Agenda packet, second session — Santa Monica City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

Figure 1
Stanford Site and Berkeley Site
The Stanford Site is currently being used as a warehouse, and the Berkeley Site is a parking lot.

1. Stanford Site
The approximately 53,600 square foot (1.23 acre) Stanford Site is a corner parcel bordering Nebraska Avenue and Stanford Street and insulated by non-residential uses.

The entire Stanford Site is within the CCS Zoning District and the southernmost 40 feet of lot depth is also within the Retail Priority and Pedestrian Priority Corridor overlays.

The Stanford Site is improved with an approximately 47,000 square-foot warehouse building and is currently used for warehousing purposes.

Item 10.A
03/21/23
11 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023

Page 3 ends

Figure 2
Bird’s Eye Photo of Stanford Site
As stated above, the Stanford Site is approximately a 10-minute walk to the 26th Street/Bergamot Station light rail stop, making this an excellent site for future housing.

The property owner is contemplating developing several stories of housing units with an active ground floor use along the Nebraska frontage.

2. Berkeley Site
The approximately 11,700 square foot Berkeley Site is a mid-block parcel just northeast of the Stanford Site and in the CCS district surrounded by non-residential uses/zoning districts. The Berkeley Site is currently improved with a surface parking lot.

The Property owner is in the preliminary stages of assessing site feasibility for a mixed-use housing project on the Berkeley Site as well the Stanford Site.

Item 10.A
03/21/23
12 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023

Page 4 ends

POTENTIAL FOR MIXED-USE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Our client has been exploring various commercial/nonresidential options for the properties and is open to considering housing options provided they are financially viable. Providing additional up-zoning for at least the portion of the CCS district in which they are located as discussed in this letter will assist in making housing a more economically viable option at the sites, while also being consistent with the City’s intention of stepping down development towards the surrounding R2 zoned properties.

A. Proposed Zoning
The City has acknowledged that the Bergamot area is one of the major places in the City where housing production should be encouraged given its proximity to transit and that development of this former-light-manufacturing area means minimal residential displacement.

The draft ordinance prepared by Staff proposes upzoning the CCS to a maximum

2.5 FAR and 55-foot height (an increase from the existing 1.50 FAR and 32-foot height limit). Instead, to increase the viability of achieving housing rather than commercial redevelopment, we urge the City Council to consider further changing at least that portion of the CCS bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, Berkeley Street to the east, Nebraska Avenue to the south and Stanford Street to the west as shown on Figure 3 below (“CCS Up-Zone Area”) to 3.25 FAR/70’.

Item 10.A
03/21/23
13 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023

Page 5 ends

Figure 3
Proposed Up-Zone Area of CCS
Further increasing the maximum density and height of this area would meet City objectives to maximize housing production, focus the development of new housing in areas close to transit without displacing existing residents and would also mirror the approach of bifurcating the MUC district directly west of this area in order to provide additional density and height along Nebraska while stepping down areas closer to the residential neighborhoods. (See Figure 3 above.)
The CCS Up-Zone Area we identify above is bordered to the south by Nebraska Avenue, which the City envisions as one of the Bergamot area’s major pedestrian and retail corridors. The northern border of the CCS Up-Zone is Pennsylvania Avenue. The CCS Up-Zone Area is also bordered by commercial districts to the east and west (MUC and CCS, respectively).

Item 10.A
03/21/23
14 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023

Page 6 ends

In proposing the appropriate density and height for the portion of the MUC district immediately west of the CCS Up-Zone Area, Staff found it appropriate to allow the highest density and height (4.0/84’) along Nebraska Avenue (which is insulated by commercial districts) and stepped down the height and density for the portion of the MUC area north of Pennsylvania Avenue and across the street of the R2 district (3.25/70’).

Similarly, we request expanding this approach to a defined area immediately to the east by allowing higher height and density in the portion of the CCS bounded by Nebraska Avenue to the south and Pennsylvania Avenue to the north between Stanford Street and Berkeley Street (our proposed CCS Up-Zone Area). The CCS Up-Zone Area is not bordered by any “Transitional Zones” identified in the Bergamot Area Plan and is appropriately insulated by the MUC and remaining CCS area. The excluded CCS area also provides an additional step down toward the residential district.

Further increasing the height and density for housing in the CCS Up-Zone Area would afford the opportunity for additional housing (including affordable housing) while still being conscientious of the R2 residential district.

B. CCS Sites and Their Up-Zoning Potential for Housing Development Michael W. Folonis Architects prepared a preliminary feasibility study for the Stanford Site to evaluate the benefit of further up-zoning in this area to encourage housing production.

Table 1
Stanford Site Feasibility Study Summary

2.5 FAR
and 55’ With
Density
Bonus

3.25 FAR
and 70’ With
Density
Bonus
Estimated
Number of
Housing Units
278 371
Increasing the FAR and height from 2.5 FAR/ 55’ to 3.25 FAR/70’ for the Stanford Site would allow for a 32% increase in the number of housing units that could be developed on the Stanford Site (93-unit increase). And there would still be a stepped down buffer area between the CCS Up-Zone Area and the R2 residential district.

Item 10.A
03/21/23
15 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
March 20, 2023

Page 7 ends

The Property owner is in the preliminary stages of assessing site feasibility for a mixed-use housing project on the Berkeley Site as well, but recommending the proposed CCS Up-Zoning Area would be consistent with the City’s desires to (i) incentivize housing and remove surface parking lots in the City, (ii) encourage housing in areas of the City that have not typically been used for housing, (iii) avoid residential displacement, and (iv) promote housing development in transit-rich areas.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, we request that the Council modify the zoning of the CCS Area as depicted in Figure 3 above.

Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin V. Kozal
cc: David White
David Martin
Roxanne Tanemori
Heidi von Tongeln
Stanford & Nebraska Properties LTD
F:\WPDATA\1224\009 (1757 Stanford)\Cor\CC 2023.03.20.docx Item 10.A
03/21/23
16 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:40 PM
To: Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Susan Cline; PNA SM; Brian ONeil
Subject: City Council Meeting March 21, 2023: VOTE NO on Agenda Item 10-A – Attachment G (Rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave. & 1808 34th St. from R1 to R2)

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: PNA Board of Directors
Re: City Council Meeting March 21, 2023 Agenda Item 10-A – Attachment G (Rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave. & 1808 34th St. from R1 to R2)
The Board of the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) wishes to convey strong opposition to the City Council’s approval of Agenda Item 10-A, Attachment G, as recommended by City Staff. Attachment G would rezone two R1 single-family lots (1811 Warwick Ave. & 1808 34th St.) into R2 zoned parcels with NO PUBLIC INPUT or transparency as to why such changes are warranted.

We find the proposed rezoning of these two single-family R1 lots quite baffling and contrary to the LUCE’s emphasis of preserving the character of our residential neighborhoods. Both of the lots that are proposed for the R2 designation are in the middle of rows of R1 single-family homes near the eastern edge of the Gandara Park neighborhood. In 2018, the City approved a CUP in the same neighborhood at 2953 Delaware Ave to turn an R1 single-family home into a commercial business (a preschool in the middle of an R1 block), an action that favored a special interest over the residents of Gandara Park neighborhood. The rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave & 1808 34th St. as R2, a proposal buried in a long list of staff zoning recommendations that have had no public input, smacks of the City ignoring the needs or desires of residents by bowing down to more special interests preying on a residential neighborhood already under siege from surrounding commercial and infrastructure development.

The lack of transparency and commitment to a fair and impartial process is quite troubling, indeed. It is our understanding that neither the property owners nor the surrounding neighbors have been properly notified of the proposed zoning changes contained in 10-A, Attachment G.

Item 10.A
03/21/23
17 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 2 The Pico Neighborhood is already the most densely populated of all the residential neighborhoods in Santa Monica. At the very least, approval of the zoning changes in Attachment G should be shelved until an appropriate, transparent public process is held whereby the property owners and surrounding residents can deliberate on the impacts of the proposed zoning changes. Further, a cogent explanation for why a change in zoning to these two lots in an R1 neighborhood, followed by an invitation for public comment and an independent study on the impact of this targeted rezoning is the least the City could do before serious consideration and a vote are taken on making this radical change.

In the absence of these necessary steps, please remove Attachment G from the Housing Element Implementation vote at the 3/21/23 City Council meeting.

We thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

PNA Board of Directors
Item 10.A
03/21/23
18 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Miriam Macias <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ice; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Rezoning of 1811 Warwick Ave and 1808 34th Street Dear Council Members,
I am a resident of Gandara park and the next door neighbor of the properties involved in the rezoning being considered in today's meeting. I am aware that the owners of the dwellings at issue did not request the rezoning from single family to multi‐family and were not notified of this change by the city. We all learned about it this morning from another neighbor.

I am appalled by the lack of transparency displayed by the city by inserting this rezoning matter into your agenda without actually notifying the affected people who live in the neighborhood, including the owners of the properties in question and the adjacent residents. This is unacceptable and contrary to the rules that Santa Monica residents and businesses are subject to.

The decision to rezone two properties in the middle of the neighborhood is arbitrary, unprincipled and deceptive. I know how meticulous the city is with respect to posting demolition notices, making residents go through substantial inspections whenever a dwelling is built or modified so I cannot understand why this change would be so inconspicuously inserted into your agenda without even taking into account the residents who stand to lose the most from this change. I urge to apply this same standard to your Please focus on actual issues that will improve the lives of Santa Monica residents rather than create problems for those of us who live in this small, quiet neighborhood. Rezoning these two properties would be just the beginning and the city would surely expand the change into other homes. We vehemently object to a rezoning that changes the character of our quiet neighborhood and affects our property value.

Please vote NO.

Miriam Macias

Item 10.A
03/21/23
19 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

(310) 451-3669
March 21, 2023

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 10-A (Housing Element Implementation)
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council (“SMHC”).

SMHC has followed and been engaged with housing policies in Santa Monica for more than 30 years.

We are writing to reiterate the importance of residential upzoning in the Downtown and along the commercial boulevards. This approach to addressing Santa Monica’s fair share of the State’s need for substantially more housing production at all income levels (Gov’t Code §§ 65583(c)(1) & 65584) is generally consistent with the 2010 LUCE goals of protecting multifamily zones from major redevelopment. (See LUCE Goal LU1.) As was noted in SMHC’s comments on November 13, 2020, at the outset of the 6th Cycle Update, simply tinkering at the margins of City housing regulations will not come close to satisfying the City’s legal obligations under California Housing Element Law. The upzoning presented for the City Council’s adoption this evening is much more in line with achieving the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”).

Accordingly, we urge adoption of this first round of Ordinances and Resolutions in the first phase of implementation of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, as amended to bring it into compliance with State Housing Element Law. SMHC has been a staunch housing advocate throughout the 6th Cycle Housing Element process. It is important for the City to follow through on the upzoning called for in the certified Housing Element.

The implementation measures also include critical amendments needed to bringing Santa Monica housing regulations into compliance with other State laws, including, importantly, the State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §§ 65915, et seq.).

In this regard, we strongly support the establishment of processing timelines for housing [email protected]
Item 10.A
03/21/23
20 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
March 21, 2023

Page 2 ends

projects, including density bonus projects, along the lines discussed in the Staff Report, and we urge the City Council to provide that direction to City Staff. Indeed, such timelines are legally required as to density bonus applications. (Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3)(A).)
While there remain many regulatory barriers (i.e., local governmental constraints) to housing production in Santa Monica (see Gov’t Code § 65583(c)(3)), the State Density Bonus Law’s opportunities for incentives/concessions and waivers/reductions (see Gov’t Code § 65915(d) & (e)) provide vital paths to relief from those regulatory barriers for housing development with affordable housing components.

In closing, we urge the City Council to proceed with adoption of the Resolutions and Ordinances as presented by City Staff, together with direction to proceed with publication of needed processing timelines for ministerial housing projects. SMHC also endorses the concept of a periodic monitoring report that would recap for the City Council actual timelines experienced for ministerial review of housing projects.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna

cc: David White
David Martin
Rachel Kwok
Douglas Sloan
Heidi von Tongeln
Michelle Hugard
SMHC Board of Directors
F:\WPDATA\639\639.67 (Santa Monica Housing Element 2021)\Cor\CC 2023.03.21.docx Item 10.A
03/21/23
21 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Riyanka daga <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: amit bhura
Subject: Converting of Zones from R1 - R2 around 90404

EXTERNAL
hello City Council
We live in the Virginia/Yorkshire intersection of the 90404 zip code. It was brought to our attention that many homes around my neighborhood were being converted from Single Family R1 Zone to multi‐family R2 Zones.

This would be very detrimental to the entire neighborhood and we would like to oppose the passing of this to protect our Neighbourhood.

Thanks
‐‐
Regards,
Riyanka
(213)-880-3471
Item 10.A
03/21/23
22 of 22 Item 10.A
03/21/23

10.A.k
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) City Council
Housing Element Implementation
March 21, 2023

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Tonight's Agenda

1. Review Council’s prior direction on amendments to implement the Housing Element – highlights of changes

2. Recommend City Council adoption of the following:
• Amendments to implement Housing Element programs
o Land Use and Circulation Element
o Downtown Community Plan
o Bergamot Area Plan
o Zoning Ordinance
o General Plan Land Use Map and (Zoning) Districting Map • Finding that amendments were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6thCycle Housing Element EIR
• Emergency IZOto extend administrative processing thresholds for 100% affordable housing and certain Tier 2 housing projects
o Current IZO expires on March 31, 2023; extend until June 30, 2023 to provide time for HE implementation to become effective
• Finding that Emergency IZOis categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Study Session Recap – Feb 22 and 28
• Council reviewed proposed amendments to LUCE, BAP, DCP, and ZO to implement Housing Element programs:

Program Name Implementation
Deadline
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects) 10/15/24 Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) 10/15/24 Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) 10/15/23 Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) 10/15/23 Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP - Part 1) 10/15/23
Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance) 10/15/23
Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones where Currently Not Permitted) 10/15/24 Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones) 10/15/24 Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay) 10/15/24 Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned sites) 6/30/23 and ongoing Program 4.B (Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by Community Assembly Uses), 10/15/24 Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1 Zones) 10/15/24 Consistency with State Law (Regardless of Implementation Deadline, the following are required for compliance with State Law already in effect) Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing Projects) and Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”) Program 1.G (Incentivize and Facilitate the Development of ADUs) Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zones)
Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Policy Questions – Highlights of Council Direction
Council directed staff to return with amendments to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, Zoning Ordinance, and Maps to implement HE with further changes as follows:
 Downtown AA Threshold – Change from 90,000 square feet (sf) project size to a site size of 1 acre (consistent with rest of City)
 SB9 projects – Waive Affordable Housing Production Program development impact fee

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Additional Council Direction
Council directed staff to:
 Submit a letter to HCD requesting technical assistance regarding upzoning of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone;
• Draft letter is currently under internal review
• Final letter will be published on City’s Housing Element webpage  Mitigate NC upzoning concerns by adding lot consolidation limits to NC zones on Main St, Montana Ave, Ocean Park Blvd, and Pico Blvd (except SSI sites)  Propose AA streamlining timelines

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Additional Council Direction
Amendments for NC Lot Consolidation:
• Apply limit of 15,000 sf
o Based on review of past projects in mixed use and commercial zones  6 out of 17 housing projects built in last 10 years were on 15,000 sf lots, 2 were on smaller parcels in the downtown
o Criteria used in Suitable Sites Inventory as minimum needed for housing o 15,000 sf was studied in feasibility analyses
o Balances existing commercial activity with housing opportunities Main Street Ocean Park Blvd Pico Blvd Montana Ave
Lot Count % Lot Count % Lot Count % Lot Count %
Under 15,000 SF 87 94% 39 72% 94 87% 75 90%
15,000 SF and
Greater 6 6% 15 28% 14 13% 8 10%
AVERAGE SIZE 5772 12436 7690 8124
• Does not apply to properties identified on the SSI (3 sites on Pico Blvd due to common ownership)

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Additional Council Direction
• Return with options to further streamline processing of projects as part of Program 1A Streamlined Approvals
• Opportunities to further streamline by establishing timelines • Staff proposes administrative guidelines based upon SB330:

Application Submittal
Completeness (SB330)
30 days
Code Compliance Review
(SB330)
30 days – Project >150 units
60 days – Project <150 units
Subsequent Turn Around
Comments After Revised Plans
30 days – Project >150 units
60 days – Project <150 units
Timeline for Determination
(after code compliant)
30 days
(Staff proposal beyond SB330 requirements)
ARB Review
• ARB Review
• Consolidated to a formal review before approval
• Proposed to occur during compliance review once project is deemed sufficiently code compliant (e.g. complies with building envelope standards such as FAR, building height, and modulation standards) • Reduced project detail requirements

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Emergency IZO to Extend Streamline Approvals
• On April 12, 2022, Council adopted IZO 2692 extending interim procedures to administratively process 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 HAA compliant projects less than 1 acre • Due to expire March 31, 2023 before effective date of ZO changes for HE implementation
• Staff recommends extension to June 30, 2023

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Amendments to Staff Report Attachments

FIXED TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR
Title to Attachment B, Resolution Amending Bergamot Area Plan, shall be amended to read as follows:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY

COUNCIL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE BERGAMOT AREA PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS SET FORTH IN THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT

ADDED APPLICABILITY LANGUAGE FOR CLARITY
Section 2 of Attachments A, Resolution Amending LUCE, B Resolution Amending Bergamot Area Plan, and C, Resolution Amending Downtown Community Plan, shall be amended to read as follows:

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. Notwithstanding its effective date, the provisions of this Resolution shall apply to any application for a planning entitlement, building permit, including plan check, submitted on or after June 1, 2023.

Section 5 of Attachment D, Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance, shall be amended to read as follows:

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. Notwithstanding its effective date, the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to any application for a planning entitlement, building permit, including plan check, submitted on or after June 1, 2023.

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Staff Recommends:
• Adopt amendments to implement Housing Element programs o Land Use and Circulation Element
o Downtown Community Plan
o Bergamot Area Plan
o Zoning Ordinance
o General Plan Land Use Map and (Zoning) Districting Map • Adopt a finding that amendments were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR
• Adopt Emergency IZOto extend administrative processing thresholds for 100% affordable housing and certain Tier 2 housing projects
o Current IZO expires on March 31, 2023; extend until June 30, 2023 to provide time for HE implementation to become effective
• Adopt a finding that Emergency IZOis categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
• Approximately 40 parcels identified with inconsistency between LUCE land use designation and Zoning
classification
• 6 parcels are on SSI
• Proposed amendments guided by State law
• SB330 prohibits reducing intensity of land use below what was in effect as of January 1, 2018
• State density bonus law requires that where there is inconsistency between General Plan land use designation and Zoning, that greater shall prevail

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
Address LUCE Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development Recommended Change 1811 Warwick Ave Low Density
Housing
R1 Single-Unit Res. ZONE Change: R2
LUCE Map Zoning Map

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
Address LUCE Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development Recommended Change 1808 34th St Low Density
Housing
R1 Single Unit Residence ZONE Change: R2
LUCE Map Zoning Map

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
1998 Zoning Map

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Policy Questions – Highlights of Council Direction
Council Direction Changes to
Redlines
1) For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended
to allow up to 33% non-residential floor area consistent with the Housing Accountability Act?
Yes None
2) For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined” housing project that is
eligible for administrative approval in Downtown be
amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area?
Yes None
3) Should the administrative approval threshold for housing projects in Downtown be changed from 90,000 square feet (sf) project size to a site size of 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city?
Yes Yes

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Policy Questions – Highlights of Council Direction
Council Majority
Direction
Changes to
Redlines
4) For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
Yes None
5) In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding
increased development/construction costs and State law
parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 15%, should the affordable housing
requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered
from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the
city?
Yes None

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Policy Questions – Highlights of Council Direction
Council Direction Changes to
Redlines
6) In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial also be
required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico
Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard?
Yes None
7) The Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MHO) was originally applied only to half-mile from the Expo Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
Yes None
8) Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
Yes None

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 Policy Questions – Highlights of Council Direction
Council Direction Changes to
Redlines
9) Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for
all housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones?
Yes None
10) Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown?
Yes None
11) Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation
Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee?
Yes (except that only
the affordable
housing fee shall be
waived. All other
impact fees shall
continue to apply.)
Yes

10.A.l
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120

10.A.m
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Councilmember

10.A.m
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Councilmember Zwick's Presentation

10.A.m
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Councilmember Zwick's

10.A.m
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Councilmember Zwick's Presentation (5570 : Housing Element Implementation (120 City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 21, 2023
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Mayor Davis that Council direct the City Manager and/or City Attorney to return with an amendment to the Council Rules Resolution, Rule 6(s) Councilmember Discussion Items to clarify that 16 items are to provide Policy direction only, and that staff can assist in the development of language for a 16 item, but that no resolutions or ordinances should be developed or drafted until a majority of Council gives direction to the City Manager and/or the City Attorney. The exception would be resolutions for advocacy.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Sample language to update Councilmember Items Rule

16.A
Packet Pg. 695
(a) Councilmember Discussion Items. This category consists of Councilmember requested Agenda items to provide Policy direction. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the Agenda item.

Councilmembers should discuss requested Agenda items in advance with the City Manager to assist in developing language on an item. No resolutions or ordinances should be developed or drafted until a majority of the Council gives direction to the City Manager and/or the City Attorney. The City Manager will work with the Councilmember to decide see if the item City Manager will be placed them on the Agenda or address them in other ways. Resolutions for advocacy would be an exception.

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Sample language to update Councilmember Items Rule (5670 : Update Councilmember Items rule) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 21, 2023
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Statistics demonstrate that automobiles are the leading cause of death for children aged 5-14 in LA County and Santa Monica has adopted a Vision Zero plan to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. To this end, the following is a request of Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis that the City Council direct the City Manager to report back in 60 days on the cost and timeline for the implementation of a pilot program augmenting the city's Vision Zero plan with safety-enhancing signal improvements at select intersections, including:

1. Banning Right on Red at all “scramble” intersections in DTSM, and other select intersections where data indicates it would improve safety.

2. Reprogramming traffic signals to operate on "pedestrian recall" and utilize a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) at 10 priority intersections as determined by data from Santa Monica’s high-injury network, as well as data on frequency of pedestrian use.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

16.B
Packet Pg. 697
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:27 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident, I strongly support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to improve safety on our community’s streets. This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks (“scrambles”) and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a “beg button” to cross and pedestrians will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning.

I personally cannot think of a good reason not to approve this request.

Everyone is a pedestrian at some point, including people with mobility devices, and people who chose to drive everywhere they go, so these safety measures will benefit all Santa Monica residents and would be a great step forward.

I never understood why right turns on red are allowed on our diagonal crosswalks, they’re quite confusing for all road users. We’re once again putting vulnerable road users at risk for the sake of making things faster and more convenient for cars, aka the thing that is responsible for over 43,000 deaths each year in the US alone, along with many other issues.

Right turns on red shouldn’t be allowed anywhere if you ask me, and preventing them also makes LPIs even more beneficial.

Regarding the removal of beg buttons and introduction of more LPIs, this change also sounds like a no brainer to me, especially now that AB 2264 has passed and requires LPIs to be programmed on all state‐controlled intersections. It will also benefit cyclists once AB1909 takes effect on Jan. 1 2024 and allows cyclists to cross on pedestrian walk signals (if you’re shocked that this isn’t already legal, so am I, it seems like common sense).

Let us please move towards making beg buttons a thing of the past, and make our streets work for people, not cars.

All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities.

Thank you,
Caro Vilain
Item 16.B
03/21/23
1 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 2:09 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets, Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
As a professional transportation planner and Santa Monica resident, I support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis' request to improve safety on our community’s streets. This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks ("scrambles") and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a "beg button" to cross and pedestrians will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning. All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities. I walk in the area regularly with my baby, and these improvements would make me feel much safer. I hope this is a first step to ending right turns on red and beg buttons citywide.

Jacob Wasserman
1027 11th Street, Apartment C
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.B
03/21/23
2 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Leonora <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:03 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

Item 16.B
03/21/23
3 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council 3/21/23 item 16B automobiles and children deaths From: jim gerstley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 6:43 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council 3/21/23 item 16B automobiles and children deaths

EXTERNAL
I would like to offer some suggestions and insights from experience I see parents setting bad examples to children: walking across Wilshire on a red pedestrian light; bicycling throurgh stop signs and even red traffic signals without stopping are examples 1] If not already being done, schools should be teaching children pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Assuming they have the right of way is not enough. They need to be taught to be pro-active in their own safety [this goes for adults too!]. This includes dismounting to cross streets if bicycling on sidewalks so drivers can see them in a timely manner. Include night time safety. In other words, children [and adults] need to be visible to the driver in a timely manner so the driver can take evasive action. NO TURN ON RED is not enough, in my opinion
2] Bicycles being used to go to school should be checked for safety features including lights and reflectors. Should also have bells if bicycling on sidewalks for pedestrian safety 3] scramble intersections should have pedestrian stripes for at least part of the intersection in all directions, including the diagonals, so pedestrians etc can readily distinguish scramble from regular intersections. As is now, it is easy for a pedestrian to forget the intersection is/is not a scramble intersection [I almost got hit on 5th St because I thought I was at 4th St once] 4] Pedestrian walk signals should come on automatically. Pedestrians otherwise just walk when the traffic signal is green.
5] The sequencing of the scramble walk signals matters! Pedestrian WALK should come after the major boulevard green and before the cross street. Current sequencing is the opposite.

For example at Wilshire & 3rd, sequencing should be: Wilshire/pedestrian WALK/3rd [traffic].

Currently Wilshire/3rd [traffic]/pedestrian WALK. Wilshire in this case is the most dangerous street to cross on a red pedestrian signal, yet many pedestrians don't wait for the pedestrian signal, probably assuming it isn't going to change that cycle. Pedestrian safety can be increased by changing the sequencing so the pedestrian signal is before the 3rd St traffic signal. Same is true at 4th and Wilshire. Would give pedestrians time to catch a waiting bus on 4th St. With the current Wilshire/4th St/ pedestrian WALK sequence, a pedestrian could miss a waiting bus and have to wait another15-30 Item 16.B
03/21/23
4 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 minutes; so may try to run across Wilshire to catch the bus. Changing the sequencing is a cheap cure to make the city more pedestrian friendly.
6] Night safety: street lighting is not great for protecting pedestrians. Yet pedestrians, while having the right of way, still act as though they are visible to drivers--both in downtown and residential areas.

Also true of bicyclists. Many pedestrians wear dark clothing . Pedestrians can see cars because of headlights; the reverse is not necessarily true.

A] improve lighting at crosswalks
B] educate people on the dangers of J-walking downtown [saw several at night crossing 4th St-- very hard to see at night due to poor lighting]
C] Distribute and convince use of arm/leg reflectors for night walking D] convince pedestrians to use the side walk rather than the street at night [seen several on Montana after dark using the street as "their sidewalk" E] Stress importance of bicycle safety after dark: stopping at stop signs; front and rear lights or at least reflectors so visible front,rear, and side. Also dangers of coming off sidewalks into crosswalk after dark as drivers probably won't see them coming--dangerous enough during the day.

F] dangers of bicycling on sidewalk in residential area as cars coming out of driveways may not be able to see their approach in time

7] Another issue is pedestrians and bicyclists who come up alongside the passenger side of a driver waiting to make a right turn. Can usually see a pedestrian waiting to cross. But bicyclists can come out of nowhere and suddenly appear in front of the driver as he turns. This can happen because the bicyclist is traveling faster than the line of cars waiting to turn. Plus the line of cars can hide the approach of a bicyclist, and the driver's attention is also on other traffic. This can be an issue day or night. How do you increase safety here?
Bottom line: pedestrians have the right of way but need to be proactive to give drivers the opportunity to see them in a timely manner. This includes adults.

I'm actually surprised there aren't more accidents.

Jim Gerstley
Santa Monica 90403
Item 16.B
03/21/23
5 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Leah Pressman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:16 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I write in support of Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to improve safety on Santa Monica streets.

This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks (“scrambles”) and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a “beg button” to cross and pedestrians
will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning.

All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting visitors, workers, residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities.

It is past time to turn away from our poisonous legacy of car culture. It is not healthy for children and other living things.

We must make it safe to walk and bike and take transit.

The IPPC - a highly conservative body - has made an announcement of the dire state of the climate crisis and stated plainly and clearly that it is of utmost urgency that we make drastic cuts to our emissions. Safe streets is an important part of getting people out of their cars which is an important part of cutting emissions.

Sincerely,
Leah Pressman and Jeff Schwartz
(Jeff is a city employee in Santa Monica who has worked their for over 20 years - we are both former residents) Item 16.B
03/21/23
6 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16B - Safer streets

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
My grandfather was killed at the corner of Wilshire and 10th by a driver who did not stop for him as he walked across the cross walk.

I speak from the heart when I say we need to do everything we can to prevent such needless tragedies.

I support all efforts to reduce collisions resulting in injury or death between people who drive a car, ride a bicycle, or walk.
“No right turns on scrambles” and “pedestrian recall” with “leading pedestrian intervals” are simple no‐brainers.

Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 16.B
03/21/23
7 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:07 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

Josh Hamilton
Member, Housing Commission
310.968.3037 mobile
Item 16.B
03/21/23
8 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Diana Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:08 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 3/21 Item 16B - public comment

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I'm a Santa Monica resident and homeowner. My one car household includes an elementary‐aged child, an octogenarian, and a regular expo line commuter. We all are passionate about public transportation and making our streets safer for vulnerable road users, which includes everyone not riding around in a 2 ton metal box.

I'm therefore extremely excited about the changes proposed in Item 16B like banning right turns on red in scramble intersections and implementing leading pedestrian intervals at major intersections ‐‐ these are all things that have been proven to keep pedestrians, especially children, safe. I appreciate Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis for their leadership in this regard and look forward to supporting even more bold safe streets initiatives in the future.

Please support this motion so we can make Santa Monica a safer place to walk.

Best,
Diana Williams
90403
Item 16.B
03/21/23
9 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Babak Mozaffari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:08 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

Item 16.B
03/21/23
10 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Sarah Starks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 9:46 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject: 3/21 Item 16B - public comment

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I'm a Santa Monica resident and I'm excited about the changes proposed in Item 16B like banning right turns on red in scramble intersections and implementing leading pedestrian intervals at major intersections ‐‐ these are all things that have been proven to keep pedestrians, especially children, safe.

Please support this motion so we can make Santa Monica a safe place to walk.

Best,
Sarah Starks
Sunset Park, 90405
Sent from my phone.

Item 16.B
03/21/23
11 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Julian Abbott Billings <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:48 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

Julian Billings
90403
Item 16.B
03/21/23
12 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: gillian grebler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:42 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Mayor and CouncilmembersI support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to improve safety on our community’s streets. This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks (“scrambles”) and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a “beg button” to cross and pedestrians will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning. All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities. These are among a number of important pedestrian safety improvements that need to be made, including enforcement of stop signs at intersections along Pearl St. where there was a horrific accident earlier this month. Santa Monica streets, large and small, are a pedestrian’s nightmare.

Thank you,
Gillian Grebler, Rene Grebler, Robert Hull and the 2507 28th Street Homeowners Association Item 16.B
03/21/23
13 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:06 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.B
03/21/23
14 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: PATTY ODA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:44 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.B
03/21/23
15 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniela Morato <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:09 AM
To: Anuj Gupta; Caroline Torosis; David White; Susan Cline; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers:

I support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to improve safety on our community’s streets. This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks (“scrambles”) and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a “beg button” to cross and pedestrians will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning.

All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities.

Thank you!
Daniela Morató
Item 16.B
03/21/23
16 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Laurene von Klan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:56 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers
Please support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to make our streets safer and more pedestrian friendly.

Vision Zero can be achieved through initiatives like these Thank you
Laurene von Klan
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.B
03/21/23
17 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:30 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers
I support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to improve safety on our community’s streets. This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks (“scrambles”) and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a “beg button” to cross and pedestrians will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning. All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities. Honestly, except for a true emergency, we don't need to be in such a hurry as drivers. I understand the impatient feeling but it is much better to make sure that pedestrians are safe. All of us are both drivers and pedestrians.

Thank you,
Dr. Joanne Leslie
1351 Grant St., Santa Monica
Item 16.B
03/21/23
18 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mike Terranova <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B Comment : Enhancing the Vision Zero Plan with Safety-Improving Signal Changes and Community Involvement

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express support for the proposed council member item 16B (2023/03/21 Council Meeting) by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis, which aim to augment the city's Vision Zero plan with safety-enhancing signal phasing improvements at SM intersections. Given the alarming statistics on automobile-related deaths among children ages 5-14 in LA County, it is crucial that we take urgent and effective measures to increase safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all.

According to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics’s National Vital Statistics Mortality database, motor vehicle traffic-related accidents and injuries in Los Angeles County are the #1 injury-related cause of mortality in children 5-14, only second to certain cancers, but ahead of all other diseases and the more recently tracked firearm-related deaths. This highlights the urgent need for our city to take action in improving pedestrian safety.

The proposed pilot program to ban "Right on Red" at scramble intersections, reprogram traffic signals to operate on "pedestrian recall,” and use Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) is a step in the right direction.

Jurisdictions such as San Francisco have improved pedestrian safety by having pedestrian signals default to show pedestrian crossing when traffic lights are indicated green for traffic, and eliminated the need for pedestrians to push a button to cross. This change helped ensure that pedestrians have the right-of-way without requiring them to take any extra action.

Implementing pedestrian recall at intersections should reduce lengthy waiting periods for pedestrians, encourage more people to walk and ultimately promote a safer, healthier, and more sustainable city. SM Traffic Mgmt Division should also consider enhancements to limit pedestrian wait intervals to no more than 60-80 seconds. Requiring pedestrians to push a button and wait for over a minute is unreasonable and discourages walking in our city. It also leads drivers at red lights to get frustrated and inattentive with long waits and draws attention to other things inside their vehicles like the more common touch displays or checking texts, which leads to accidents like auto vs. ped collisions when a driver looks up, finally sees a green, and starts driving before thoroughly checking blind spots e.g. the A-pillar of the vehicle, front of vehicle with ever-increasing vehicle heights.

While the installation of curb extensions in places like Pico Blvd can help reduce crossing times and increase pedestrian visibility, the Council should consider providing direction to give reports on cross timing, particularly for diagonal scrambles, to accommodate children and older individuals who require more time to cross safely.

In addition to the proposed pilot program and enhancements, it is essential to involve the community in making changes to traffic phasing and roadway design. I recommend the Council to direct staff to organize community workshops and create a report with options for the Council to consider and give direction on. This approach would ensure that residents have a say in shaping their neighborhoods and foster greater acceptance of the implemented measures.

I fully support the pilot program proposed by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis, and I strongly encourage the City Council to consider giving City Staff the additional direction to come back with suggestions to further Item 16.B
03/21/23
19 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 improve pedestrian safety and ways in which the City can involve the community in the decision-making process. Implementing these measures will not only contribute to the success of the Vision Zero plan but also create a safer, more inclusive, and more sustainable city for all residents.

Thank you for your attention to this critical and ultimately life safety issue.

Sincerely,
Mike Terranova
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16.B
03/21/23
20 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Rebecca Benefiel Bijur <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you for all you do for our city and community!
As a parent of three kids in our SMMUSD schools and a resident of the Pico neighborhood, I am writing to ask you to support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request to improve safety on our community’s streets. This includes prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks (“scrambles”) and identifying at least 10 priority intersections where pedestrians will not need to push a “beg button” to cross and pedestrians will be given an opportunity to begin crossing before cars begin turning.

It would be particularly great if one of these priority intersections was 20th and Delaware, where my kids and I have long experienced a particularly short pedestrian opportunity to cross 20th on our way from our apartment to Virginia Avenue Park, especially if we have not hit the button first.

All of these changes will improve the safety of our communities' streets, protecting residents, families, and children from stress, injuries, and possible fatalities.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Rev. Rebecca Bijur
Item 16.B
03/21/23
21 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Perry Holmes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

I appreciate your consideration, thank you!
Item 16.B
03/21/23
22 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:53 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: Please Support Safe Streets Item 16B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, City Councilmembers and City Staff
I support Councilmember Zwick and Torosis’s request in item 16Bnto improve safety on our community’s streets.

Regarding prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks/scrambles intersections ‐ it was originally myself (when I was on the City Council), in concert with then Planning Director Suzanne Frick and then Resource Manager Jeff Mathieu, that informally came up with the idea of making Ocean Ave./Colorado a scramble intersection — and idea which later came to and was approved by the City Council ‐ the first scramble intersection in the city.

At that time, there were some in the community who were concerned that implementing a scramble intersection at Ocean/Colorado would lead to great public opposition/blowback from north/south drivers along Ocean Ave. Instead it seems that the scramble intersection has been a great success in our community, is seen as something natural and sensible in an area with so many pedestrians, and its success has led us to adopt scramble intersections elsewhere in Santa Monica.

The new request by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis to prohibiting right turns while pedestrians are crossing at our downtown diagonal crosswalks/scrambles intersections seems to be a very sensible enhancement to our existing policy, that will only further facilitate ability of pedestrians to cross in a safe and timely manner.

For that reason, I fully support it and encourage you to do the same.

Thanks
Mike Feinstein
Ocean Park
Item 16.B
03/21/23
23 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: David White
Subject: City Council Agenda 3/21/2023- Item 16B Public Comment

EXTERNAL
Good Morning Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and City Councilmembers, I urge you to support item 16B on today's City Council agenda for the City Council to move forward with ways to improve our Vision Zero efforts and pedestrian safety by:
 Banning Right on Red at all “scramble” intersections
 Reprogramming traffic signals to operate on "pedestrian recall" (i.e. eliminating "beg buttons")  Utilizing a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) at 10 priority intersections as determined by data from Santa Monica’s high‐injury network, as well as data on frequency of pedestrian use.

Improving our City's pedestrian network will lead to a better and safer experience for all people using our streets, regardless of their method of transportation.

Banning Right on Red at Scramble Crosswalks
Just yesterday, I saw a delivery vehicle in downtown Santa Monica making a right on a red light at a scramble crosswalk without even slowing down while there were still pedestrians in the crosswalk. Banning right turns at red lights will help protect pedestrians and enhance our pedestrian infrastructure. It is a common‐sense measure to make our City a safer place.

Ending Beg Buttons
Buttons that pedestrians have to push to request to cross a street, colloquially known as "beg buttons" prioritize cars over people and penalize pedestrians and bicyclists. Beg buttons also carry potential risk of fomite transmission of illnesses. They frequently violate ADA guidelines as they may be placed in a manner that would be inaccessible or difficult to access by people with disabilities. Reprogramming our traffic signals to operate on "pedestrian recall" and eliminating beg buttons would be a great step toward making our community safer and more accessible.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) give pedestrians a few extra seconds to begin crossing before a traffic signal turns green for cars. There are several intersections near where I live that use LPIs and I feel much safer crossing at those intersections than many others in my neighborhood. Per the US Department of Transportation (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven‐safety‐countermeasures/leading‐pedestrian‐ interval#:~:text=A%20leading%20pedestrian%20interval%20(LPI,to%20turn%20right%20or%20left.), LPIs provide the following benefits:
 Increased visibility of crossing pedestrians.
 Reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
 Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians.  Enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.

Item 16.B
03/21/23
24 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 2 Additional Pedestrian Safety Measures‐ Daylighting
Although it is not mentioned in this 16 item, I would also recommend that the City Council further enhance our pedestrian infrastructure by improving sightlines at crosswalks and intersections by prohibiting vehicles from parking or stopping at the curb within twenty feet of a marked crosswalk or intersection, a pedestrian safety measure colloquially known as "daylighting." AB 413, introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee would enact this measure statewide, but we can choose to proactively do this in Santa Monica. As the City Council, you can also voice our City's support for AB 413. I understand that as this specific item is not on the agenda, it would likely not be able to be considered this evening, but I urge you to please consider enacting Daylighting and supporting AB 413 at a future City Council meeting.

Santa Monica has been a leader in enacting safety reforms for a more walkable and bikeable community. Let's live up to our reputation.

Sincerely,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 16.B
03/21/23
25 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16B - Banning Right on Red at Scramble Intersections and Implementing LPI

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, Councilmembers, I am writing to support Item 16B on tonight's agenda. Santa Monica's reputation for a walkable city is one of things I most enjoy about our community and will frequently brag about to my family and friends. My partner and I share a single car ‐ it's one of the ways we have changed our lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly, and, frankly, a version of mobility we have sacrificed in order to afford living in such an expensive housing market. When I travel about town, I go by bike, Big Blue Bus, or my own two feet. You can find me running with my dog, Hudson, every morning up and down Arizona Ave. I've been so happy to see the new protected bike lane improvements being made on 17th Street; I would love to see a similar investment made in our pedestrian safety, especially in Downtown, where I have personally witnessed drivers make 'rights on red' into scramble intersections that are active, always with near misses.

Leading Pedestrian Indicators (LPIs) are now required by law upon installation or replacement of lights due to the passing of AB 2264 last year, authored by our very own Assemblymember Bloom. In the bill's analysis, Caltrans contended "that LPIs 1) increase pedestrian visibility; 2) reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; 3) increase the likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and 4) enhance safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection. Additionally, costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. Caltrans also indicates that LPIs can reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes by approximately forty percent." LPIs are already in use in numerous places, including elsewhere in California. Multiple professional traffic and transportation organizations such as the National Association of City Transportation Officials, the US Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Research Board consider LPIs to be best practice. I'm excited for this possibility in Santa Monica to be piloted at our top 10 high-injury intersections, and urge you to support this item to maintain our leadership in walkability in the region.

As always, thank you for your consideration,
Dan Hall
Mid‐City Neighborhood Resident
Item 16.B
03/21/23
26 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) 1 SANTA MONICA ALLIANCE FOR THE FUTURE
www.futuresantamonica.com
March 21, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
c/o City Clerk
1685 Main St., Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Agenda Item 16-B (Safe Streets Measures)
Dear Hon. Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Santa Monica Alliance for the future, I am writing to urge you to support the common-sense safety measures under consideration as part of Item 16-B on tonight’s agenda.

Studies have found a direct correlation between “right on red” bans and improved pedestrian safety.1 Furthermore, as discussed in the attached Los Angeles Times piece, the underlying justification for allowing “right on red” turns is flawed.

Likewise, pedestrian recall and leading pedestrian interval features are also wellunderstood methods of improving roadway safety.2 For these reasons, we hope you will support item 16-B.

Best,
Ellis Raskin
Chair, S.M. Alliance for the Future

1 See, e.g., this pilot program in Washington D.C.:
https://ite.ygsclicbook.com/pubs/itejournal/2022/may-2022/live/index.html#p=41 2 See, e.g., https://www.calbike.org/leading-pedestrian-interval-puts-people-walkingfirst/.

Item 16.B
03/21/23
27 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan)

OPINION
Column: Is turning right on a red light your California birthright? Absolutely not! California first allowed drivers to turn right on red lights in 1939. (Associated Press) BY ROBIN ABCARIAN | COLUMNIST
NOV. 13, 2022 3 AM PT
It’s dangerous out there on the mean streets of, well, just about any city where cars and pedestrians interact.

Over the last decade, all U.S. traffic deaths have increased by 13%, according to the Governors Highway Safety Assn., but pedestrian deaths have risen by a whopping 54%.

And no one knows exactly why.

In an attempt to reverse the deadly trend, cities are seeking ways to intervene. One promising change that’s catching on: prohibiting drivers from turning right on red lights.

SUBSCRIBE LOG IN
Item 16.B
03/21/23
28 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan)

OPINION COLUMNIST
Robin Abcarian
Read more from Robin Abcarian
Last week, Berkeley joined the effort with an initial City Council vote. It follows San Francisco, San Jose, Ann Arbor, Mich., and Washington, D.C., all of which have taken steps to reduce the risk of cars crashing into pedestrians and cyclists by, to one degree or another, outlawing rights on reds. “Policies like eliminating right on red are smart and easy ways to begin the process of deprioritizing car use in Berkeley and placing lives above driver convenience,” Berkeley Councilmember Terry Taplin wrote in his proposal.

So far, the data are promising.

A study of a pilot program testing the ban in Washington, D.C., found that the number of times drivers failed to yield to pedestrians when the light was red dropped dramatically, according to Route Fifty, a website that covers tech and innovation in states and cities. Weirdly, the study also found that 30% more drivers encroached on the crosswalk as they inched forward trying to turn right. That, said the study authors, was probably because those drivers started to turn at the red light but then realized it was illegal and got stuck in the crosswalk. …
-

VALEXTRA, ISIDE CROSSBODY NANO
Valextra US Sponsored

BUY NOW
Item 16.B
03/21/23
29 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan)

CALIFORNIA
Berkeley may ban cars from making right turns on red lights. Here’s why Nov. 9, 2022
“As a pedestrian, you have a light to cross the street, but you have a driver who’s inching out into the intersection looking in exactly the opposite direction to see if there are any cars coming,” Colin Browne of the Washington Area Bicyclist Assn. told Route Fifty. “So you have to decide: Is this person going to see me or not?”
Personally, I think the ban is a good idea and would love to see it enacted in Los Angeles.

I bet I’m not the only driver who feels a twinge of anxiety when the light turns red as I approach a right turn.

There’s a lot of information to absorb. Is someone crossing the street in front of me? Is a cyclist coming up behind me on my right side in the bike lane? Are the drivers who are stopped behind me getting antsy because I haven’t turned yet? And why does this all feel so intense? When I see a sign prohibiting a right turn on a red light, I am relieved. One less stress point in my life behind the wheel.

Although all states allow right turns on red lights, many Californians in particular consider the practice their birthright. Perhaps we claim the rule as our own because California was probably the first state to embrace the practice, in 1939.

CALIFORNIA
Hundreds died in L.A. traffic crashes in 2021. Is Vision Zero a failure? Jan. 9, 2022
During the energy crisis of 1973, when drivers lined up to buy gas on specified days, traffic engineers came up with the dubious (to me, anyway) proposition that allowing right turns on red lights would save fuel. The federal government codified the practice in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 when it required states to permit right turns on red lights in order to receive federal assistance for mandated conservation programs.

That seems pretty dumb in retrospect, and yet another example of how the automobile has always been prioritized over pedestrian safety in our car-obsessed culture. “Permitting right turns on red has always been a dangerous idea, which is why, when the first traffic lights and traffic laws rolled out, it was not allowed,” Jessie Singer told me in an email Thursday. Singer literally wrote the Item 16.B
03/21/23
30 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) Copyright © 2023, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | CA Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information book on how “accidents” happen in America. “It is no coincidence,” she continued, “that in New York City, the most pedestrian-dense city in the U.S., right on red has long and largely been disallowed.” The practice is inherently dangerous to pedestrians because, as Singer puts it, it “leaves the sanctity of the crosswalk and the life of a pedestrian in the hands of a fallible driver.”

CALIFORNIA
Jaywalking is decriminalized in California under new law Oct. 1, 2022
In Singer’s book, “There Are No Accidents: The Deadly Rise of Injury and Disaster — Who Profits and Who Pays the Price,” she argues that the tragedies we consider “accidents” are almost always preventable. “In the so-called ‘accident-prone’ areas of our lives,” she told me, “we can protect people by reducing their exposure to harm. One way that harm is introduced is when we take a safe system, like the rule that red means stop, and modify it to serve feelings like convenience or desire — suddenly the rule is a matter of opinion and judgment, a choice about feelings of safety to be made again and again by individual drivers, and whim to their mood, their needs, or the quality of their day.”
Berkeley’s ban awaits another funding vote before the city starts posting “no right turn on red” signs at all its intersections with lights. The council members are braced for “pushback,” but they’re right: Outlawing rights on reds is an easy, cost-effective way to save lives.

Los Angeles, are you listening?
@AbcarianLAT
Robin Abcarian
Robin Abcarian is an opinion columnist at the Los Angeles Times. She writes about news, politics and culture. Her columns appear on Wednesday and Sunday. Twitter:
@AbcarianLAT
Item 16.B
03/21/23
31 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) Item 16.B
03/21/23
32 of 32 Item 16.B
03/21/23

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments (5666 : Adopt a Vision Zero plan) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 21, 2023
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Zwick, Torosis, and de la Torre that the Council direct the City Manager to ensure that staff engage in meaningful consultation with persons authorized to vend pursuant to SMMC sections 6.36.030(f) and (g) regarding implementation of and proposed changes to sidewalk vending policies in the City. Specifically, staff are to arrange for such consultation in a culturally competent and linguistically appropriate manner to achieve meaningful engagement and input when substantive changes to vending policies are being considered that address time, place, and manner regulations or alterations to permitting or enforcement policies and practices.

Such consultation should include, but not be limited to, in-person meetings, notices and solicitation of feedback via e-mail and/or mail, and production of outreach materials to be distributed by staff in the field. This consultation should include advance written notice to all permitted vendors with at least a 20-day period of public comment following the solicitation of vendor input prior to making substantive changes to Sidewalk Vending Administrative Regulations or placing proposed changes on the Council agenda. Staff shall ensure that engagement is conducted in English and Spanish through bilingual written materials and presence of a Spanish language interpreter at vendor engagement meetings and Council meetings when vending policies are being considered. City staff is further directed to engage in ongoing dialogue with its permitted sidewalk vending community regarding several items of importance—including vending cart compliance, enforcement practices, enhanced signage, expanded opportunities and zones for permissible vending, and methods of allocating designated spaces to vend— to ensure a thriving and inclusive Santa Monica for all.

16.C
Packet Pg. 730
2 of 2
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.C
Packet Pg. 731

Santa Monica City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
March 21, 2023