our Tuesday, December 14, 2021 regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council. Mayor Pro Tem McCowen will you lead us to the Input relations one nation on the ground in principle with liberty and justice for all. Thanks. Thank you and let's have a roll call. Council Member Paura. Here. Council Member Davis. Here. Council Member Brock. Here. Mayor Pro Tem. I'm sorry. Mayor Pro Tem, Calon. Here. And Mayor Himmel Rich. Here. So we do have a quorum. May we have the close session? Yes, please. And lines are open and let me tell you the number. It's 310-312-8173. Again, the phone number is 310-312-8173 again. The phone number is 310-312-8173. If tonight you want to call in to publicly comment on any of the items on our agenda. We do have a call on hold just to let you know. Thank you. So the first closed session is an existing litigation. It's Santa Monica Basite Owners Association versus the City of Santa Monica, the California Coastal Commission. We have another existing litigation. It's EJA Associates LP versus the City of Santa Monica and downtown Santa Monica. And then we have a second EJA Associates LP versus the City of Santa Monica and downtown Santa Monica. Then one C, we have another existing litigation, it's the City of Arcadia, Arcadia, et al. Versus Southern California Edison Company, Santa Barbara, and this is Santa Barbara Superior Court. And then finally, we have a final existing litigation, it's Jezari, Jezari versus the City of Santa Monica. And as I said, we have a final existing litigation is Jazzara, Jazzari versus the city of Santa Monica. And as I said, we have one caller. So let's hear our caller, please. Welcome to the starting year in the meeting on your time starts now. Good evening. I had to rewrite item 1A after you pulled item 8A. Hopefully you and staff see that during litigation of Restructure 3, it's not a good idea to move forward with this project. Considering sequel cases can take from three to five years when Los Angeles Superior Court only reassigned this case to the sequel court on August 12, 2021. So by your original action, one does have to wonder if you were trying to bait and switch like the short hotel. I also think here is the place to mention a real life example where the recent Hollywood apartment project the tenants were evicted from a completed building based on a trial court's sequel decision. Then as for funding doesn't sequel lawsuits choke off funding so how are you able to get the funds for demolition? Unless of course you didn't mention lawsuit. So now let's take the parking study done for you done for the 2019, 2019 statistics. So don't seem realistic. In comparison to the one done this year by the Santa Monica Basite Owners Association. Now the City Council wouldn't be making an improving fraudulent studies and projects and development agreements with you. I'd say yes personally, did you submit any of the housing element with programs that have never existed, leaving many seniors in the disabled to have to spend for themselves? Or what about the FBI's uniform crime reporting data from 2020, comparison to 2019? Violent crime decreased by 123. Burr-villary increased by only 354. Light-27 decreased by 613. For motor vehicles decreased by 386. But vehicle accessory increased, accessories increased by 219. 291. So none of these numbers coincide with what happened on May 31st, 2020. Or is that the real reason the police cited everyone for being out after curfew and says the proper charge is? And on including item 8a, don't you think that that shows your lack of and care through an ethics? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Barton. That was our only caller. Good. So we will adjourn until we have time. We should be able to be back by 630. So we're expecting to be back by 630 or past predictions or sometimes unreliable, but we're going to try again. Thank you. We'll see you at 630. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you So, um, yes, so I'm going to turn to our city attorney and ask if there's any report. Yes. During the closed session, the city council discussed each of the items on the closed session agenda and there are no reportable actions Thank you very much and now we are on to our Consent calendar I have a couple oh, I'm sorry. We have a few more things. Yeah, we have the City Manager's report I'm sorry say that again. We have the city manager's report. I'm sorry, say that again. We have the city manager's report and should you wish to call in about the city manager's report. The number is 310-312-8173. Again, 310-312-8173. That is our calling number for all of our items. Should you wish to give public comment tonight? And now I'm going to turn to Mr. White, our city manager, and ask him for his report. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Potem and City Council. Just a few items for you this evening. So I want to promote since this is our last council meeting of the year. We have another vaccination clinic for those age five and over for first and second doses, as well as booster shots on December 30th, 3 to 6 p.m. at Virginia Avenue Park. Exciting to announce, start the new year. We've put some information on about this with a splash by participating in the annual polar bear swim at the Annemburg Community Beach House. And we are still actively seeking volunteers for the January 26 homeless count. And you can sign up for that on our city website. And then almost last but not least if you're looking to make charitable contributions before the years end please We're asking when to please consider that we are Santa Monica fund and you can donate at cowfund.org We are Santa Monica and then last but not least on behalf of the entire organization I want to wish everyone a very happy holiday season and a wonderful start to 2022. Thank you. Thank you and we are so glad you're here. So a happy holiday to staff and as particularly happy holiday to Mr. White, who finally arrived. So there we go. Thank you very much. And now, and we have no speakers, is that right? Not for not for our two item. No, we do not. Okay, so we have no speakers, is that right? Not for, not for our two item, no we do not. Okay, so we're moving on to our consent calendar. And let me just say, let's, Mayor, can I stop before a moment? I just need to ask the question if anyone has anything to report on travel since the last council meeting. No, not seeing anybody. Okay. Wait, my council member Brock. It's not. I attended the League of California Cities Christmas event and it was independent cities, contract cities, the League of California cities in downtown Los Angeles as a California club last Thursday night. Thank you. Anybody else? No. Then now, here's for our close session, Council Member Davis will be pulling 3M, is that? Yeah, from this consent, we're moving to the consent calendar but I'm giving everybody heads up. The staff is pulling item 2, 3F. Councilmember Davis is pulling 3M. Does anyone else want to pull any items from the consent calendar? Councilmember Brock. I'd like to pull 3D and 3J. I believe let me make sure J is the right one. Yes, 3D and 3J. So who will, so I need to move motion further. Can I start before? Yes, please. There's an item on here that is part of the redevelopment successor agencies. So if the council at the council's will, I would like to ask if the council can hear the special meeting along with the consent calendar. So should we take a roll call? Let's have a motion and I'll move to hear the successor agency together with the regular calendar. Can I have a second? And let's have a roll call. Okay, let me call the roll. And so just to let you guys know is the redevelopment successor agency the council receives no compensation. Agency member parra. agency member Davis here agency member Brock here agency member Dela Turing here chair pro Tim MacAllen here and share him a rich here so let me ask you a question Madam clerk I thought that I Know we're all here, but did we have to make a motion to hear it as that Agency or I can just declare we're hearing you can just yeah, you can just ask I declare we're hearing it as You can just, yeah, you can just ask the town. Well, I declare we're hearing it as a successor agency. So thank you. So we have a roll call vote, an attendance now. And Mayor, we do have callers for consent. OK, so let's hear the callers and then we'll move on to the rest. and then we'll move on to the rest. Esther, we're ready for the callers. Welcome, Stan, Epstein. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Thanks, and happy holidays to everybody. And thanks to Phil for wisely pulling 3D and 3J for reasons that all of you have seen in the emails that have been in the last two days. This results from a number of oral and written communications with Ariel, Sikaris, the building and safety division manager, which has been extremely helpful. There are three problems with 3D and 3J and I think the bottom line is they should be adjourned until the first meeting in January. The first problem is the technical language problem, the heading and the text of the staff report. It talks about renewing a peer review function and it talks about a plan review, Sput function, and the correct language is peer review. There is a different set of people contracting with respect to plan reviews, so that's wrong in both places. Another thing which has significance here and all over the city, I was told by Ariel that the city has a policy not to attach contracts to the agenda in all cases, whether a contract is being modified, terminated, canceled, or extended as in these cases. This is stupid. There is no—it is necessary for the city manager, for every member of council, for every member of the public to have the right to see a contract that's been changed. There's no reason to keep it secret. So however it should be done, it should, the policy should be modified so that the contract is in always an attachment to the item so that people can do whatever they need to help the city. Finally, it's been come to my light to light that since October 20, 2020, a large number of buildings have not provided the retrofit plans. It's called a structural analysis that was do that day. And it was sent over to covenants. Your time is up, Mr. Epstein. Thank you very much. No, what happened to them? We have no more callers. So may I have a motion for approval of the consent calendar other than 3D, 3F, 3J and 3M. I move. Second. Move by Brock, seconded by Davis. May we have a roll call vote? A.C. Councilmember Parra. Yes. A.C. Councilmember Davis. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Chair Mayor Pro Tem, McCallan. Yes. Agencies Council Member Brock. Yes. Agencies Council Member Dela Tori. Yes. Chair Mayor Hillmaric. Yes. That passes 6-0. So let me read. Oh, I see. Kristen. Oh. You you're always you push mine but and let me read 3d it's approval of second modification extending term a professional services agreement with Deegan bought engineers for seismic structural analysis and plan review services and council member Brock I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea item where I don't really know what our city policy is and I'm not asking for a city policy to be changed but I would like to have this item postponed till the January 11th agenda and have a contract attached for these for that item and another item that I've pulled. Yes, Council Member De La Torre. Is there any problem with postponing the action on both of these items until January 11th? And any... Ask our city manager. If I say manager of staff feels that there's a problem with postponement until January 11th. No, there's no problem at all. The contract expires the end of December, so there'll be an 11-day window without the contract, but it's on an issue. Okay, great. I'd like to support Councillor Neill of Brock's motion to postponement until January 11th. Are you seconding that motion? I second, correct. Does anyone else want to say anything? Great. Let's have a roll call vote. Let me ask is this for 3D and 3J council member Brock? You only call 3D but if you want to recall it for 3D and 3J I'd be happy to make the motion at one time So let me make a friendly amendment is would it be a friendly amendment to add item 3J to this in view of the fact that the issues are identical? Yes it would. So now we're going to take that and is that friendly to both the mover and the seconder? Oh good, okay. Good evening Mayor Mayor of Pro Tem council members. Just one item if I may, I'm asked of the City Attorney's Office. Council members, just one item if I may, I'm asked of the City Attorney's Office. As we mentioned from an operations perspective, there's no issue with the gap if the contract expires. However, from a processing perspective, I think there may be. So I would say- I see the City Attorney coming to talk about something else. Oh, so what Mr. Sikaras wants to know is whether there is a processing problem in the city attorney's office if we put this off until January 11th? I don't believe so. 3D and 3D. Yeah, I don't know what the processing problem would be, but no, they should not be. So if the contract expires, there is no. Oh, is that what you mean? Yes, the contract is expiring December 31st of this year. So if we postpone it to January of 2022, we would, in essence, be acting on, or the council would be acting on an expired contract. Would we have to go through the process a new if we allow that to happen? No. No. Okay. That was my little concern. Thanks for asking. Good question. Good. Let's have a roll call vote. Councillor Member De La Torre. Yes. Councillor Member Brock. Yes. Mayor Patimic Allen. Yes. Councillor Member Davis. Yes. Councillor Member Paura. Yes. I'm sorry you guys I didn't start the vote on this and Mayor Hema Rich Yes, so that passes six to nothing and now Three M. Yes, so three F was pulled by staff and it's approved of fourth amendment to parking lease agreement with Mesa Rich Wait, why are we doing three F? No, we're Three M is what we want to do. 3F. 3F is the staff wants to present. Oh, so do you want us to vote on pulling it? You're going to have no, you don't need to pull, staff has asked for it to be there. I understand, that's why we're on the floor. 3M. Well, staff wants to pull 3 agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Let's have the staff report for three F for whatever the staff wants to tell us. Yes. Hello. Good evening, Mayor and Council Jennifer Taylor, economic development manager. So thank you for allowing me to speak. Just staff have asked that we pull three F specifically just one there's two part recommendation to this so this is in regards to the approval of a fourth amendment to the parking lease agreement with Maystrich so this is for parking structure seven and eight we had two part recommended action the first one is for the installation and designation of four new electrical vehicle charging stations with dedicated parking. We want you to vote on that tonight. We're recommending you approve that. The second item is what we've decided we've asked to pull and this was in regards to a proposed new preppayment parking app. After talking further with May Search staff, we decided we needed a little more time. So look at different operators and different options and also to determine the markets and demand among employers in downtown Santa Monica. So I think for that, we're not ready to move forward on that yet. So we decided we'd rather come back at a later date, but we would definitely appreciate the approval for the EV charging. This is to facilitate a new business coming into Sam Monica Place, VinFast, which I'm really, really excited about. They're opening up an electric vehicle showroom for vehicles and scooters at Sam Monica Place. And so they need for dedicated parking spaces that's a lot of good. So I think that's a lot of good to have the same. So I think that's a lot of good to have the same. So I think that's a lot of good to have the same. So I think that's a lot of good to have the same. So I think that's a lot of good to have the same. So I think that's a lot of good to have the same. So I think that to make the motion now just to make it simple. So I move that we authorize the city manager to enter into a fourth amendment to agreement for the lease operations and maintenance of parking facilities with May search, SMP LP in order to approve the installation and designation of four new electrical vehicle charging stations with dedicated parking, parking structure seven on level five. That's correct. So moved by Himmel Ridge, seconded by Davis. May we have a roll call vote? Council member De La Torre. Yes. Council member Brock. Yes. Mayor Potemma-Cowellan. Yes. Council member Davis. Yes. Council member Paura. Yes. And Mayor Himmel Ridge. Yes. Potemma Cullen. Yes. Council member Davis. Yes. Council member Paura. Yes. And Mary Hemelrich. Yes. And thank you. I'm sorry about that confusion. And now 3M Council member Davis. Yes, I just asked the 3M be pulled because I did not participate in the hearing on the Oceana Hotel nor did I read all of the staff report or the multitudes of public input with regard to that. I have to say that I have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have So council member Davis has abstained. Do I hear a motion to approve 3M? I move to approve 3M. Do I hear a second? Seconded by, moved by Himorah, seconded by Dela Torre. And let's have a roll call. Council member Parra. Yes. Council member Davis. Epstein. Mayor Potimma-Cowin. Yes. Councillor Member Brock. Yes. Councillor Member De La Torre. Yes. Mayor Hammerich. Yes, so that passes five to zero with one abstention. And that I believe ends our consent calendar and ends the meeting of the successor agency. Is that correct? Yes. So now we're going to move to the ordinances. So we have 7a. It's approval of revisions to the public safety reform and oversight commission ordinance. Yes, and we have a staff report? I guess that's yes. It's our city attorney Lawrence. Thank you. Yes. Earlier this year, the city council adopted the ordinance that established the public safety reform and oversight commission. Then in the summer in July of this year, the Santa Monica Police Office's association sued, excuse me, filed a unfair labor charge with the California Public Employee Relations Board claiming that the city should have met and conferred with the police union before the City Council adopted that ordinance establishing the commission. This, that matter has settled as part of that settlement, the City Council agreed to consider a series of changes to the ordinance that would clarify what the ordinance sets forth. Principle among, and so that's what's in front of you today. There are the changes. Among those changes, and I won't go through all of them tonight. But one of the changes is that there is allowed to be an ex officio member would be selected by agreement of the police chief and the Santa Monica Police Office's association. If the that person would not be a voting member of the commission, if the police chief and the Santa Monica Police Office's association could not agree on who should be selected, that position would be left vacant. So that's one of the changes. Other changes deal with under the ordinance there's a series of trainings that are supposed to occur for members of the commission. Those and the initial ordinance set forth a schedule. Those training schedules have been changed. So which would allow current commission members to complete their training by the end of May. So May 31st of 2022. And that any new members would have to complete their training by the end of May, so May 31st of 2022, and that any new members would have to complete their training within six months of their appointment. The changes further clarify that the Inspector General, which is a position created by the ordinance, may gather information on ongoing disciplinary investigations, but we'll not participate in those investigations. And that the Inspector General may not disclose to the Commission members or to third party, the San Monica Police Department disciplinary records, except as that disclosure is allowed by State or Federal law. And that the Commission cannot itself participate in any individual disciplinary investigations. Those are the principal changes to the ordinance. And so the ordinance is in front of you for consideration on first reading. Thank you and let me just say do we have any callers? We do not have any callers to this item. Yeah, I'm just going to announce a phone number, Council Member De La Torre and then you can say what you wish but let me just say if you want to call in on item 7a, the number is 3108-3128173. And now, Councilmember Dela Torrey. Yes, thank you. Mayor Hemorritch, the question I have is Councillor Member Dela Torre. Yes, thank you. Mayor Hemmerwitch. The question I have is for legal counsel. The Santa Monica Police Office Association alleges that the City of Violeta, the Myers, Mela's Brown Act. And we don't believe that that was the case. And I guess the main thing, the main issue is that the POA says that we should have conferred first with them before moving forward on the commission. Are they right or just for future reference? Are they right? Do we have to confer with them on these types of matters or or not. The city certainly disputes, disagrees with the SMPOA about whether the city has to mean confer that would have. But we're settling that dispute we're not neither side is agreeing with the other side. So that remains a live issue, I suppose, as between the SMPOA and the city of Santa Monica going forward, should there be any similar matter? But the city believes that its position is correct, but it also believes that this kind of settlement, this kind of resolution is in the best interest of the city to resolve the underlying charge. Yes, I just was interested in knowing for in the future, this policy I've heard of the Brown Act but not the Myers-Millis Brown Act and they've heard of that law before or that act before. So I guess it has something to do. That's the law that governs the employee or employee relationships among public employees and governments in the state of California. Okay, well that's good to know of our position. And another question that I have, I know that this is a settlement. So in terms of making any major changes changes is probably not advisable, but on there's a was that section it would be like on attachment a is like one two three four. Was it a yeah this one for the fifth one so it's a 2.05.040.4.0.D. 2.05.040D. It talks about, you know, to the extent consistent with State and Federal law, the Commission can promote transparency and availability to the public of SMPD data and records. And a question I had, you know, I think it'd be, you know, in a new era of transparency and accountability around these matters. Is it appropriate for us to put any language in there where we would expect the annual report on some of the major indicators? For example, like arrests, citations broken down by race gender and ethnicity, I was wondering how would we, as a city council, ask that type of, like an annual report on that? Do we expect that to go to the commission first or do we have to empower the commission to ask for an annual report? You could probably ask the commission for reports, but the city manager could be asked to provide this kind of information. You don't need to rely on this particular law to receive that kind of information. Okay. That's good to know. All right, David. All right, thank you. No further questions. Any other questions? And Mayor, as it turns out, we do have two callers now. Good, so let's hear our callers. Esther, we're ready for the callers. As to we're ready for the callers. Welcome Erica Leslie. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening, City Council members. It's so hard. This is so disheartening. All of our precious members of our community have given up their time and they're just to give back to our community. Is this respectful to their time? Is this respectful to what they've dedicated to our community? This is something that was supposed to come out of the May 31st, the Bockel. And now the accountability is going to be just upheaped just because of a political underplay. I just can't believe this. This is just absolutely ridiculous. I just can't believe it. You guys really can't just let this go like this. We've sacrificed so much just for this to take place and now for them to just flip it like this, it's just wrong. Thank you, Erica. Welcome. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Thank you. City Council members, it's hard to revisit the entire history of this particular ordinance and how it came about. about and whether or not it is best existing practices or future practices. And for each time that the City Council has voted for something in connection with this ordinance, it has, I think, not been in best practices or best existing practices or best future practices. And so every time with this amendment, I think there are some questions as to whether this commission is actually serving the purpose that it was intended to serve, but we'll be able to serve the purpose that it was intended to serve. And so with that in mind, I ask that you consider what the amendments are. I also sent an email today. It's within the comments and points out some specific language that needs to be clarified or changed. So that's my combined comment, oral and written. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have any comments from council? Let's have a roll call vote. Please. We need a motion. Oh, we need a motion. Yeah, so. Do I hear a motion? Yes. What in the financial impact is $5,000 to the Santa Monica Police Office Association. Can someone explain why that was needed as part of the settlement? Are those legal fees or just 5,000 sounds like a small number? Actually the settlement was approved by the City Council a few weeks back. So that settlement is not actually before you. That's just, was put in the staff report as just a matter of full disclosure that the overall agreement has a $5,000 payment. But actually the City Council has approved the $5,000 payment. Should the, should the Council and that money will be paid, should this ordinance be adopted as is, then the agreement goes into effect, and then the amount will be paid, should this ordinance be adopted as is, then the agreement goes into effect, and then the amount will be paid. It was just part of the negotiations. I was just trying to understand how does $5,000 come into play. What was that for? What would that be? It is not uncommon for, it is not uncommon in the settlement of public employee relation board matters for there to be a request that the employer pay attorneys fees and this was a relatively nominal amount that the city agreed to pay. Yes, Councilmember Davis. So I do want to recognize what our callers said because I know there is concern about the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and their ability to do their job. And as the city attorney pointed out, we've already approved the settlement. So we don't really have any wiggle room tonight because we've already made the agreement to do these things. But I do wanna say as someone who at least tries to attend the public safety reform and oversight committee hearings once in a while, that their chair and all their members are aware of this. And it's, I think it's telling that they did not call in tonight because they understand the terms of the settlement and while I understand their night may not be great joy around these terms. It's my understanding from conversations with members of that committee that they feel they still are empowered to do the things we set them off to do and and that this does not throw roadblocks in their way. It maybe creates some procedural requirements that they need to, and it clarifies some things that our rank and file police officers were concerned about. So while I certainly appreciate the tone and tenor of the collars and want to be, let them know that they were heard in the most meaningful use the city of the city. I think that the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the issues of public safety that we all know have a risen. So I just think it's important to make that statement that this is not an attempt to undercut that committee's work. And with that, I will move the staff recommendation. Thank you. And I will second and concur with your comments. I don't think we have any desire to undercut the work of the PSROC. So moved by Davis and seconded by Himal Rich. Let's have a roll call vote. Council member Dela Torrey. Yes. Council member Brock. Yes. Mayor Potimma-Cowin. Yes. Council member Davis. Yes. Council member Paura. Yes. And Mayor Himalrich. Yes. So that passes 6 to 0. the committee. The committee is going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to policies and assistant city clerk making new some will be presenting the staff report I'm sorry what Oh, oh, I understand and um Yeah, so are so and you're doing the staff report I am Yes, and and so I'm gonna do one second. So and let me but thank you for keeping me honest. So let's we are starting staff report but let me announce for people who want to call in the call in number on the boards and commissions item. This is item 8B, our discussion of how we are going to revise, reform, change our boards and commissions policies. And the number is 310-312-8173. So now I'm sorry, but I have to do that and go for it. So good evening, Marin Council. Nikki Newsom is a since city clerk here to present you on behalf of the boards and commissions ad hoc committee their recommendations. So in April of this year staff presented to city council the recommendations of the community working group for boards and commissions. At that time, Council adopted many of the proposed procedural changes and suggested the formation of an ad hoc committee to delivery the other recommendations. In May, Council members Davis and Brock, along with Mayor Proton McCallan, volunteered to become the three member boards and commissions ad hoc members. In July, Council approved certain boards and commissions ad hoc committee recommendations. And in August, Council provided additional recommendations to the ad hoc committee to review. The items approved in July and the items recommended in August will be discussed further later in this report. So the ad hoc committee met five times. One of their meetings was with chairs and vice chairs. Another meeting was with staff, including department heads and liaisons. And then October, they held an open public meeting where approximately 54 members of the public attended. Items previously approved from the AdHot Committee included limiting chair terms to two years, max rotating by election, developing a nepotism policy by which a person cannot serve on a city board, commissioner task force if they are a close family member of a current council member and a reduction of members to certain boards and commissions including the urban fat forest task force from nine members to seven and the arts commission from 11 members to nine. Other items also approved by council for the ITAW Committee or the addition of Council of the Aesons, which would be limited to a maximum of two commissions per year. The meeting attendance is not required by the Aesons, but the members would serve as an advisor to the commission and be available to the chairs needed. And quasi-judicial bodies would be exempt from this. So now we were get into the ad hoc recommendations. The first recommendation is to establish term limits for clean beaches and ocean parcel tax oversight committee. The proposal would be for four year appointments with a maximum of two terms. Currently the members of the clean beaches serve two year terms with no term limits. This proposal would be consistent with the terms and term limits of all other boards and commissions. The term limits would be going forward so that the current members sitting on the clean beaches would begin new for your terms should counsel approve this proposal. new four-year terms should council approve this proposal. Also a discussion as to whether or not to establish term limits for the regional boards including metropolitan water district and West Vector and also to clarify that the limitation of serving on more than one board and commission does not apply to advisory committees for example the Friends of the Library and the Field Sports Advisory Committee. The city clerk and the city attorney will work to see how our stability policy can be strengthened. This would include instituting additional trainings for members as well as for chair and vice chairs, and to update rules to include the removal of members from this conduct. Also report to council regarding current youth involvement and to consider adding ex-affecio members for each board and commission, which would include the possibility of creating 18 commission in January of 2023. The AdHot Committee recognized that the city already provides youth engagement activities in the community, including PAL, which includes 30 members per school year. Who volunteer for 96 hours annually within the community and two members who serve on the statewide California PAL leadership conference and the PAL State Leadership Council. of Virginia Avenue Park Teen Center Youth Council, an average of 10 members serve in this group, and they engage in service learning activities, including providing input and planning for the Teen Center Programming and Special Events, and volunteering at district schools during annual campus cleanup and beautification projects. Also the Public Library Teen Advisory Council, which promotes library usage and community involvement by teens, and system of planning, promoting and sponsoring library programs for teens. They provide input and suggestions to the library concerning teen related activities, including books in the teen section of the website. The SMPD Youth Explorer Program, which provides youth ages 14 to 21, the opportunity to learn about various careers in law enforcement by offering actual experience and training, and cradle to career, which in the past, human services division staff engaged students to launch a wellness advisory committee for Santa Monica high school students. Continuing with the recommendations of the ad hoc committee, they saw no needs for additional requirements or qualifications for members. They encourage further outreach to the Chamber of Commerce and other local organizations. They chose to leave the Council appointment processes is. And they are a wish for the staff to come back in early 2022 with a recommendation about the moving of chartered boards and commissions to the municipal code. Turning to consolidation at this time, they saw no need to consolidate the architectural review board with planning commission, but they did see the need to consolidate the Social Services Commission, the Commission on the staff of women, the Commission on Senior Community and the Disabilities Commission into one commission. This new commission would consist of nine members tasked with soliciting community input regarding focus areas, developing an overall work plan for the commission, and making use of the time limited ad hoc committees to address discrete work efforts and emerging community needs. Also, the first consideration for the new members would be for the current members currently serving on the Consolidate Board and commissions. The new commission would be structured as a working commission with commission members expected to lead as needed ad hoc committees. Each ad hoc committee would consist of one or two commissioners as well as non-commissioners with subject matter expertise lived experience or a strong interest in ad hoc committees focus. Ad hoc committees would prepare recommendations for the commission's consideration. City Council Leisons and emeritus members would also assist with ad hoc committees, and the new commission is recommended to have a new name to distinguish it from the previous commissions. The justification behind consolidation is that staffing reduction in the human services section makes it impossible to support the current structure. Expanded resident participation by creating the ad hoc committee engaging residents who may not have the bandwidth to commit a long period of service to a border commission but are able to provide a shorter commitment to specific areas of interest to them. To simplify public participation so that the final recommendation on human services topics would be discussed in one form rather than at four different commissions each month. Because public participation and the existing commissions is low, consolidated opportunities would increase attendance and interest. And finally, staff currently, I'm sorry, to increase efficiencies in developing recommendations to council, staff currently present at multiple commissions when developing policy documents, such as the federal consolidated plan. This table here was included in your staff report, it includes staffing financial impacts for the community services department. If you have any further questions regarding this table, staff is available to respond to those questions. Turning now to quarterly remote meetings. Staff is recommending that Council continue remote quarterly meetings until the end of fiscal year 2022. Staff is asking for this extension of quarterly meetings to be consistent with orders from the county health department, as well as to allow staff time to create a procedure that would be consistent for all bodies to meet in person safely. Also in January, staff will return to discuss whether to consider providing remote public participation to establish a plan to return to in personperson meetings and to discuss moving chartered bodies to the board's and commission, I'm sorry to the municipal code. And with that staff recommends the following to Council to review and discuss recommendations from the board's and commission ad hoc committee, including consolidation, term limits for members, including the clean beaches, West Vector, and MWD, not changing appointment methodology and not changing requirements and or specific qualifications for applicants, to clarify the limitations that the limitations are serving on more than one board at one time does not apply to advisory committees, to clarify expectations on stability and creating additional training for chairs and vice chairs and making all these changes effective January 1, 2022. Staff also recommends that City Council direct staff to return to Council with a resolution incorporating the recommended procedural changes Previous approved by Council including Council Leesons would be limited to serve on a maximum of two commissions a year with Quasi due Judicial bodies exempt Changes to the chair and vice chair rotation by election Reduced the urban force task force from 9 to 7 members, reduced the arts commission from 11 to 9 members, and any procedural changes approved at this meeting. Direct staff to come back with an updated civility policy for both members of the public as well as members of the bodies. Direct staff to return with information for a ballot measure to move the charter bodies and commissions to the Santa Monica Municipal Code and to approve a policy permitting boards and commissions to meet quarterly for the first quarter of 2022 or until the end of fiscal year 2022 and direct staff to come back with options returning to in-person meetings. Staff does recommend not returning to in-person meetings until the end of fiscal year 2022, due to unknowns concerning technological and facility issues with returning to in-person meetings. And with that, I thank you for listening and I now turn over the remainder of the presentation to the ad hoc committee for further discussion. and I now turn over the remainder of the presentation to the ad hoc committee for further discussion. So I wouldn't go away from an I have a question that I think probably you can answer that others can't. Does anyone else have any? And it's just a quick cleanup question, but does anybody else have questions? Should we hear from public first? Yeah, I just wanna ask this one question before. So on the new staffing needed for commissions, I see maintained for commissions no remote participation. What if instead of having consolidating for commissions, we actually only consolidated three of the four and left talking about the Disabilities Commission if we left the Disabilities Commission as a stand alone. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to go back to the staff. Good evening, mayor and council members and the Ago director of community services. You know, be honest, that's not a quick cleanup. We need to go back and add up the hours. That's associated with each commission and give you that. My sense it's it's a part of a person. And hiring a part of person may challenging maybe not maybe we could find Somebody's interest in part-time work We've had challenges filling our part night in positions. I should say that so it would be something between 90,000 and 238,000 so 90 91 is consolidating all four two 38 is for separate commissions four, two thirty eight is for separate commissions. Right, and you've sort of got two pieces, two moving pieces there. One is sort of the, I'd call it the administrative staff support who's sort of taking minutes, putting together agendas as well as we put time in there for the, the professional staff who placed the role of liaison. So again, if you sort of maybe divided that and by four, that might be sort of what the cost looks like, but I just wanna be cautious because particularly in this job market, we've had a lot of challenges trying to find part time staff. But it's something between those two numbers. And on the 90. So and closer to the 91 than the 238. If we only spun off one. Right. So yeah. So I think if you take the 238, maybe it's a quarter of that. Right. I just wanted to general that different. What would be a quarter of the difference between the two numbers, right? So if you look at the maintain for commissions that's really that's capturing the time needed to support the commissions that one in the top of the let me call it the second row that's a little confusing you're not actually talking about remote participation tonight but we did the math on it and then we realized it was confusing. So it's really that 238, if you brought back all four commissions, take out the issue of remote participation. And so if I were to guess, I'd say it's a quarter of that, but I don't know that we can actually hire those people. Okay, thank you very much. Yes, Council Member. I guess if we're going down this particular rabbit hole. Andy, so I have a question on this because when I was looking at this, I said, well, if we're consolidating four commissions, then what used to take four separate people to do this, right, we were trying to save money money and that was one of the reasons for consolidation Save staff time. So if we're doing that Then in effect by consolidating the four commissions were saving Staff time and saving money. Why do we need to add somebody for 91,000? Shouldn't we have a net savings there instead of having to add more staff? So, let me clarify that again. So, if you consolidate the commissions and tonight you're not talking about remote public participation, so tonight you say we're consolidated the commissions, there's no new cost. If you come back in January and you say we think we should do remote participation for every meeting. There's actually going to be a bigger number than that because that's only community services and there will be financial impacts for departments throughout the city. There will also be technology and building costs which we haven't figured out yet. So I think for the sake of tonight, the second row and the fourth row, I think you just, you need to disregard those. It's really a separate topic that's not before you and my apologies. We were, we were anticipating both, but one of them you're not talking about. So it's really, you consolidate all for no new costs. You keep all four. We cost that out of the two things. Aren't we doing remote, sorry interrupt you things. Aren't we doing remote, sorry, interrupt you, but aren't we doing remote now? You are the four commissions, and there is all four of those commissions allow people to come in remotely, right? So most of them aren't actually meeting now, those that are meeting, they're doing it on blue jeans and blue jeans. Everybody's participating sort of virtually so you can, so that actually works. The issue, and again, I don't want to get into your January discussion. The challenge is what's happening now with the council? So you've got somebody sitting here who's dealing with everything that's happening live, and you have somebody else somewhere else who's dealing with people calling in. So it has a right now we don't need to consider this and we don't need to approve a staff member for this because that would come back in January. That's specifically related to remote public participation. So we can ignore this right now. No, no, no. So so you still want that top. I'm sorry, let me. And the third row. One at a time. So. Yeah. So for tonight, you need to consider the top row and the third row. So the two that say no remote public participation. That's the question before you and the costs. You want me to come. Let's have the. Let's have. We're going public comment. Yeah, let's have public comment. Mayor, before. Mayor, before we go any further. Was there. Was there any comment or any. Anything that the ad hoc committee wanted to add to the presentation. Okay. Does the ad hoc committee want to add anything to the presentation? That was, I mean, that was my question. I think Nikki covered it. Thank you. Well, yeah. So, yeah. So seeing no additions from the ad hoc committee. Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Scott. I don't know if there's additions. I would just say there are a couple issues which were disputed and and we'll want to come back to those with further explanations. And I think the night. Yeah, yeah, it'll be part of the discussion and I think that's you'll you see that reflected in stuff that wasn't like a clear explicit recommendation, but sort of like to be considered. So, but yeah, that'll come up in the discussion and questions. Thank you. How about, how many callers do we have? Looks like we have about three so far. Okay, and let me re-announce the number because we will cut off the line after the fifth caller. We only have three right now, so right now it will cut off after three callers. So if you want to comment on boards and commissions and numbers 310-312-8173. Esther, can you transfer in the meeting? Welcome to the meeting. Welcome to the meeting. Welcome to the meeting. Welcome to the meeting. Welcome to the meeting. Welcome to the meeting on your time starts now. Good evening. I object to the consolidation of the specified boards and commissions. First, I wonder how the ad hoc committee can suggest this considering how many callers it had against doing it, including Mr. Carrey who founded the Disability Commission and who clearly stated that combining the Disability Commission with other commissions didn't work in the past, but I guess you want to make the same mistakes again, trying to quash the voices of the disabled. I also think it's worth noting that under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act Section 1.2000, its state Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act only applies to programs or activities receiving federal funding assistance. So it doesn't decide to receive federal financial assistance for seniors than the disabled. Then I also have to take issue with the LBTQ and the homeless being put together with seniors than the disabled. Due to Section 2.3,000 where it states that impairment, does it not include homosexuality or bisexuality? And as further expanded in in section 2.7,000, the following conditions are specifically excluded from definition of disability. Transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, blairism, gender identity, disorder, not resulting physical impairment. transsexualism, pedophilic, exhibitionism, blairism, gender identity, disorder, not resulting physical impairment. Other sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromanias, psychoactive substance use disorder from current use of illegal drugs. Although I do agree with you wanting to establish a term limit for regional board such as a metropolitan water district, because despite Judy Abdo's opinion of herself, 25 years has been excessively period of time for someone to hold that position. So someone else needs to be pointed as soon as possible. And finally, you seem to want to further dictate or censor the public speech. Again, putting your egos over the public's right to free speech to stifle dissent. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Barton. Welcome Judy Abdo. You're in the meeting on your time starts now. Ms. Abdo, you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Judy, can you hear us? Let me return her to the queue and I'll bring someone else in. Okay, thanks very much. Welcome, John Allen. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Hi, good evening. Nobody in any job with their private industry or elected official, especially a government of pointee is indispensable. And looking at our MWD, no one person, that group is not dependent on anyone person. Eight years is sufficient. If the appointee feels otherwise, here in Santa Monica, he or she can still volunteer to provide information and participate as we do here in City Council meetings. There's a pool of prior board members with great knowledge and experience who could serve as a resource in any emergency board they can see. This city stands for and leads the way in inclusivity and diversity. Let's advertise openings in the seascape, the mailing that all residents receive. Even mobile alerts would be a good start. The average length of service has been six years. Eight years is plenty. We need fair and open-minded people serving on the commissions. Any amount of time beyond that creates the possibility of other office holders becoming beholden to that commission member or a commission member becoming beholden to office holders. And like the recent vote on nepotism within the city, term limits should be enacted now, and the policy should be re- showing that we are not making exceptions for anyone, and that we mean business. Thank you, Mr. Alley. Welcome, Alex Elliott. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Hi, my name is Alex Elliott. I'm the chair of the Disability Commission. Here is a commissioner just as a person with the disability. I just hope you guys make the right choice and keep us as a standalone commission. I've been to all the ad hoc meetings. I've articulated why I think we should remain to stand alone. I thought it was well heard. Earlier in this process, we even had a motion and a second to keep us as a commission. Please don't be the counsel that takes away the voice of people with disabilities where in this post-COVID world we got to be more equitable. You look at our app right now, you type in Disabilities, you have our policy playbook, you search for disabilities, you're responsive, you scan our website for accessibility, doesn't meet the mark, are people trying to participate virtually, not accessible, you need more insight from people with disabilities, please don't be, as a person with a disability, please don't be the council that takes away our voice. Yeah, I don't want to rant, but just please don't be the council that takes our voice away. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Elley. Do we have any more callers? Yes, we do. Welcome Jonathan Foster. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. I just quickly want to say I agree to keep that independent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Foster. Welcome, Judy Abdo. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Okay, Ms. Abdo. Yes. You're in the meeting, your time starts now. All right. I just call to be available if anybody has any questions about the NWD. Thank you, Ms. Abdo. And that was our last caller. Then we will close public comment and move on to questions from the council. Does anyone have any questions? So I have a question for the ad hoc, and that is on curious because we did have some pretty robust discussion around keeping the Disabilities Commission as a separate commission. And I'm curious why you decided to merge it in with the other commissions. I'll start and others can add in. We also had very strong and robust input from the commission on the status of women that they very much wanted to remain independent. We had similarly robust input from members of the current social services commission that they wanted to remain. the commission. So we were put in this awkward position of all the commissions want to. And I think we all heard that and respected that. Each of the commissions wanted to remain independent and had good reasons and all honesty for doing so. The question became and we have the chart from Mr. Agel that if we're going to say, okay, and let me start off by saying that we're going to have a the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. We have the staff support. don't need staff support. Well, one, under our rules, they have to have staff support and two, in order to be run effectively, they need to have staff support. And we can get into that maybe when we talk about some of the civility issues that have arisen. So I am not saying well, you know, the problem with the disabilities commission is yes. They deserve to have their own commissions. So do women, so do seniors. So does the social services commission, which focuses on a very important issue, which is our on-house neighbors. So it really just came down to us. Could we support them appropriately? And the answer from staff in all honesty was no. And so it was either consolidate them or if we're going to not consolidate them, then just not consolidate them and figure out what we're not going to fund with that $200 and some of $1,000, numbers is $238,000, what aren't we going to do in order to continue to fund for standalone commissions? That's really in my mind anyway, speaking for stand alone commissions. That's really, in my mind anyway, speaking for myself, when it came down to it, it wasn't a desire to disenfranchise or remove the voice of anyone on any of these commissions. It came down to, if we can't afford to staff them in the way we are required to do so, and it's going to cost us close to a quarter of a million dollars to do that. Who do I look in the eye and say, you no longer have a quarter of a million dollars to actually do programs for homelessness, programs for youth, programs for seniors, because we have to have staff people staffing commissions. So for me, it was staffing versus real work being done. And it was a hard decision, but that's from my mind where we came down to it. And as we go on with the discussion, you know, I think there may be some things we can talk about on a going forward basis to try and remove that quandary we're in. But as we sit here today, that's the quandary we're in. Well, so my question to you would be, I personally viewed disabilities in the disabilities commission and the subject of people with disabilities as its sort of own category that is crucial. And I'm not saying that these others are not their own categories, but I think that legally and certainly in a lot of the things we've heard recently and including in the original staff report that we received on this, disabilities were called out is, well, we need to seek their advice before we know what to do. A lot of the work that I do in my day job involves disabilities and I do a lot of work with disability rights California disability rights legal center. Which is not to say I don't do work with other people, but it's my perception that people with disabilities pose peculiar and special problems, you know, for cities like us and other, which is again, not to degrade the other commissions. I am just, I feel that we should have a disability's commission and that's why I'm asking these questions. So I can see combining the others, but I think the city needs a disability's commission to advise us about issues relating to disabilities. So that's just my personal point of view and that's why I asked the question and asked the question about class. I would like to hear from other members of the commission. And again, I understand combining some commissions, but I just believe this one is separate and unique. So I'm open to hearing from everybody and sort of getting some thoughts before we vote on this particular piece, but initially, the thinking, at least from my point of view, was that right now the city's not really in the position to provide the adequate staffing necessary to do all of these things separately. And I think that's why we put such an emphasis in adding the ad hoc piece and creating the 9 person commission, consolidated commission, and then empowering the ad hoc to be able to appoint members outside of just the commission members so that we could sort of reach that goal that we had also of more diversity, more voices at the table on certain specific issues and so I wish we could do that at the table on certain specific issues. And so I wish we could get some better numbers on specifically what a disability's commission as a standalone and then everything else consolidated would look like. But I still trust that that would be overly burdensome I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that's what I think that and so I just worry about if we add this additional burden and cost to the city, are we getting more out of sort of our disability advocates? Then we would if they were still members of the Consolidated Commission with the addition of a disability's ad hoc. And again, I mean, I have a brother that was born in 1976 with disabilities that grow up here in Santa Monica. And this, you know, is a matter that was very near and dear to my heart during his lifetime. And I've seen sort of the city make great strides. So everything in me wants to say, yes, this should be a separate thing. And I thought a caller raised an interesting question about legally or we required to do this. I don't believe we are because we wouldn't be at this point if that were the case, but we'll see. I'm still open to talking about it more, but that was my thinking. I'm going to go through. So before I call on you, I'm going to go through the ad hoc committee and then Council Member Parallel moved to you. So now, Council Member Brock. So I absolutely agree that the Disability's Commission should be a separate stand alone commission. However, when we were talking about this, the role of the disability commission encompasses seniors, it encompasses members right now of the Social Services Commission, and the disability commission, I'm not sure if it has been as robust as it should be, Part of that is obviously pandemic meetings, et cetera. So the question I think for us was, could members of the Disabilities Commission blend into the new Rename Commission and still have not only a voice, but could they create and add more disability specialists to paint on the issue. So you would take maybe two disability commissioners and ad hoc to them to look at different issues and maybe with more of those experts added, they might actually be able to be more robust in that manner. So I don't know if any of us have a real firm grasp on whether their role would be diminished or if with the members of the senior's commission being added, members from social services being added, members of status of women being added, if that Pope Parie might end up having a stronger scent and be actually more worthwhile because instead of being siloed, they would now be part of a larger commission. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Parra. Council Member Brock has kind of made me want to retract my thoughts because I was thinking about what the ad hoc committee was saying and I kind of had my emergency management had on and so a few years back as you, some of you may recall that, you know, the city of Los Angeles had, you know, significant lawsuits against them because of not having emergency plans that considered the needs of those with access and functional needs in them. And so really, you're shine to spotlight on the importance of being inclusive. And so with that being said, I recognize that all of these commissions are equally important. But I also share the same concerns that Mayor Hamerch has about it being a standalone commission, because I do feel that what they bring to the table is very unique and important so I am concerned about it not being a standalone commission and I recognize where we are financially but I also recognize the value and the importance of what that commission can bring to the city all the way around in terms of being that support for all the different departments divisions, etc, etc within that realm. So I think that that's really important moving on to some of the other questions that I had and in particular to some of the regional boards and some of the other like clean beaches and ocean and what have you are any of these paid positions either paid by the city or paid by the commissions that they serve. Do we know the answers to those? We do know the answers I believe. Oh, so who does know? I'm aware that there are stipends associated from the city. I think it's $50 a meeting for MWD is what I heard and I forget that there is something minimal. The city pays though, not MWD we pay. I don't think there is a There's not beaches either. I'm just I'm talking about the other two. Right. I think there are stipends for those because they do require again pre COVID the world has changed. Both of those meet in downtown Los Angeles MWD I think is three meetings can be as many as three meetings a month. And so I think it's a transportation stipend to allow people to travel to downtown. So all I can tell you is I was in a discussion, but my understanding is that that's separate and that the $50 is a stipend. So and transportation costs are separate and MWD does reimburse costs, but not but we pay the stipend council member Brock. So, there is some confusion of this, but as far as MWD, I understand the city provides $200 a month to our representative there. My question in addition was did the West Valley Vector, West Valley Water District also provide a stipend to board members. And I haven't been able to ask her to, I looked briefly yesterday, got lost in a morass of trying to figure out where it is, is our MWD representative also part of West Valley? She's on the phone, we can ask her. Well. What's family? What's West Valley? So let me, I did some research on this. You can trust me or we can ask. But I did some research, different water districts give per diems to their representatives to MWD, right? So I saw some of them are quite substantial. When I say- 75 of a meeting. I saw that for not for West Valley, but for another one. Last Virginist does 270 a meeting. I get that. I don't see any evidence that that's paid to our representatives. They only pay it to their representatives. I did research on that. So the city manager told me today that our MWD representative gets a stipend of $200 a month from the city of Santa Monica. And I think it's 50 a meeting. I mean, that was vector or something for a vector gets 150 every quarter or something because they only meet a few times a year. So that's the unmuted Judy in case you had any questions. Yeah, I understand, but Council Member Brock didn't indicate that he wanted her to answer. So here we go. I'd like to hear from her since she probably knows what she is. Her name is Mike. Her name is Mike. I'll mic on. Turn your mic on. I'll remember, David. Turn your mic on, please. Like to hear from Ms. Abdo since we're all speculating from what we saw. She probably knows what she gets. The person who asked the question didn't ask. I'm not. I'm simply saying he didn't. You do. So now let's hear from Ms. Abdo. Judy, are you there? his ad go. Judy are you there? Esther's Judy on the line? Okay, I am on the line. Yes, are you hearing? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. The city of Santa Monica pays $200 a month if I attend more meetings or meetings. Yes it is. There are three full meetings. Judy you're breaking up. I don't know what's wrong or what you're speaking into if it's a phone or a computer, but it definitely is breaking up. It's phone. Can you repeat your sentences about the pay and how many meetings, etc. because you broke up in the middle of each one of those? Thank you. because you broke up in the middle of each one of those. Thank you. Okay. The seat of months, if I attend more than two meetings, or attend two full meetings. The meetings, including all the committees, are three full days a month usually. Thank you. And expenses, somebody asked about that. So why don't we just make this complete? Do you get additional expenses? Yes. But the net only pays for gas. I have not taken any gas money since I had an electric car. Thank you. Any more questions from Andy? And whatever thing they also pay if we go to conferences. They pay for that before they see hotel. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I'm still here. I'm not seeing any more questions, but thank you. Why don't you hang on just in case somebody has one. Thank you very much for that help. Okay, so is that you just are you satisfied with that? Councilmember partisan one it will be sure I was asking this question. Okay, so is that satisfactory? Yes, that is. Thank you. Are you are we asking questions about everything right now? Yes, that is. Thank you. Are you are we asking questions about everything right now? Well, right. I mean, I just led with that. I was just serious, but Yes, I think you can ask do you want to keep going? Yes Yes, councilmember Dela Torrey. Yeah, I just want to express my Support also for keeping the Disabilities Commission whole. Aside from just the focus in. You know, in some places you create Safe space for people to participate. And I think this is one of those Commissions where I think you need to Need to be mindful of that. I also feel that maybe we can potentially Expand with a focus on like of that. I also feel that maybe we can potentially expand with a focus on mental health. I don't know how to integrate that, but I think that would be really powerful because there's a lot of disabilities around mental health issues in our community, and that might be one way to strengthen that commission. The other thing, I really appreciate also the thoughtfulness in terms of youth development, like how we engage more young people. And so I really appreciate the ad hoc committee thinking about that and being mindful on that. So very important work. Other cities have youth commissions and I think it's a good way to start is to open it up and have these ex officio members. I think that's a great way to start to see what the interest is of youth in our city to participate but that's all I had. Yes, Councilmember Brock. Okay, let me because we have a lot of, I think we have more than four motions here. Okay. So let me start with a motion. Well, let me so I think we should well here's what I want to do. I want to talk about whether the council thinks we should vote separately. This is how it's been set up for me on my cheat sheet. Oh, you have it. Okay, good. So we're doing each thing separately. So I don't have to ask you that. So good. Let's start. Well, I was just going to do a motion on 1A and having heard what council member Delatory suggested and Mayor Himalrich suggested. I. So I'm going to make one suggestion. Controversial. It's going to be more. Well, I wasn't going to take it by pieces anyway. So I was going to divide it up in the more. That's going to be like ten motions instead of. It's as long as we get through it. It's okay. Just make your motion. Let's hear. My motion is to consolidate the Social Service Commission, Commission on the Status of Women and Commission on the Senior Community and the one newly named Commission. However, leave the Disabilities Commission has a free standing commission. That's my motion. Do I hear a second? Second. Moved by Brock, seconded by Paara. Council member, do you have a tour? Second moved by Brock seconded by Para. Councilmember Dillatoric. A quick friendly amendment is to direct staff to assess the viability of including sort of a focus on mental health issues in the commission. So you know when you said that I wondered because I'm not sure that's not already part of it. Correct. Yeah. It was. part of it? Correct, yeah. I believe that it doesn't have to be a visible disability. In other words, I know what you're thinking about. But I think this is a much broader commission. Or it could be part of the work plan. You know, that's the thing I guess what we're lacking is, and this is I guess step one is establishing the commissions, but eventually for us to have a template that council members know what every commission, you know, their goals know their goals their outcomes you know sort of their annual work. Okay nice idea but for tonight. And I'd like to stick with where we are right now and we could add that either as staff direction or the commission I'm sure is listening and they would understand that they would start to add that into their work plan if it isn't already. Right. So let's any more comments on this. Yes, councilmember Davis. Sorry. I'm not going to make a comment, but I do have been spoken to several commission members about things and since it sounds like we're not going to achieve the full savings that we were talking about beforehand, and maybe I don't wanna interfere with the motion, but that maybe we need to rethink how we staff these commissions, and does it make sense instead of having individual staff members such throughout the city, do we come up with a person who is sort of the central repository of staffing? Which would go to Councilmember De LaToury's issue about having templates and having some consistency the way the commissions are supported throughout the city. But again, not trying to hijack the motion. We had a pretty simple motion. I understand that. I understand and I'm, it's fine, but at some point, maybe it makes sense to give staff that direction because I think what we're going to, about to hear from Mr. Aigle, is that he now has to come up with some money to do this and we need to figure out how we're going to pay for it. Right. So related to that, and I think it's a really good question, is you could conceivably make this less costly if you think about, as I understand, I think it's the code that requires the city manager to appoint secretaries. You could conceivably say, we want to make sure that there are support staff who take minutes and who prepare agendas, but maybe not say we need to have the staff liaisons. And my sense, so too comments there, because when we looked at those numbers, I think it's possible, if you said, we want to have the Consolidated Commission, we want to have the Disabilities Commission, that we could make that lower number work and my team reminded me that in terms of the support staff, the disability's commission is probably the heaviest hall because it also involves arranging accommodations, those are vendors arranging all the vendors getting them paid all of that. So if we are to say we don't have to have liaisons for the commission sort of, but we need the the secretaries of the support staff, I think if we added that staff and you're not actually doing that tonight, so we'd come back with that. But in terms of your calculations, sort of your direction to us could be figure out how we can fund a staff assistant to support the Consolidated Commission and the Disabilities Commission. So after we do this motion, maybe I would like to give that to Mike. Right, now I hear that. So but thank you, Mr. Aigle, I appreciate that input. Any other comments on this? Yes, it was moved by Brock, seconded by Para, and let's have a roll call vote if that works works because we aren't on the roll call screen. There we go. The job. Madam clerk and now let's have a roll call vote. Council member Parra. Yes. Council member Davis. Yes. Council member Dela Tori. Yes. Mayor Hillmarich. Yes. That passes 6-0 and now Council member Davis. So I would like to move that we give direction to staff to look for better options and perhaps less costly options in ways which to support all the boards and commissions but particularly in ways which to support all the boards and commissions, but particularly the commissions that we've just been discussing that might involve having centralized, non-specialized, non-substantively specialized staff, but have a person who's there to be the secretary, take the notes, do the administrative work associated with the commissions, and maybe have them support many commissions so that we get more consistent methodologies of doing things and get more consistent other templates and things like that for a minute. So that was not very well articulated but I think staff understands what I'm saying. So I'd like to move that as direction. That you're good for you. I'll second that no and councilmember quark. Well that includes technology because there is technology that can assist with the note taking in the admin. Sure sure I think I think one of the problems we're bumping up against is that we actually have specific administrative rules that require a human being to serve as the note taker of the secretary be the administrative support. And so to the extent that they can use technology to be more efficient, Yihal, let's do it. But I think we have very specific requirements now. And unfortunately, that's been coming out of the various departments. And maybe there's some way to have one person be administrative support for many or all of the commissions that would give us some economies of scale and some consistency. So something for staff to think about and look at. We'd be happy to. So we do have to come back in the near future to talk about how boards and commissions will come back and remote and personal access, so we can include this conversation about an optimal staffing makeup for the boards and commissions at that time as well. Right, and the whole point is to allow the boards and commissions to continue to function, but hopefully in a more economically and administratively efficient manner. Do we need to take a vote on that. Yeah, well, I don't know. We've been taking I think that. Yes, we do. So let's have a roll call on that. I got lost in the motion. I wasn't very well articulated. I apologize for that. So the motion is to ask back to come back to consider and then come back with some ideas about ways to better support the administrative functions of all the boards and commissions and perhaps even have a person who serves as the central board and commission supporting them not in a substantive manner but in an administrative manner that would therefore not only reduce the cost associated with each commission but also actually provide better outcomes, because we would get as Mr. Dela Tori suggested more consistent reports out and things like that. That became a really long motion. It did. It is a very long motion, but what can I say? I had too much caffeine this afternoon. But does everyone understand the motion? So can we maybe have a roll call vote please? Sure. Council member Dela Tori. Yes. Council member Brock. Yes. Mayor Potemma-Cowellan. Yes. Council Member Davis. Yes. Council Member Paura. Yes. Mayor Hema Rich. Yes, that passes 6 to 0. And yes, Council Member, I'm sorry. It's right. It's an air protest. Yes. Mayor Potemma- Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair, Chair with quasi-judicial bodies exempt. Changes to the Chair and Vice Chair rotation by election reduce the urban task force from nine to seven members, reduce the arts commission from 11 to nine members, and any procedural changes approved at this meeting. And approve a policy permitting boards and commissions to meet quarterly until the end of fiscal year 2022 and direct staff to come back with options for returning to in-person meetings. Okay, so this is everything that we discussed before and approved before and we're just formalizing it. I'm looking at this, right? I get it. Yeah, no, no, I know. It's new. Yeah. Well, so what can I tell you? I don't have the same point you do. And that's why I'm saying that. Yeah. So it's not identical. So yes. It's moved by McCown seconded by Davis. Do we have any discussion? Let's have a roll call vote. Council Member De La Torre. Yes, yes. Council Member Brock. Yes. Mayor Prattima, Calon. Yes. Council Member Davis. Yes. Council Member Paura. Yes. And Mayorima Cown. Yes. Council Member Davis. Yes. Council Member Parra. Yes. And Mayor Hemelrich. Yes and that passes 6 to 0. And everybody push your buttons. Phil Brock and Christine Parra. Please push your buttons. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Council Member Brock. In regard to directing staff to come I think that's a good point. Yes, Council Member Brock. In regard to directing staff to come back with an updated stability policy for both members of the public as well as members of the bodies. I think members of the public have started buzzing about what the civility policy is. We talked about it in the ad hoc fairly comprehensively but I'd like maybe another member of the ad hoc or staff to talk to us and delineate what the proposed updated stability policy would be so that it's really clear to the public. So is that because you weren't prepared? I mean, why not? No, I'm asking. So. No, I'd rather council member Davis, I think is willy to. Okay, good. And I want to make sure that I understand and there are members of the public that have been asking about this for the last couple of days. So I would like to make sure that it's, we have clear to let. Thank you. So let me start out by saying I think the impetus for this was that we had reports from various members of boards and commissions as well as observations from staff that were supporting boards and commissions at two things were happening. One is that certain members of boards and commissions were not being civil to their colleagues and not allowing the agenda for the commission's business to go forward in particular meetings. That and second that there were members of the public who have every right to attend meetings and have every right to express themselves but chose to do so in such a way that again derailed the commissions achieving the goals that they had set forth and being able to get through their agenda. So this civility policy first of all we already have a city civility policy. This is not in any way intended to reduce anyone's first amendment rights their ability to express themselves or in all honesty, you know, to some extent how they express themselves. We can't mandate people to be civil. We can only ask. But the idea is that this community has a lot of very engaged people and they all have opinions and they all have a right to express those opinions. And when people sometimes express those opinions in ways that some might consider uncivil and intimidates other people who also have a right to express themselves. So the idea was to suggest, not mandate, because again we cannot mandate civility, but to suggest to everyone who wants to engage in the community that the way for all voices to be heard, and not just some voices to be heard, is for everyone to treat each other with respect, to recognize that each of our boards and commissions are doing incredibly important work, and that their ability to do work is dependent on their ability to conduct their meetings in a rational, reasonable manner. Each and every one of our members of our boards and commissions volunteer So, in a way, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult and difficult, it's a very difficult and difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult, it's were subjected to, it is simply, in my mind anyway, very difficult then to ask people to continue to serve on boards and commissions if they're gonna be subject to some of the verbal for lack of a better term assaults that they were enduring. So again, we are not trying to silence anyone. This is not an attempt to reduce public participation. We welcome public participation. And certainly the law is very clear that anyone who wants to participate in a public meeting can do so in ways that anyone of us might find to be offensive or even rude. But that's not our job. But the idea is to promote civility. The League of Women Voters has an entire discourse on this, the idea of civil discourse. Because civil discourse is what allows all voices to be heard. When certain voices hijack a conversation, then not all voices are heard. So this is not any way to tempt assignments, any particular person or any particular point of view. But this is simply a request for everyone to treat other people as they would like to be treated with respect and with dignity and allow everyone to have an equally important loud heard voice. So I know there have been concerns. This is not this is not assault on the First Amendment. Believe me, if anyone were to sniff out in a sult on the first amendment, it would be me, as you all know. But no, this is simply a request that we let our volunteer boards and commissioners do their work in a way that is useful to the city that accomplishes their goals, allows everyone to be heard. And as I said, it's the golden rule. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. So if I could follow up for a minute, really what we're asking is almost rules of decorum. And part of this is also so that the chairs of commissions can have more ways to make sure that the members of the commissions don't try and hijack the work either. Now I never had that on the two commissions that I served on in the city, but I've heard that some commissions have had rude behavior from fellow commissioners on the dius. So as you said, Council Member Davis, none of this is something that is easily enforced and that nobody is trying to censor the commissions because what I'm hearing from members of the public is they believe this is an attempt at censorship playing in simple to quote one letter. So I think what we're doing is we would ask for something to be drafted and it would come back to us. So that would be the attempt. It is not an attempt tonight at trying to tighten the civility policy, but I do think we all agree that in a commission that may meet at Ken Edwards or somewhere else, that the chair of the commission has to have some rules over fellow commissioners and we hope. Now we can't mandate, but we hope the public will be respectful toward members of residents who are volunteering to serve. So but I want to make sure that everyone understands this is not an attempt to add censorship to our public discourse by any means at all. And all we're doing is we're asking something to be drafted that we will then look at and debate again. So may I ask a question, Oscar, before you go? So did you, did you, the ad hoc review our current civility policy before you made this recommendation and decided that our current policy was inadequate? If I recall, I believe specifically with regard to chairs, vice chairs and sort of the commission members, there was some discussion about needing to sort of update the language. And then with regard to the, and I saw the communications as well. And I mean, censorship wasn't even remotely where we were going, just kind of putting more emphasis on the need to be more civil toward our neighbor and in sort of our proceedings And and so making that a little bit more explicit I think is is what we were thinking but not in any way You know asking anyone to alter what they would Say in the points they were trying to make asking anyone to alter what they would say and the points they were trying to make. And there are a lot of time over there. So I'm trying to understand, is what you're talking about? Look, what I would like to see, and I hear what you're saying, a motion away from sort of the personal aspects and more towards the actual issues, right, that we're being presented. Legal issues, you know, when I say legal, I mean, issues that we run into under the law in the city, you know, so when boards and commissions. I think Councilmember Davis put it best. I mean, this is just kind of strengthening it by just sort of raising it, but not necessarily. I don't believe there's anything we can say to someone to say, you know, be nicer. If someone wants to make public comment that is intentionally hurtful or mean, there's nothing that we can do to change that, but we're just basically, you know, adding to the agenda and making more of an explicit statement that this is the goal is that we have a more civil discourse. If I can add, let's change this a little bit. We've had discussions from members of the public about commissions that cut them off, commission members or chairs that cut off members of the public. I look at this in addition to enhanced training for commission chairs and vice chairs and members of commissions has a way to make sure our commissioners are also want to make sure that they understand civility and they understand the ways to make sure that the public, if they were don't think maybe it's coming across as we're directing it toward the public. But I think we're directing it at all at commissioners, at board members, at the public entirely. And we're going to give enhanced training to commissioners and board members on rules of civility and how they should be conducting themselves from this treasured bias whether it be here or can Edwards or wherever. Does that make it clear? Have you thought in making this recommendation to include specialized trainings for chairs and vice chairs of boards. It's somewhere in here. You don't have this, but it's clarifying expectations on. It's clarifying expectations on civility and creating additional training for chairs and vice chairs. We can add that to the, yeah, we can combine that in. Yeah, I mean, I think that should be there. I think people need that. Yeah, and that's what I've been talking about. And I apologize. It's don't worry about it, but I separate it. I don't know if it's very easy. It's been waiting for quite a while. So let's hear what he has to say. Yeah, well, I think culture trumps compliance any day. So culture trumps compliance. So if we're trying to get people to act right, you have to create a culture within the organization that sets the tone. I think anytime that we put a civility policy, it's a little problematic because we have the power and government, and when people in power do things where the power is misused or uses it to punish adversaries or so forth, which I have experienced personally, is very hard to tell the people in the public to be civil when you have all the power and your disrespecting in a different way. You're not saying F you, but you're saying F you when you cut all their budget, for example. You know what I'm saying? So that's something that we should just be mindful of that, that these policies really even counted a policy for the public should be sort of a decorum and expectation. And within the commissions, I think when you train the chair and the vice chair and so forth, they set a tone, they, we call them agreements, like we never even say rules. You know, we say, this is something we all agree on because we're trying to get to change in the culture, right? We're trying to get to establish a culture of how we treat each other and doing the government's work or doing the public's work. So I think it's problematic because the way that this was framed, it says here, for example, it says something along the lines of removing people. Okay, it says here, city clerk and city attorney will work to see how our civility policy can be strengthened and Institute it with any additional trainings for chair and vice chair update rules to include removal for members for misconduct and And that's I think where where people it's triggering sort of a And that's I think where people it's triggering sort of a Reaction, you know where people feel waiting minute you're gonna start removing people if you don't if they're not civil and that's You know if someone if someone attacks me somebody might think oh that's uncivil Someone attacks an adversary that oh that's civil they deserve it, you know and it's not right, you know you have to figure out It's just it's this, it's a lot of gray area there in terms of, in terms of how we're going to go ahead and remove, you know, people for what type of, for what type of behavior. So, if what you're saying is that you're against, we already have the right to remove people. But with our current policy, right? We can do it any time. We appoint and we I believe have the power to remove the city attorney can correct me if I'm wrong. If you remember, he needs the public, right? Well, that's the thing is it's unclear. I'm talking about members, what's the option that we apply? That's what I'm talking about. Okay. But but but but but it's too kind with the you're you're both talking about removal, but what if but it's too kind with your you're both talking about removal But there's too kind to read there's the there's the disruptive behavior of somebody present at a Member of the public present at a meeting you can there's rules to remove that person and then there are rules for instance should a member of a commission be for instance should a member of a commission be inherently disruptive and create a hostile setting. The council has the inherent authority to remove that person from their official position. Great. One quick question. and maybe someone knows this. Do we have other cities in the county that have these types of civility policies or are we the only one that has that type of? Everybody has it. There are some are more. I mean, I've looked at them across the board. Because the city, every city has something like this and they just depending some of the more detailed, some are less detailed. But we all know, I mean, based on our experience, even those of you who, you know, that it is something that is very difficult to control. And that's why I'm asking about our existing civility policy, which admittedly doesn't do much good, but you know, or it doesn't appear to me to do the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the chair and the vice chair. That would end, that would stop all the problems. Because at some point, if someone's being disrespectful, you can, you know, what I would, I would take a break, time out, we'll be back in 10 minutes, try to talk to that person and find a way to de-escalate. You know, we can train people to sort of create that culture that we're striving for. I just wanted to note that while the staff report may say something, that's not necessarily what we're moving on right now. So for instance, I think either council member McCallan or myself are going to move a policy. It's not a policy, but move for the extra training and move for an updated civility, whatever you want to call it, civility, you know, recommendations. However, we are not looking at that report right now in terms of saying we're going to remove people. Right, I see that. I'm not sure we need to do that. And I think that would be further debate later. So the update rules to include removal from members from misconduct. The City Council already has that power. So if the chair of a commission and the staff came to us and said we have a constant issue with a person. I think we would do exactly what council member Delatory just said, which is talked to that person. See if we can facilitate a way that they can work within the commission so that the entire commission and the public benefits. So I don't believe that we are trying, I hope that none of us are trying to provide with their staff or council right now provide a hammer. At this point to anyone in the city. So I'm trying to make sense. new kinds of motions here. I have one and tell me which one you made the motion, right? No. No. No, she's going to make it. No, she's going to make it. Okay, because I see a motion here that would clarify the staff, clarify expectations on civility and create additional training for chairs and vice chairs. And that we're making. No, we're adding that to another motion. We're going to combine that with and direct staff to come back with an updated civility policy for both members of the public as well as members of the bodies and training. Right. Those those. You first said and. Okay. Good. In one motion. So did you make that motion? We have not yet. Well, let's do it. So for it. No, you do it. You have it in front of you and you know what you want to say. Can I just quickly say to council member DeLatore's point? I hear what you're saying about sort of the language and how that may be interpreted. And I do think that raises an interesting question about whether or not we can just change what we call this going forward. And I think when the language actually comes before us, I think we can have we might have that option. But I don't know Joe is that you mean civility versus the facility versus the poor on the idea you know what about respect? Yeah sort of like I don't know if we are you could always be constrained by that. Yeah. So I think when that comes back, we potentially could just call this something else. How about the golden or in city instant engagement? And can't we ask the city staff who are going to draft any city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and city and to direct staff to come back with an updated civility policy for both members of the public as well as members of the bodies and clarify expectations on civility and creating and create additional training for chairs and vice chairs. I'll second. So motion by McCown seconded by Brock. Yes, that covered it. Looking at my various, my various sets of things we would be moving. It's not going to be accurate. There. It's okay. It's a combination of I think it actually is anyway. I think it's E. Yeah, right. E1 E. Right. It's 1 E. And 3. And 3. Okay. Good. So who made the motion? Mayor. Made by McCall and seconded by Brock. Is that right? So you seconded? Yes. Okay. Good. So any more discussion of this. I think we may we can have a lot of discussion down the road, but tonight is not the time. So let's have a roll call vote. Councilmember Parra. Yes. Councilmember Davis. Yes. Mayor Boatim McCowell. Yes. Councilmember Brock. Yes. Councilmember Dela Torrey. Yes, and Mayor Hillmrich. Yes, so that passes 6 to 0 and council before you go any further. I want to go back to the To the first motion that you guys may regard regarding the consolidation I need you guys to you can do it now or I mean I prefer you do good now to a name for the commission. The combined commission. We aren't going to do that tonight. We need to think. I pay. I pay. No. Okay. Okay. We aren't going to do that tonight. That's fine. Did you hear that time? That's asking for too much. The name staff should just make a recommendation and then we can discuss it. Don't just throw it open. Okay. Staff should make a recommendation. Okay. Okay. Who's next? I want to ask questions and maybe either this question was asked to me as well. There was a ballot measure, a charter boards and commissions and this may be for the City Attorney's Office. What is the advantage of removing the commissions that are in the charter to the Santa Mike Municipal Code and what is the negative effects of that. Thank you. I don't know what the negative effects are. I think the, I think I'm guessing why this has been put forward is that it gives the council or future city councils more flexibility as it is now, if something's in the city charter, it can only be changed by an election of vote of the people. So this gives, should conditions change and you need to modify something, you could do it much quicker through an ordinance change of the council. So I know that has a recreation and parks commissioner a previous city manager downgraded the recreation and parks commission from a member of the charter. At one point, I don't know if they did have removed it, but they downgraded some of the responsibilities of the recreation and parks commission. For instance, up till 2008, recreation and parse commission had ultimate authority over the hiring of the community and cultural services director. Councilmember Brock, that did go before the vote of the people. Yeah, that had to be voted on because no city. Right, but it was, it was there was a vote. And it removed some of the respond. Thank you Denise. It removed some of the responsibilities from that charter commission. Is there any I guess that's why I'm asking other a negative effects and which commissions are currently in the charter? I can tell you the five that are in the charter. It's airport commission. I know I know this is my heart airport commission library, personal board planning and rec and park. So we hope that the Airport Commission will be disbanded somewhere around 2029-2030. But the other commissions, that's the question is that we need to think long and hard about whether those commissions should go should be removed from the charter and if all commissions should be just made a part of the municipal code. Well, these are the ones in the charter. So I'm trying to understand so there are five commissions that are in the charter. And they can't be renamed, Their duties can't be changed. Their responsibilities can't be changed. Nothing can be changed about them without a vote of the people. And the reason, for instance, we did the rule of three, because if the council decides, for instance, that they want to rename the airport commission, the airport park commission, or something like, you see what I'm saying? We couldn't do that it's just the way it is and so it's role is only as described in the chart and if I can add to that we're not making that decision tonight all we're doing is asking staff to come back so I don't think we need to have a substantive discussion about pros and cons tonight the only discussion is should we ask staff to come back with a proposed ballot measure and then that would be where we would have the substantive discussion about whether or not that's something we wanted. Then I'll so move that it be approved. Move by Brock. Second. Seconded by Davis. Let's have a roll call though. Councilmember Dela Torrey. Yes. Councilmember Brock. Yes. Mayor Potimma Cohen. Yes Councilmember Davis. Yes. Councilmember Parra. Yes. And Mayor Himmrich. Yes, so that passes 6 to 0 on a motion by Brock seconded by Davis. Okay, guys, next. Okay, so I move that we approve a recommendation from the Board and Commission Adhoc Committee that we not change the appointment methodology requirements and or specific qualifications for applicants. And that we clarify that the limitations of serving on more than one board at a time does not apply to advisory committees. Second. Mayor Putim McCallan, did you want to also add and make all the changes affected January? So I was not sure if you wanted me to wait until we finally do that last one and then sort of say and I don't know if we can do this because we broke these up. Would there just be a separate motion at the end that says that all the recommendations from the boards and commissions would the changes would become effective. I think you've already approved. I think you've already voted for that. Okay. So I left that out. Yes. So if you need me to say it, we can add it. And if we aren't changing, do we really need a motion or we just say we aren't, I mean. Oh. Well now all of these, so these that she just listed, the not changing the appointment methodology, the requirements, clarifying limitations, and then also it was the civilian disability. Making it a first one. That one we had done earlier. We've done that one, right. So it's just, so we'll incorporate those into the resolution when we come back. Yes. And basically we just couldn't do this as one alum because we have B to take as its own separate thing. Right. So as I understand that we don't really need the things we aren't changing, we don't need to say we are changing. They just won't change. Is that right? That is correct. So that means that C, D, and C and D, which already exists and are already there mean that we just aren't making any changes. So D we do want to include that. We just need to like, because we want to clarify. Yeah, because currently it doesn't clarify that this does not apply to advisory committees. Okay, can you list all the advisory committees for me? I do have them. I mean, we can get that free, but I don't have things to do. Okay. Can you list all the advisory committees for me? I don't have them. I mean, we can get that free, but I don't have it right now. I have the library. So, what do you have? Friends of the library, right? The field sports, right? Yes. Field sports, friendly library. Field sports advisory. You've got the Santa Monica Aquatics advisory. You've got the community garden advisory, rents of the library, Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board. What, say that last one? Sorry, Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board. But we don't appoint that. Who appoints that? So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, thank you, are more, right there. So, we have a choir. Well, those, four of those work with the Recreation Parks Commission, Friends of the Library Works with the Library Board. I think of, those are the ones I'm familiar with. And I think the reason this came forward is we recently had to ask a Virginia Avenue Park advisory board member who was appointed to the arts commission to vacate her position. And it didn't seem particularly these advisory commissions are quite focused. I mean, the aquatics advisory could be a coach for one of the teams who could also be a really valuable member on the Social Services Commission and would hate to lose them because of that. And to your point, not appointed by Council. So we're just... But who have, look, I get that. I get that there are, that those were all under parks and rec, but what about the Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board? So that is recreation and parks commission. That's under parks, yes it is. So that's... That's under parks parks. Okay. And then I would suppose with the public art committee from the arts commission be part of that as well. Oh, that's that's true. Yes. Yes. So the different committees have bylaws that establish how the committee members are established. So for example, Aquatics Advisory has representatives from different permit groups, as well as general lab swimmers. The Virginia and Republican Advisory has a process for getting new members. And somebody could be a coach that goes on the field support advisory committee, who's also like it said, could be great to have on the library board. And it's really, at on the library board and it's really, at least in my opinion, it's a very different sort of what they're doing. So we also have an EV committee, is that right? Don't you have an electric vehicle committee? I think that's more of a time limited as I recall. Okay, well at some point, not tonight, but I would like to know what all of these various committees are and who appoints them. Because I think there, I just, in my recollection over time, these are most of the names I've heard, but I think I've heard more, and I think this may be something I don't know that we want to think about that so. So thank you and. You have what you need. OK. Listen. I have a question for you before we. Some member part I just called on. I just had a question before we vote on that. Are we also going to vote on some of the other recommendations that you guys are bringing forward to consider? So there's there's there will only be one left after this which is the term on it. Got it. Yeah. Now that's when everyone's way down. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. So do we have a motion in a second? I'm a little confused. Okay. So as I understand the motion is that serving on an advisory board does not disqualify somebody from serving on a regularly constituted board or commission. Is that the motion? Yes, and that I think we just added that we're not changing our point methodology or requirements because that came up sort of multiple times in council discussions, or we're just clarifying that that is staying the same, so that when they come back with, you know. Yes, and so is that what we're voting on now? Yes. Okay, good. Let's take a roll call. And unless anybody else has that. Do you have a, did you have a motion of the second? It's also this by Mayor Pro Tem and the second was by Council Member Davis. Okay second was by council member Davis. Okay. Council member Parra. Yes. Council member Davis. Yes. Mayor Patel McCowon. Yes. Council member Brock. Yes. Council member De La Tori. Yes. And Mayor, I'm sorry, and Mayor Hemelrich. Yes, so that passes six to zero. And now. The term limits. Who's doing this? I was a strong proponent of term limits for members of all boards, all commissions, whether they be part of our city commissions or a board member delegate to another commission. So in this, the two specific are West Vector and Metropolitan Water District. And they presently have no term limits. The representative to Metropolitan Water District has served since the last century, 1996. And West Vector has served since 2001. The third is clean beaches, which would just be switching terms from two year terms to two four year terms to be aligned with the rest of our boards and commissions. So I recommend that all of these three beaches, Vector, MWD, all be switched to two terms and a super term, you know, a two-thirds photo council. However, and then I believe that as much as I believe the members of West Vector and the member of MWD have served with distinction for 25 years and 19 years, 20 years. that this term that they have now should be their final term and that we should advertise at the end of the term for new commissioners. Okay, so moved by Brock, seconded by McCowen. I wonder if it would be friendly to the maker to split this up because I'd like to see, I believe in term limits, but I've made it very clear that I believe that somebody who's honorably serving the city should be able to serve that. I didn't make it retroactive. You said it would start immediate. No, I didn't. I said at the end of their term. Okay, good. I am not. I didn't understand. No, I know that there is controversy over this. Yes. However, the members of the boards that we're discussing have served with honor some for decades in our city. So I and I to be honest, I don't know when their terms are up and that's not right. No, no, no, no, I'm okay with that. I'm just going to just good what you said. Because I thought you said would end like this January 1, 2022. I'm okay. Okay. And just really quickly to piggyback on. And that was, you know, the reason this came back without sort of clear guidance on West vector and MWD and I don't know if councilmember Davis will want to chime in on this. Is there was some discussion about whether it's two four-year terms on each or three four-year terms? And the reason I seconded this is one. I agreed with what council member Brock said, but also that there is always the option for a super term, just like with our other members and commissions. I mean, I'm not a big fan of term limits in the first place but it's clear that on this council and in the community right now it seems to be the direction we've been heading in for some time and so I think this aligns our other stuff while still recognizing that some of these really require someone staying on. So it wouldn't be my first preference, but it seems to be the direction that the city feels most comfortable going in. Yes, Council Member Davis. So I'm probably the most resistant to term limits. I'll tell a brief story. I'll borrow from Councillor Member Brock's. A river to our here. Someone asked former representative Joseph Kennedy III if he believed in term limits for Congress people. And he said no because if that were true, John Lewis would have been ejected from the House of Representatives 20 years ago. Term limits, yes, they get rid of the people you don't like. They also get rid of the people who do the most good. But I also agree with Mayor Pro Temma-Kowen that there seems to be substantial support for term limits and so as long as they're not retroactive, because we never have enacted a term limit that has ever been retroactive. Then I'm willing to support this. I do think people need to understand the cons of this as Mayor has Council Member Brock asked about something else. And there will be cons to this. And the con will be that our voice will not be as elevated as it would otherwise be. Both West Vector and Metropolitan Water Board, nobody else serving on those boards has term limits. What that means is that seniority plays a very important role. While there are other people on those boards who have served longer than our representatives and their voices will continue to be elevated, ours will constantly, not constantly, but every eight or 12 years will be having a new person serving and they will be again at the bottom of the pecking order on those boards while other people are moving up seniority wise. These are both very technical boards and while it may not feel like because they're long board large boards we can make a difference. I think as Miss Abda pointed out actually her vote made the difference in the selection of a new leadership for the MWB that is taking it in I think in a direction that everyone agrees is a much better direction and the vote was sufficiently close that Santa Monica's vote made the difference. So while I'm going to support the term limits, I think it's a loss for our city. I think it's a loss for our city. I think it's a loss for our voice on these two boards, but as Mayor Potemma-Kowen sent the handwriting's on the wall. So sometimes you can't fight city hall, as they say. I do, I have to mention. On the MWD board, there are only four commissioners who have served longer than 12 years. The majority of commissioners serve us somewhere around six years. So obviously, if that commissioner has a voice and is knowledgeable about the issues, they will find a way to make an impact whether they're on the board for one year or 27 years. So I would disagree with that. And I also believe that with 93, 94,000 residents of the city, some who were really knowledgeable and interested in water issues, that there will be candidates who will come aboard who will make a difference as well. And that's the same with Vector. So look at, I want to give a chance for residents to be able to be included, to make sure that we're adding new voices, who will also, we hope, will contribute to the boards and commissions. And those boards and commissions, their participation also helps them. This is a way for our residents to be involved in the process of the city and we have 94,000 people who are eligible. Thank you. I also want to say to anybody who's listening to this meeting or watching it later that we really need your help. These boards and commissions are advisory. We follow the advice, right? We lifting that really because we are at a true policy level. So we hear items quickly. You have the opportunity to focus on subject matter areas where we would like to have your input for every single one of you. You live in Santa Monica and you know what your experience is. We need help from our boards and commissions to inform the decisions we make. And if you aren't giving us that advice, I'm begging you now to please focus on that as you move forward because we need you to do this so we can do the work that we do. So, um, yes, so this is really important. Volunteerism is important. I mean, we are not exactly volunteers, but we're pretty close and we need your help as volunteers too. So, um, do we have, is it, oh good. So we haven't. Yes. I'm sorry, Council Member Dela Tori. I just, I just, you know, I wanted to thank anyone who serves more than 10 years on any board, you know, mostly as a volunteer. But to those elders, you know, I think, being important for them to think about mentoring and encouraging, you know, replacements, you know, it's about developing that, that young leadership exactly what Mayor Hemelrich has said which I want to I want to echo and support. We're close to being we elder anyway yes I got it. Any other comments? Good let's have come on really quickly since this is our last last one thank the city clerk's office for all of their help and support with the ad hoc. And to thank my fellow council colleagues, council member Davis and council member Brock. It was very fun spending so many extra hours with you. He says come in, chief. Yeah. So, you know, no, no, no. No quotes on that one. And thank you both for doing this with me. And I think the whole council wants to thank the clerk's office for team this up. And Mr. Aigle, who really had the laboring or and figuring out how to go forward and is going to have even more of the laboring or figuring out how to go forward and is going to have even more of the laboring or moving forward. So thank you all and let's have a roll call vote on this last item. Council Member Dela Torrey. Yes. Council Member Brock. Yes. Mayor Patel McCowan. Yes. Council Member Davis. Yes. Council Member Paura. Yes. Council member Brock yes mayor for Tim McCown yes council member Davis yes council member Para yes and Mary Hammer Ridge Yes, so that passes six to zero And I believe that that concludes Regular items and now we are on am I correct? 13 yes, and we the phone lines are open. Oh right and and so the phone lines are open on item 13. A right and boy guys if you need me to read the number again here you go. 3103128173 again312-817-3 we're on 13A. Okay, so 13A is request of Council members Brock, Parra and Dela Tori that the City Manager as a matter of urgency make available to the full council, Santa Monica residents and public, the following information regarding homelessness, assistance in the city. Contact information from members of the community who may encounter an individual or individuals experiencing homelessness and in need of assistance for shelter or psychiatric mental health crisis. This information should include details gathered in response to inquiry from the Council ad hoc commission on homelessness. Should include local and regional street-based outreach teams and their contact information. Should include a map of street-based outreach teams coverage and hours of operation in the city. Should include a map of public directory of all available public restrooms and hours of operation. Should include existing shelters and hygiene services for people experiencing homelessness or a medical or mental health crisis. Should include all existing funding sources for such services and should include suggested opportunities to add new resources to the system of care, including the not limited to identifying city own land and sites that could provide additional temporary shelter capacity. So councilmember Brock par or a day let or did you want to add to that? Sure I'll start. So this looks relatively comprehensive, but it was meant to be somewhat simple and easy for everything to be understood and read by the public, by our city council, and to make sure that our homeless street service providers and others were able to communicate with each other as well. I remain and I know all of us on the diastille so concerned about the issue of homelessness in the city, the people who are living on our streets, the people who are sometimes dying on our streets. I've heard over and over again from our street providers, people concerned from our people on the beaches, from people all over the city that people who are in homelessness, experiencing homelessness or are in duress or both needs need to be spoken to every single day and offered services, offered help, offered, offered addiction services, offered ways to get off the streets, ways to navigate through the process so they could receive a home or they could be reunited with their families. Whatever it may be, I want to make sure and I've asked this question, this was precipitated by a question I've asked the staff for off and on for six months more insistently over the last couple of months that I want to know where our street services, what are the areas they cover every day? And if there are pockets of our city that are not covered by a street team, by someone other than Santa Monica Police Department, that we find ways to provide coverage to those areas. The reason I want that made available to the public is because the public needs to raise their voices to help us help those in need. And for them to see that maybe a square mile, two square miles of our city are not covered by anybody reaching out to those in need every day. I think we need to change that. We need to provide those services. Now I've talked in the past about providing services past business hours that we also need services in the evenings on weekends that we need to do everything we can to alleviate the crisis on our streets. We know this is not our crisis. It is not Santa Micah's crisis. It is the federal government's crisis. It is the state's crisis. It's LA County's crisis. But we have that crisis in front of us 24 hours a day. So what I'm asking are some of the simpler items. Where are our street teams every day? What areas of the city do we need to develop funding for to help? Where can we lean on the county or the state for assistance? And in addition of that, the basic services that people in need deserve. Are there bathrooms for people in our city who have nowhere to take care of basic human needs? My understanding is we have not one restroom in our city open after 10 p.m. Somehow we need to provide safety and security and a couple of locations in our city for that. We've heard cries over and over again. Council member Delatory last January and February. Many of us about temporary shelters and knowing the cost, knowing the lack of available land. It may not be an option, but I want to make sure that in conjunction with the study that was released last September. And all the other things that we've done in our city and we do far more than almost any other city. I want to thank our city staff because do far more than almost any other city. I wanna thank our city staff because they have been diligent about trying to help and do more with less than the other cities. So my idea in this is to look and say so that the public knows so that we know where we covered, where do we need help. I'm really happy that our new city manager and staff have been able to secure at least one more Department of Mental Health psychiatrist who will be on duty in our city. And I know I may not have been the one who should announce that, but I really want to thank Manager White for that. He's hurt us and he's doing his best to try and help. I want us all to help and it's not only on the council, it's not only on the staff, but it's also on our residents. So, you know, there's the, I want to make it easy for residents if they see someone in their neighborhood in duress that they're able to have an easy number other than the police department to call to help in those the vertices and look at we have emergency throughout our city. So I want us all to be able to put an arm around two arms around those in need and help them receive the services that they need to become useful members of our society once again. And and let me clarify that. I want us to find a way for the 900, 1200, whatever it is, people who were in our city who were unhoused. I don't want to see tents on second in Colorado when I came to the meeting tonight. I want to see them in shelters. It's a rainy day last night. I don't want to see people surviving on our streets. So that'll get it squared away, I think. That's what I'm asking. There's a lot in this discussion item. I don't expect any solutions tonight. I expect that staff will do their best to try and give us all easy to read, easy to digest data and maps and that we start a more urgent discussion in our city. And I know we've had this discussion all year. Thank you. So let me ask our city manager who will have to produce all this information, et cetera, or be in charge of producing it. Whether this is doable, whether, I mean, what can we expect as a result of this. So all this is doable. As Councilmember Brock mentioned, some of these items were discussed as part of the ad hoc. And so staff has already started to work and compile and produce this information because we want to provide as much information as possible so that folks, so all of you, can make decisions and provide direction to us. So we are working on it and it will all be produced and I hope it will be produced very soon in next year, early next year. I was just curious. I mean, we haven't yet received a report back from ad hoc. I don't know if you have any questions. I haven't yet received a report back from ad hoc. And for wait, but, but I mean, I guess I know, I mean, there's nothing in here that's objectionable, but just I know that the members that make up this 13 item aren't the same members that make up the ad hoc. And so I'm just, because we haven't actually received a report, so I don't know how you guys got together to agree on these points if they were the points in the ad hoc. Okay. So, Phil and I obviously, and Lana and Negrete are on the ad hoc. And some of these questions, concerns, whatever maybe is information that we've been asking for for a while. Because we are compiling information because we have a plan of attack, if you will, of how we want to gather and how we want to present that to get that information to the public. So that we're basically doing what we call as a SWOT analysis. So strengths, weaknesses, so forth and so on. And so we're missing some of those pieces. And it's just been taken a little bit longer than anticipated to be able to get that information. And so this was just kind of a way to get that information from staff. When Phil asked to get this information, he sent it to the three of us and he over, it was an oversight on his part of not sending it to Lana. And so I caught it and I said, you should have sent it to Lana. He's like, oh, I'm sorry. I should have sent to Lana. And that's what happened. And so it was just an oversight. So I want to follow up on this little. So I think that when we set up these ad hoc committees, we do need to have regular reports back. I mean, I didn't want to set a prescription on it, but you guys have been out there for a while, right? So if we could get, even if you just say we're compiling that and this is what we want to do, I would like to hear, you know, personally reports back on a regular basis. And then my next point sort of follows up on that. I know we have an ad hoc. I know that Oscars on this item. So my question is, and again, I don't know what you discuss among you, nor do I want to know. But my question is, there are a couple of things we could do. We could make the ad hoc a standing committee so that it would have brown act responsibilities, but then it would have public meetings, right? It would give you less nimbleness, but at a certain point in this ad hoc is supposed to be short-term and single focus. And I just want to make sure that we put this committee together correctly to help you guys accomplish what you want to do. So there are two things. One, I would like to know, you know, on a regular basis what you're doing. But the second thing that I, you know, I would like to know is whether this format for the committee is working for you or whether we should formalize the committee. And either look, we've had a couple of discussions. We're getting information and Moss Adams is going to organize it for us in the audit committee. So arguably, we could dissolve the ad hoc. Each of us can work on the homeless issues as we move along. And then after Moss Adams comes back with a report, we can put together a different committee to take the results of that because the audit committee will simply receive it. But it will tell us action items that won't be done by the audit committee, but rather will be done by staff or whatever they say again. I don't know what it will look like now. But, but then we could put together another that way that might be a more orderly way. So I'm asking the two of you, I know, Juan is not here, but what you think about doing it that way. I will say that it's been difficult to get the information we've been asking for. We've been asking and asking and we've been getting kind of big picture information and not pointed specific information. And so my question is I don't think Moss Adams will have the same barriers that you have. Just I'm hopeful. Well, they haven't so far in any of the things they do. I mean, my only, and we aren't going to do this here. I'm asking you to discuss going forward and, you know, what, yes, Councilmember Davis. I thought you were going to tell me this wasn't a agenda. That's for the city attorney. I was talking of it. It's not. Yes, Councilmember Brock. So, no, this was not put on. The agenda originally has part of the ad hoc committee. It originated from my frustration. And from Councilmember Parra for months and a lot of us saying how much does people concern get how many people do they contact each month and what is their territory and what parts of the city. This originated mayor with something you acted on and I acted on separately but simultaneously. A woman who was suffering from acute homelessness on 21st and Sanvesinny. And for two weeks, you were working on one direction. I was working on another direction. We didn't know each other was working. But I had called people concerned. They said it wasn't their territory. I had called West Coast care they said it wasn't their territory but they would drive by. This woman if you recall remember went from walking to just late and it got worse and worse and I called Maggie in human services and I said who covers that area I've called people concerned. I've called West Coast care and she said St. Joseph Center. So I called St. Joseph Center. Five days later I got a call back from St. Joseph Center and they said well yeah we're there but from city staff and others I heard they're only in San Micah three hours a month maybe and that they were funded by the LA County Supervisors office and I kept digging. Meanwhile, you acted and got that lady taken to care and I was looking at the back end. Why don't we have anyone who's looking at homeless individuals throughout the city? And that's where this germinated from. I met with County Supervisor at Cule's office in September. Talk to them about the fact that if St. Joseph Center, which had one van covering Malibu, Brentwood, Marvista, Venice, Palms area, didn't have the ability to be in our city, could that funding that was meant for Santa Mike could be diverted and could we start a new street team? Could we use the Salvation Army, expand the people concern, expand West Coast care, whatever. And I couldn't get anywhere. And that's where this frustration started. And then I asked staff several times, could I even just get on what they used to call a magic marker, a map of the city. And just here's where people concern is, here's where West Coast concern is, here's what St. Joseph Center is, so that I could just have that. Nothing typed, nothing just, and I couldn't get that, and I asked that for months. So this didn't come out of the ad hoc. City Manager White added, I think the ad hoc committee part to the motion and then I approved it. But this came out of my personal frustration at seeing people unhoused and unhelpped throughout our city. And I've said this before when I supported the CRU. I've said this now when I'm thrilled that we're going to have another Department of Mental Health psychiatric person to help with mental health crisis in the city. So I'm asking these things for a different reason and yes I may indeed support the fact that Moss Adams and then we do either a standing committee afterward. That's not part that's not tonight but that's so that's where this is and I'm concerned when I've walked I have to add one more thing when I've walked with downtown ambassadors talked to DTSM talked to our HLP team ridden with the fire department etc. I've heard about is the hate the state is brown and verdensies throughout our city and and then I started asking, do we have any restrooms open? This germinates also from the conversation we had a couple of weeks ago with DTSM where I kept asking them, how do we open more restrooms downtown? How do we provide more services? Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Davis. So again at the risk of derailing the conversation a little bit. When this item was first placed on the agenda for the last meeting, there was a news article about it. And the thrust of that news article and some of the discussion tonight seems to be, well, and there's two things. One is we keep asking staff for all this information and we're not getting it. And I don't disbelieve you, but I'm stunned to hear that, because I've been on council since 2009, when I've asked staff for information, I've always gotten it. Now, sometimes not in the form that I will want it, because that's not how information is kept, or that's not how statistics are kept or whatever. But there seems to be this notion that somehow you keep asking staff for information, and they're not giving it to you. And I kind of, staff's not here to defend themselves other in the, and don't get near that yet. I'm not here done. But staff's not here to defend themselves other in the and don't don't get near that yet. I'm not here done, but staff's not here to defend themselves. And so I'd like to give Mr. White the opportunity to maybe address that issue and and maybe his simple answer is there's a new sheriff in town. But I think that I have dealt with many of the people in community and cultural services who work on the homelessness issue. I have always found them to be incredibly responsive. They take my calls. If I just have a simple question or I drop them an email, they get right back to me. So I just like to give staff an opportunity to defend itself because there does seem to be this allegation, accusation, really, out there that you as a council member ask them for information and they don't respond. I'm not going to ask you to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do that. I'm not going to ask the staff to do a couple of times they've conveyed their information request to myself. I've met with staff. We're going to deliver the information I think it's important for the ad hoc to have the information so that they can deliver recommendations to the council on you know their perspectives on how to address homelessness so I just want to commit to the council. We are working on it we will get to the information I'm working with staff, it will be addressed. The other issue I want to raise, and I'm not trying to be critical of anyone here, although I'm sure I'll be accused of being critical, because that seems to always follow my comments, is we're the council for the city of Santa Monica, and we work through staff, our staff, we don't run the people concerned. We don't run St. Joseph Center. We certainly don't run the county thank heavens for us. And so I'd like to get staff's input. Well I think it's it's lottable to call the people concerned and go why aren't you doing solving this problem or call St. Joseph Center. The issue is it would seem to me that we would be providing better, more cohesive and and I'll honestly more accountable services if instead of each of us as council members calling up the people's concern and saying I spotted a homeless individual. Can you please come help that we had a mechanism to work through staff with those groups because, and then Councilmember Brocky pointed it out, you and Mayor Himmelrich were trying to address the same problem in different ways, which meant there were a lot of people spending energy trying to be responsive to you that, and I'm glad to hear the problem got solved. So I'm wondering if part of this could be setting up a process whereby Council council instead of sort of calling everyone in the universe and trying to solve a particular problem, we could then have an opportunity to work directly with staff. So we would have perhaps in the business world we who has the lay of the land with all the various providers, when everything that's going on the city, would be able to be accountable with a response to that and be able to address it. Because I do perceive there as being a couple of issues here. One is that we do want accountability. And accountability is call gets made problem as identified problem gets solved. If we're all calling around to different providers, like I call John, I'm not going to say that. is that we do want accountability and accountability as call gets made problem as identified problem gets solved. If we're all calling around to different providers like I call John Miserie at the people concern, say John, here's an issue I think you got to address, there's no accountability there because that has not been initiated through formal channels. I'm just a Santa Monica resident at that point calling him. I don't have any direct authority over him. And two, that call then doesn't get recorded anywhere. So we don't know are they being accountable or they responding to me. So I think there's an accountability issue, but I also think that there's an efficiency of resources. I don't think there's a person up on this dius that thinks that we couldn't spend a lot more time energy money on the problem of our unhoused neighbors. We know we need more resources. So we have to use whatever resources we have in the absolutely most efficient manner possible. And if we have people in various agencies as well as staff all working on the same problem without knowing that other people are working on the same problem. That's not efficient. That's not the way to get this problem solved. So I'm just wondering if as part of this staff is interested in trying to come up with maybe some lack of a better term way that the council can engage, the public and the council can engage in a way that uses resources more efficiently instead of all of us sort of trying to individually solve problems. So that's a question for staff. Council member Brock, do you want to or Mr. White? Do you want to? Yes. So. So I think what I'm asking for is for centralization and to make sure that there is coverage throughout our city and rapid response would necessary. I call I made some calls because I floundered I couldn't figure out who to call. Now I didn't call John Missouri. I taught to the C-3 team and members of that. And I called Maggie in human services. And I was directed to make other calls because of that call. It's not something that I am looking at and saying, maybe there's an issue. There is an issue. And I'm bringing this to our attention because I'm frankly kind of tired of this hearing. Let's put it off. Let's will look at it. We'll keep discussing it when there are some issues that, to me, are urgent and a crisis and have been urgent and in a crisis. So I want us to provide more help, better help. I want us to look at methodologies that are used in other cities that may be working better than what we're doing. But I also want to identify and the purpose of this. And in a simple way, the purpose of this was to identify gaps. So when I said, can you just give me a simple bashing marker, marking pen drawing of the city and let me see where are the areas where there's nobody except SMPD. Now in addition, where the CRU may operate. What else can we do to fill those gaps? That's what I want residents to be able to come back and say we need help at Clover Park, we need help at Virginia Avenue Park, we need help at Frank Street, we need help at Memorial Park, and we don't have any services that hit those areas. So to me that's benign to collect, to me, that's benign to collect. And I'm tired of benign to collect. So look at, I want us to do more, I want us to do it better. But I think first we have to be able to publicly say, this is an issue, this is an issue, now how do we solve that? How do we get a bathroom open somewhere in the city overnight to take care of those people who need to go to the bathroom? How do we find a way that if someone on 11th and and Bay Street is having a crisis that we dispatch not SMPD, but we have other people to dispatch? Do we need to increase the amount of funding to see three? Do we need to increase? What another fund is or come up with another service? What else can we do to be more effective? That goes along Council Member Davis who is exactly what you're saying. But I don't want us just to go into study session for months on end. Some of these things are pretty simple. And some of these things, if we identify, and we can come back to the mid-year budget and try and pump more resources in, if those resources will make a difference. So we have a crisis of unhoused people in our streets. I want them into rehab. I want them on list for housing. And I've heard over and over again from here to San Pedro from downtown LA, everywhere I've been. And you've been and everyone else, all of us have been. How do we find a way to provide those services? And one thing I keep hearing over and over again is someone has to contact someone is homeless every day. Off of those services keep repetition is a key. And if we only talk to someone once every two or three weeks, then that may be the reason we have someone at Reed Park who's been there for two years, someone who's been on the north side of the pier for four years. Those are questions that I can't answer right now. But what I'm asking for in a very simplistic way is how do we provide some help to those people. Now the physical parts will be answered by the Moss Adams report. And that's going to be a little bit longer. It'll say what deficiencies we have and hopefully where we're doing well. That's a great step that I think. I'm just fiscal. I just. Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay. And I know councilmember Para started off her term asking for financial responsibility. Find out how much of people concerned God, how much I don't know, Red Cross gets, whoever it might be, and where they are, and none of us felt over the last year that we really got easy to understand answers that our public could also easily understand and work with. And that to me is really the answer, the answer is to be able to involve 93,000 people in the solution. And to hear their concerns, hear their concerns about safety, security, and with homelessness, how do we help those people that they see on the street, and that they try and that we all collectively try and provide assistance for? That's what I'm asking. It's pretty simple. Well, I think you missed the point of my statement and that's okay. I won't repeat it. Because I think everyone agrees that the problem of unhoused people is significant and we all need to address it and we need to figure out a way how to spend our resources that we have more effectively and also to the extent there's way to identify additional resources to do so. But I'm just suggesting that as part of this does it make sense as we get more information back from our staff to also try and figure out, as you say, a way for people to engage, but engage in a very efficient way. I'll just be honest and say, I think if we say, here's the phone number for Fred Smith that people concern and you should call them. My concern is, we don't know how many phone calls Fred Smith is getting, we don't know what Fred Smith is doing when he gets those phone calls. We need to try and set up a way so there's no accountability. There needs to be accountability in the system and there needs to be efficiency in the system unless and until we have unlimited resources and then maybe we don't care about efficiency. Council member Davis aren't we discussing really the same thing? So may I interrupt you guys for a minute? I've been going to meetings of this blooper than to mission on how most of through the COG and also independently. You know, this is an issue that I've been pretty immersed in for the last few years. I think that people understand that there's been a failure of law so with the measure. I mean, there's a lot of money there, and it's not coming down to the cities. You hear it in these meetings. Everybody is very frustrated because everybody needs money to solve the problems. They need money. They need workers who aren't jumping up to do this work, right? I mean, so, but there isn't understanding in the county and let's face it, all things spring from the county because the county has health services and the county, and we don't, I mean, we don't have a health department, they have a health department, they have a department of mental health, we don't have a department of mental health, and let me just say I hope we never do. So, but I think that, I think that, of mental health and let me just say I hope we never do. So, but I think that throughout the county and the regions and cities that are more seriously affected than we are are really in, if we're in crisis, they are in extreme crisis, and that's why this blue ribbon commission exists. I believe they're coming, they're ending, and they're going to recommend. We all need to be supporting this blue ribbon commission. At every meeting with the supervisors, at every meeting, you know, with LASAA to encourage that LASA really can't administer a program this big. And that the money needs to come down to lower levels, right, because it's getting caught up in this big bureaucracy, right? And I can only tell you that San Grabeville Valley Cog is done a really lot of work. They have a terrible problem there, and they have a lot of really cogent and substantive recommendations. I can distribute all of this to everybody. I'll send it to Denise who can send it to you. Look, we need to be lobbying everywhere we can to get more money, more services, more mental health, etc. And it really, it comes from the feds, it comes from the county and a little dribbles down from the state, but basically most of the money goes to the county or the city of LA who does not share with us. So, oh, yeah, city manager. Oh, okay, you're up after, but I'm just saying that we all need to be doing a major lobbying effort, such as what they're doing in San Gabriel Valley. Where do you used to live, right? So you got it, right? So we need to be making a major effort to support this because the way the resources are allocated and are filtering down to us is simply not productive. And now I'm sorry, Mr. White. Thank you. So to go back to the original question, I perceive this conversation to be about gaps. So we as an organization under your leadership do a lot to address homelessness. And the question is what more can we do to address this crisis? Right now what I would ask or what I would really appreciate is if there are areas of concern in the city, there are issues of homeless in the city that you as council members are hearing from constituents or you are hearing or you are seeing would like address, please direct those comments to myself. I will also provide information to all of you about whom to contact, right? So I understand this conversation is about how to expand those points of contact and look at what we do. But for the time being, Council Member Paar, reminding me earlier today, if you see someone in urgent distress immediate need, please call 911. So we have officers on the streets every day trained in de-escalation to understand how to provide services. We have a homeless liaison program team also available throughout the city to help address issues of homelessness. We have other points of contact that I will make sure to make available of how to reach to the county. I understand some of those resources may not be immediately responsive. So again, this conversation is about what can we do to provide services. But I will make sure that current contact information is in your hands. And again, I would ask please send me the information if you're hearing from constituents or you have areas of concern I will work with staff to make sure that those areas get addressed as we produce this information for you and as we continue to have this conversation about how to accelerate and provide more At this moment of time that it would be the most efficient way for you to get information to me and to me to work with the organization and the staff to make sure that these areas are addressed. So I just wanted to share that in terms of making sure that we have a good system in flow in place to address what we have right now knowing we're going to have more conversation. Thank you. Yes, Council member Dela Toria and then Council Member Para. One of the, I mean, I was just thinking maybe we all as city council members need to spend a whole day like seven in the morning till 8 p.m. Visiting every service provider talking to everybody involved and everything around homelessness like we would all have the same information in one day, and maybe that gets us to sort of a, you know, a point of us, you know, reconciling and understanding sort of how we're gonna approach this problem, because it's that big. The big question for me is, you know, how do we monitor, you know, program, and how do we improve on our service delivery models and assess program effectiveness? And I think it comes down to data and how we gather the data. And I was even thinking like how do you even monitor sort of all the services from contact, from outreach to referrals to follow through. One thing that the city does, I mean, we can't direct nonprofits directly, but we can direct sort of funding conditions. You know, we can, there's a lot of ways that the council can can set expectations and staff can can also drive outcomes and outputs within, you know, our nonprofit partners. So I think for me, that's really what's really important here is, you know, we, we, I mean, I was looking at the webpage now, I know we had discussions back when we were talking about the, the RFP process and, you know, for grantees and how we haven't had, you know, that type of application process for, I think, eight years. And the staff members and I remember people agreed to this. They said, okay, we're going to put the outputs and the outcomes. Whatever is legal, there's some outputs and outcomes. Probably there can be, maybe there's a legal issue or whatever. But I was hoping that you would go to a nonprofit agency that we fund and we can see sort of their mid year or their year end reports on how well they're meeting the outputs and the outcomes that they have committed to delivering for the money that we're giving them, that's still not there. So we need to, staff needs to listen to Council in terms of these questions of how we are accountable and transparent with public resources that we're investing to solve these very difficult problems. So, you know, I appreciate the item and I know that the ad hoc, you know, this would only support the work of the ad hoc committee. But I think one thing that's not really specific there is the question of how we assess best practices on data gathering and reporting to improve service delivery and program effectiveness. So I would just like to add that, if it's okay with everyone so that we can give staff more specific direction on what we're trying to get to. Wait, you wanna add to the 13 item? Yeah, just. The current you're sitting right next to the city manager. So ask him if you add that if it will add to how long it will take. Yeah, something yet has already working on that. Okay, so it's just it's just to support the work of assessing best practices on data gathering and reporting to monitor and improve service delivery and program effectiveness. I'm going to copy your notes. Yeah, I'll give it to you. All right, you know what I mean, right? I'll just give it to you. Thank you. Okay, good. So, and that's part now of the task. Without, I just want to understand because that wasn't agendas, right? But, um, but this is germane to the context of homeless service providers just want to make sure I'm yes grass okay. Yeah so no I just want to I'm not worried at this point Joe. No what I'm just in funding sources so I would I wanted to make a comment about something that Councilmember Davis brought up about that single point of contact, which is part of the communication and communication plan. That's also, you know, a point that we're working on, because case in point, you know, I have been attending the Social Service Commission meetings, really getting to know them and also the work that they're doing. And one of the commissioners shared a story about a homeless woman having a mental health emergency and she didn't know who to call. This woman was walking across the street in the middle of traffic and she's like, oh my gosh, do I call? I know there's a help team. Oh, I know there's a C3 team. I don't know. And in that moment, why is she thinking about all these different teams when the reality is, you call 911 because she was putting herself and other people in jeopardy. And so I think that goes back to that message of like, we really need to have consistent messaging everywhere, all the time about who to call, when to call, and what constitutes a mental health emergency or this person needs some help. This is not an immediate emergency, but this person clearly needs some help. And this is where you go. Now looking at, you know, our city website, we are.Sanamonica.gov. City staff has done a tremendous job on putting information in place about addressing homelessness. And there's a bunch of amazing resources here and it's really well put together and there's a lot of statistics and data. And I commend staff because I love this website and the way that it looks. But if we go back to that single point of contact and who do you call, it doesn't tell you to call city staff here. It tells you, well, if you're experiencing this, call LAHOP. If you're experiencing this, call the Jewish Center. If you're experiencing this, call St. Joseph Center. If you're a youth, call St. Safe Place for Youth. if you're a veteran, call new direction for veterans. So where does it say to call the city of San Monica for any type of support services if you are in house? So that is what I was talking about and some of that information, this is a gap. So I'm not, me personally, I'm not accusing staff. You know, I want to accusing staff, you know. I want to work with staff. I want to talk to them and work with them to identify where those gaps are. And how do I support you, as a council member, how do I support you and give you what you need so that you can be successful in helping us bridge that gap? That's where I'm coming from. I'm not coming from. I'm not coming from you're not doing your job. Where I'm coming from is I see this as a gap. I see this as we need to do something about this. You tell me what you need. You tell me what you need and I will help you make it happen. So I'm sorry if if this is coming across in any other way to staff because as a city employee myself, that is the last thing that I would ever do to another city employee. And I want to make that perfectly clear right here and now that I am a collaborator and I'm here to be your ally and to work with you so that we can really affect change and move this forward. with you so that we can really affect change and move this forward. And so that's what I'm here and that's why I'm part of this ad hoc committee is that I want effect change. This affects me. This affects you and this affects all of us. And so I'm really thankful for the work and there's a lot more to do and there's always going to be a lot of work to do around this area. But these are the types of things that just from someone on the outside looking in. I'm identifying and I want to work with you to solve. So thank you. Council Member, David Tori. I think Council Member Barra really captures sort of the real sentiment behind what we're trying to accomplish here tonight with this 13 item is to be collaborative to seek information to close those gaps but ultimately work in partnership. To be allies with staff and partners with staff and so in that spirit I'd like to make a motion that we approve the 13 item with the minor sentence that I provided the City Manager. I second. And I just want to again, check with the City Manager to make sure that this is a deliverable that's deliverable. We have two callers. Oh, we have call. Oh good. Okay. Let's hear from our callers. And they aren't for 14, they're actually for this. Okay, good, thank you. Welcome to the Spark and you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening. I too can relate to having a hard time getting information about OPCC, the people concerned, before the pandemic. So hearing that the council members would have been a hard time getting information, data and statistics doesn't surprise me. But I'm sure city staff will continue timing. It's so much work we don't have enough employees. But as I said, I had the same problem before the pandemic. Now why would city not want anyone to have that information? Unless of course the C3 team is not doing what they've been paid for Which would also explain that Not filling out all the information they're supposed to in their paperwork I also have to question the people concerns practice of only letting people do double diagnosis Stay at Seymour Shell Would that be for be for financial reasons and how many homeless people are not unable to get help because of this practice. Or what about the other services that are supposed to help the homeless inside of Monica? Again, there's no accountability for the spending of taxpayers' funds in this situation, either. Although the real question is, why would the city continue working with homeless services that don't seem to really help the homeless? I mean, you've been doing the same thing for 30 years now and it doesn't seem to be working well. Why not try something new? Like the Sheriff's Department did a great job in Venice and at the VA. Why wouldn't that work here again? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Barton. Thank you Ms. Barton. Welcome, Jonathan Foster. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. All right, Jonathan Foster on this concept. And I've been homeless for 21 years here. And when it came, I did not expect that this would take place. And I have an enormous amount of help from the family that I came out of. One of the things that I wanted to say everybody's looking for resources. This concept on homelessness is addressable. I think the mental capacity of the nation doesn't understand what to do. I think everybody is blind on how to address this issue. It's very simple. And because I'm homeless, then people think, you know, not listenable. You don't need to listen to that drummer guy. When they actually on the guy has all of the answers to a lot of these issues that we face. And I think though Councilmember Brock thank you for doing this, this is really great. And one of the issues though I went to Rancho Park and went through their system. I got ant card and i could tell you i wanted to kick out of people uh... right off the cliff because they pissed me off so much and they they have done this to homeless to the point where homeless doesn't want to hand out they don't want to talk to you they don't want to talk to the state the state has been mean to them uh... somebody's the somebody's uh... these other people around the homeless environment, violent means that nobody wants to go in and get any services. That's what happened to me. I think that what happened in Rancho Park was actually mean. No one needed to treat me like that. And this is one of the things that's happening. If I have enough time, I don't know if I can put this in, but Elon Musk, not from here, has more money than anybody who is from here and isn't helping anyone here. Yeah, Mr. Foster, I just want to say to you that you do not have to go to Rancho Park anymore to apply for services. You can apply for services in Santa Monica. If you want to know more about it, I think you can contact the city. So thank you for your comments. And do we have any more callers? We have one more caller. Thank you. Welcome Shannon Yoshikawa. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Yes, my thoughts on the matter is the following. If you can streamline something between the city, state and the county, that would be great. Whether it's online or anything else, I currently work for the state and it's a mess as far as where I work with EDE. And you can't imagine the call that I get that people are relying on their unemployment and have been homeless to no fault of their own. I experienced homelessness, who is the city of Santa Monica myself, and nothing was streamlined. And I had a son who went through the Santa Monica school system all at the same time. If you streamline something, it should be available. There should be some place to go. Other than the rental park, and I'm glad to hear there is, but I don't think it's a money issue. The money issue is littered with fraud. There's no accountability of anything. And I would like to see a commission on how you're going to do that, how you're going to have the accountability. Where is it going to be? That's my question. Thank you, Mr. Shukawa. Thank you. That was the last caller. Yes. Mayor Hillemmeridge. Yes. Councilmember Brock. Yes. Councilmember Dela Torrey. Yes. Mayor Hillemmeridge. Yes. That passes 6 to 0. And I believe that this concludes at 13 item and we're on to public comment. Is that correct? That is correct. So we now have public input public comment is permitted on items Not on Items not on the agenda that are within the subject marriage jurisdiction of the city state law prohibits the city council from taking any action on items Not listed on the agenda including issues raised under this agenda item and I believe we have two callers Welcome David Morris you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Yeah, I'd like to make a comment concerning the housing commission and the actual swearing in or voting in with the commissioners or appointing of the commissioners to the commission to general. The idea that it would take a city of 97,000 people or 93,000 people six months to sort out their commissions when people were waiting and have applied and everything was in order is absolutely insane. The debacle is going on with the housing commission is we're appointing one person to a different seat, to a different seat so somebody else can be blocked from a different seat. A person actually applied for the seat representing the homeless people, a sectionate person who has good standing in the community and she was giving a different seat so that the person that is doing nothing for the homeless people, which is our commission of Buchanan, which is recently appointed to be the chair of the commission and does not know even how to run the meetings after 10 years. This is insane. You want to play politics with our commission. You want to keep people embedded in the commissions and the boards for decades on end. This is not our community and our society. Our society works on people with new ideas and fresh spaces putting in their input to help this city. And just sticking people on commissions for 10 years, so they can be political puppets is insane. It's corrupt, it's beyond corrupt. What's going on with the housing commission? We're finally getting some laws and reservations concerning repetism and concerning term limits and other things that are actually going to do good to the city and the future of the city. I demand that you people do better in this respect. Thank you. Mr. Mars. No, there's one more, right? Isn't it? Didn't you say there's one more, right? Isn't, didn't you say there's one more? There's three. There's four more. Welcome to Riesomorosco. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening, Council Members. And Mayor Himorich. This is Riesomorosco. And I'm calling in to, once once again say thank you for appointing me to the housing submission. Just restating what you already know, I'm both excited and honored to be able to work with all of you and my fellow commissioners. However, I would like to publicly address the issue of being appointed to the four-year position and not the two-year designated seat that I expressly applied for. I'm confused as to how I was appointed to the four-year position as I marched on my application that I was applying for the seat as a section 8 voucher holder who was formally homeless. And I was homeless just a little over a year ago. So I was newly homeless. It's my understanding that the designated seat has the greatest impact on the community I applied to serve, which is subsidized tenants and the homeless. I also understand that once I've been confirmed in a four-year position, I will not be able to apply for the two year seat in the future. Aside from lived experience, I have worked most of my career as a paraprofessional and legal field assisting vulnerable communities such as domestic violence, victims, the indigent, homeless individuals and families, the elderly and disabled. Both my professional and lived experience has provided me the expertise and knowledge needed to specifically serve the impacted community, regarding fair housing rights, housing insecurity and homelessness. Therefore, I am humbly requesting that the council consider reappointing me for the designated two-year position on January 11, 2022. Thank you. Next, caller. Welcome, Michael. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Yes. I'm calling in full support of Ms. Morosco's statement that she just made and that it is imperative that the city council in good faith re-conduct the appointments for the seat currently held by Miss Buchanan. And the one regular seat that Miss Barasco was appointed to against her will. I support a lot of what the public comment has been on this about redoing this. The spirit of the moment is term limits, trying to end or curb favoritism, nepotism, conflict of interest, and I think we ought to honor the spirit of the moment. And Ms. Buchanan has been there for 10 years. She was homeless over 10 years ago. This position, this spot on the commission is meant for Theresa Morasco to inhabit. And also, there's been essentially a vote of no confidence of Miss Buchanan of that seat by many members of the public over the past several months as this has been drawn out. So I urge the City Council to redo this, make it right, and get the public to gain a little more trust in the way things are conducted because this has a very bad smell to it. It just seems very much like insider, political maneuvering to get people in the housing commission that are pro or anti-slow growth and pro development. Thank you. Welcome, all great. You're in the meeting. Good evening. Thanks. The Council must redo the appointments to two housing commission seats. The one designated for a section attendance with lived experience of homelessness, which is the two-year term, and one regular receipt, which is a four-year term. On December 7th, the council engaged in a political manipulation and violated its own resolution when it appointed Ms. Marasco to a housing commission seat that she had not applied for. And when it, unlawfully, quote-unquote, appointed Ms. Buchanan to a designated seat by fewer than the five required votes. It appears that the goal of Mayor Himmoheich and Council Member Davis aligned with Smur and Santa Monica forward, respectively, was to neutralize Ms. Murasco as Ms. Buchanan's only qualified challenger for the designated seat for a person with lived experience of homelessness. By appointing Ms. Murasco to a regular seat instead of the one that she had applied for, the Mayor and Council Member Davis cleared the path to keeping Ms. Buchanan in her seat for year 11 and 12 of her tenure, and to retaining influence on the housing commission to her as Ms. Buchanan is chair and controls the agenda. Nevermind that Ms. Buchanan had received a clear vote of no confidence from the public, including the homeless or formerly homeless community she's supposed to represent, who submitted multiple letters against Ms. Buchanan's reappointment. Ms. Buchanan had not received one letter of support from the community for her reappointment. The mayor and council member Davis owe the applicants and the public an apology for shamelessly moving the applicants around like ponds on the chessboard in their quest to special interest groups in control of the housing commission. And since council member Davis is so big on the first amendment, she might want to reconsider her vote from Ms. Buchanan, who is known to forego allowing public comment on several items per meeting. Last week, Chair Buchanan stated that if I call in to offer public input, she will not move the public input period to the beginning of the meeting in order to discourage me from speaking. So much for civility on the beginning of the meeting in order to discourage me from speaking. So much for civility on the part of Cherbourg, you can. Good night. Welcome, Michelle Gray. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Thank you, Council Members. for hearing me this evening. I am currently homeless in Santa Monica. I actually think I'm one of the few people who deliberately moved here with a plan and a sectionate housing voucher and between difficulties with the housing authority and source of income discrimination by property owners and rental agents within Santa Monica. I am still not housed. But, and I appreciate item 13A. And I'm calling to ask that you do what you can right now to remedy at least part of this situation in addressing homelessness in Santa Monica by redoing the two appointments as the other public commenters have stated the two appointments to the housing commission. My understanding is that the two-year seat that Theresa Marasco applied for has an outsized role to play in representing the interests of homeless people in the Anamanica. And I also understand that the person who has been appointed to that role actually didn't receive the required number of votes in order to secure that position. So I'm asking that you please redo the appointment. Please appoint Theresa Morasco to be two-year seat in order to best represent our interest in Santa Monica and to reappoint what would then be a vacant seat, general for your term seat on the housing commission. Thank you very much. Denise, we call that hold the next call. Can you hold a call for a second? Yes, because I think that there's a misconception and I don't know who to turn to about this. But because there are minimum requirements for seat on a commission, doesn't make it any different than any other seat. Everybody has one vote, the same power, and the same responsibility as a member of a commission. There are seats on building and safety commission on other commissions that have minimum requirements imposed by other laws, but each commissioner within the commission is an equal participant in the commission. And their status as an appointee for a seat with special qualifications doesn't make them more important or less important or give them more of a voice or less of a voice than any other commission member. Is that correct? Madam Clerk. That is correct. That is correct. You are the only difference whether you have two years or four years. Thank you. Welcome Jonathan Foster. You are in the meeting and your time starts now. Hi Jonathan Foster, hello murderers of the unborn. How are you? No need to tell you Merry Christmas, you creeps. I tell you people, you know, there is a problem with the order of the meeting what I have been seeing about how there's public comment and then it goes to all the council members and then y'all make comments that I want to count comments on and I can't because we're past public comment and to the dirt that comes out of your mouth after you did the 6A with the 11 feet and the massage parlor and wanted to open a bar with those people. And then the people, you people, it like insulted those owners of that hotel. Like they had done something wrong. Don't you remember when the George Floyd stuff happened and they burnt down some buildings and looted stuff? Come on, guys. I've been so let down by this version of the council. I thought the past versions were bad for getting rid of the Christmas and the laurels that used to sit on the palisades park with that crepe that was the attorney. And there's another half of that crepe that's still here, that crepe over there. You people are crepes, this town is a crepe. I didn't know that this town was this creepy until you've been here for 21 years to see how creepy this place is called Santa Monica. I can't believe that this is what happens here. There are people like you here that would vote for murdering people in promos. Irresponsibility. Hey baby, I can knock you up but if we don't want the baby, we can just get rid of it. You people make person the most disgusting thing to think about. But think about who this council is and what you people think is right. Think thinking about Eve and Adam, it's right in the Bible. You got five women over there going against God and two guys going along with the five girls. What are you two good for? Four times is up. Thank you, Mr. Foster. No more callers. And on that note, happy holidays to us, no, but and happy birthday to yes to us. No, but and happy birthday to Phil and whoever else as a celebration. Oh, and and our city manager David White and our next meeting is Tuesday, January 11th at 5.30 p.m. This meeting is adjourned.