39 We find that a ban on sleeping bags and bedrolls to be an inappropriate conflation 40 of comfort items with “encampments,” an ineffective tool to combat the chronic issue of 41 homelessness, and against the values we hold as a community of treating our unhoused 42 neighbors with compassion, dignity, and respect. Implementing measures with the intent 43 of making our city inhospitable to fellow human beings in an attempt to force them to seek 44 shelter in Los Angeles does not solve our homelessness crisis, invites Los Angeles and 45 neighboring cities to do the same to us, and merely perpetuates the shell game the Los 46 Angeles region has played with our unhoused population for decades. 47 Our goal as City leaders is to entice unhoused individuals into housing and 48 services for long term stability and ensuring a clean and safe Santa Monica for our 49 residents, visitors, property owners, and businesses. 50 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
51 1. Direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance that:
52 1.1. Amends Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 4.08.095, 53 Paragraph (b), Subparagraph (2) to remove reference to “sleeping bags” 54 and “bedrolls.”
55 1.2. Adds the following as Paragraph (d) to the same Section: “This ordinance 56 does not prohibit those who are unhoused or homeless from using sleeping 57 bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.” 58 2. Direct the City Manager to make any appropriate and necessary changes to 59 comply with the above direction, including an immediate deprioritization of 60 enforcement of the current ban on sleeping bags and bedrolls until the ordinance 61 is fully amended.
62 # # #
16.K.a
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: 20250128 16 Item - Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals - Hall Snell Torosis (6845 :
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 :
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) 1 David Yakobson
From: Genise Schnitman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 item regarding amendment of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095 prohibiting certain comfort items for unhoused individuals.
EXTERNAL
I write to express my utmost support for the proposed recission of the cruel and pointless decision by the former Council to prohibit the possession and use by unhoused persons of "sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping” on our Santa Monica streets.
To deny fellow human beings the use of these simple, basic, and meager comfort items is simply mean, punitive, and a breach of the most fundamental sense of compassion and decency. I am gratified to see this step in the direction of restoring the kind of informed, thoughtful, and empirically validated policymaking for which Santa Monica had developed a proud reputation over decades and that was betrayed when that disgraceful decision was taken.
I urge every member of this Council to vote yes on the 16 item brought by Councilmembers Torosis, Hall, and Snell that directs the City Attorney to return with an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.095 prohibiting certain comfort items for unhoused individuals.
Thank you,
Genise Schnitman,
fortunately housed in this fortunate city for forty years (since August, 1984) Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: David White; [email protected]; Santa Monica Forward Subject: Support for Agenda Items 16k and 16N
Attachments: 2025-01 CC Support items 16K and 16N SaMoSSA-SMF.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members, Please find a joint support letter for agenda items 16K and 16N from the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward.
With sincere appreciation,
Cynthia Rose, Cris Gutierrez, Brad Ewing & Carl Hansen
--
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SaMoSafeStreets.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals)
January 27, 2024
RE: Support for Agenda Items 16K and 16N
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members:
The Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward would like to express our full support for the following items:
Support item 16K to undo the previous harm that criminalized homelessness and targeted our most vulnerable with the abject cruelty of taking warmth and basic comfort from folks without a home by adding the mere existence of “sleeping bags, or bedrolls” to the description of an encampment to section 1A. We applaud the proposed updated ordinance for section 1.1 to remove reference to “sleeping bags” and “bedrolls.” We also appreciate the renewed compassion of adding to section 1D “This ordinance does not prohibit those who are unhoused or homeless from using sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.” to the existing no camping ordinance. These updates better represent who we are in Santa Monica. Thank you.
Support item 16N: With the ongoing housing crisis we thank Council for taking leadership to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City of Santa Monica - specifically proposing an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential in the highest opportunity areas. In this current housing crisis we applaud our leadership for proposing to “removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes” and for ensuring that no standards within the ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs. Thank you
Thank you, City Council, for being leaders with intelligence, responsibility and a heart as you solve problems. We support and thank you for the proposed items 16K and 16N, and for leading responsibly and honorably.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) 2 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 16K
EXTERNAL
Good evening council,
Please support item 16K. Sleeping bags and pillows are not a threat to anyone in this city, and if that's an individual's only crime the police have better things to do. There are plenty of other reasons to justify intervening for issues that are actually impacting public safety.
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Democratic Club <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 16K - SUPPORT
Attachments: Jan 28 Letter to Council SUPPORT 16K.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please see attached letter from the Santa Monica Democratic Club Executive Board regarding Item 16K of the January 28, 2025, City Council meeting.
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) President
Jon Katz
VP Political Action
Derek Devermont
VP Membership
Michael Soloff
VP Programs
Sam Cozolino
VP Communications
Susan Sheu
VP Diversity & Inclusion
Keith Coleman
VP Legislation
Isabel Storey
Treasurer
Luis Barrera Castañón
Recording Secretary
Lynn Cervini
At-Large
Patricia Hoffman
Dolores Sloan
January 27, 2025
Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis, and City Councilmembers:
Last September, the Santa Monica Democratic Club wrote to the previous council, asking them to oppose the proposed ordinance which criminalizes homelessness by outlawing personal items such as pillows and blankets. This draconian policy does nothing to prevent homelessness or public camping. Instead, it creates a new burden on those experiencing hardship. With the unfortunate passage of this ordinance, we are now asking the least fortunate among us to exacerbate their situation even further.
This deeply misguided decision by the former council was not well regarded by the Santa Monica voters, who made the treatment of our unhoused community one of the top issues of the election. And their voice was clear: we reject this cruel ordinance and expect a higher standard of treatment for our community.
We are grateful to Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis for this opportunity to reconsider this backward policy. We should all agree that a focus on real long-term solutions for our unhoused population is a better way to engage on the serious regional issue of homelessness than to make life so intolerable as to scare these people away. Whether they are on the streets of Santa Monica or we pursue a policy of pushing them just on the other side of the border in Los Angeles, they are here and a part of our community.
This is a scary time for so many vulnerable communities given the early actions by the new presidential administration. Santa Monica has an opportunity to show the world who we are. Let’s be that beacon of hope that we aspire to. Vote Yes on 16K.
Sincerely,
President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
On Behalf of the Executive Board
P.O. Box 1052 • Santa Monica,CA 90406 • 215-962-4357 • [email protected] Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) 1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I support item 16K
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I strongly support item 16K.
It has been clear from the day it was proposed that this ordinance doesn't accomplish anything that improves lives in our community. It does nothing to combat the housing crisis and only harms people who are already in an extremely vulnerable situation.
A person who's experiencing homelessness and currently going through the system to become housed recently spent the night outside of my apartment building because they didn't make it into a shelter that night. Since they didn't have a blanket or sleeping bag, they used trash bags filled with recyclables to stay warm. I fail to see how forcing more people to do the same will help anyone. As if sleeping on the street wasn't terrible enough, making it illegal to stay warm when one does so can only aggravate people's mental and physical health. We can do better.
Thank you for this item. This is why people voted for you. I support item 16K.
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
Item 16-K
January 28, 2025
16.K.b
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6845 : Amending SMMC Prohibitions on Certain Comfort Items for Unhoused Individuals) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.L
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Zwick and Hall that the City Council direct the City Manager to work with the Chief of Police to prioritize the deterrence of dangerous driving within Santa Monica that poses an immediate threat to the safety of residents. Specifically, the department shall 1) prioritize a greater number of high-visibility enforcement operations against dangerous driving, 2) provide data reporting to City Council and the public on an ongoing quarterly basis detailing the monthly total number of Traffic/Vehicle Stops and enforcement actions, including subtotals for each moving violation, as well as a comprehensive breakdown of data and trends in city traffic enforcement from 2019 through 2024 as part of the department’s annual report to City Council, and 3) develop a proposal as part of the 25/26 budget process to restore the department’s traffic enforcement capabilities and outcomes to pre2020 levels.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.L
Packet Pg. 1673
1 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 1/28/2025 16L
EXTERNAL
Thank you to councilmembers Zwick and Hall for bringing forward this very important 16 item. I would have added two additional points to this item.
One, PD and parking enforcement need to start enforcing license plate laws. For parking enforcement, this could be simply being directed to ticket for these violations while doing other enforcement rounds such as for permit parking and meter enforcement. It's become routine to see cars being driven around with all sorts of license plate violations: no front plate, no plates at all, obviously fake plates, long-expired paper temp plates (which are likely also fake), intentionally obstructed rear plates; the list goes on. We got a stark example of how the impacts to enforce license plate laws in the case of the December 22 fatal hit and run: there was extremely clear video of the front of the car, but it had no front license plate, so it took days of police investigation to find the suspect instead of being able to simply look up the license plate and go arrest the guy. Failure to enforce license plate violations will more generally undermine any goals related to moving to automated camera enforcement of traffic laws.
But parking enforcement has previously explicitly told me they're not interested in enforcing these violations. I tried to call in a car with no license plates parked directly in front of city hall shortly after the 2024 council meeting which required additional police security due to phoned in threats of violence, which you'd think would have created some additional interest in ghost cars parked in front of city hall of all places, and was still told they didn't consider it worth their time since it's "just a fix it ticket".
Two, PD and parking enforcement need to stop committing dangerous traffic violations themselves.
PD routinely commits dangerous violations such as parking in the Ocean Ave protected bike lane (this picture shows PD babysitting some landscaping staff or contractors, which is not a valid reason per the CVC for any of them to be in the bike lane), creating ADA violations with illegal parking on the Promenade, and driving on the sidewalks. None of the pictures below was for a call for service situation, they simply chose to park or drive there. It's not clear how they can be effective on enforcing traffic laws when they do not see casually breaking traffic laws themselves as a big deal. Furthermore, private motorists see PD doing things like parking in the bike lane and take it as a clear signal that they can do it themselves. To give just one example, this plays out daily on 3rd and Santa Monica, where PD regularly illegally parks in the no stopping zone and bus stops, which then results in a line of private motorists illegally parked behind them--the final picture was taken at 2:30 PM, which is well past the posted loading zone hours, which end at 10 AM, at which point it becomes a no stopping anytime zone.
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 2 Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1675 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 3 Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1676 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 4 Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 5 Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 6 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:01 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 16L: Traffic Enforcement -- Thank You!
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and Honorable City Council Members,
Thank you so much for taking up this extremely important item, and a special thank you to Council Members Zwick and Hall for drafting and introducing it. As a number of recent fatalities and serious injuries have once again proven, the sad reality is that our streets are not safe, and the City is currently falling significantly behind its Vision Zero goals. While infrastructure improvements are needed, the dearth of traffic enforcement -- as
documented here: https://santamonicanext.org/2025/01/wilshire-chelsea-deadly-crash-highlightsneed-for-more-vehicle-code-enforcement/ -- has also contributed to this dangerous situation. I've seen Chief Batista speak before Council about how traffic enforcement has been proven to reduce the risk of death and serious injury (and I agree!); but, confusingly, his department is still not adequately enforcing our traffic laws. Per the article above, Lt. Aklufi blames staffing shortages, but the data speak for themselves: PD has more officers now than at any point in its history, and yet roughly 20 years ago PD was conducting 5 times more traffic stops than it does today. Something needs to change, and I'm grateful that the City Manager and PD will now receive explicit direction from Council.
These are truly matters of life and death, and PD has a professional obligation to get them right. To that end, after researching this issue extensively, I want to make a few recommendations for possible Council direction:
1) PD needs to do High-Visibility Enforcement -- not just on PCH, but in our neighborhoods. Nashville PD did an impressive study on the effect of high-visibility traffic enforcement and found that it worked, when it focused on the most dangerous driving behaviors, occurred at regular intervals at local problem intersections (every 3 weeks, for example, which is around when they found the deterrent effect waning), and stationed officers at alternative routes that drivers might use to get around the enforcement event. See here: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtuallibrary/abstracts/effect-high-visibility-enforcement-motor-vehicle-crashes. I would love to see a similar program developed here.
2) PD must focus only on those CVC violations that make driving more dangerous. Per the study above and from other sources, those offenses are:
a) excessive speeding
b) running red lights and stop signs (including "rolling" stops at crosswalks) c) distracted driving, most commonly texting while driving 3) PD should not focus on other CVC violations, like broken tail lights, that have negligible, if no, effect on road safety: I agree with Lt. Aklufi that there is some limitation on resources, and that Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 7 the risk/reward ratio of these kinds of stops is low; therefore, let's focus on the above and not pull people over unnecessarily. Instead...
4) Direct Parking Enforcement to start ticketing for missing front plates, "ghost" plates, etc.:
It's all too common with a hit and run -- as it was last month -- that a missing or otherwise improper plate makes it difficult to find or otherwise delays PD's finding the perpetrator. Let's start cleaning up that ever-growing problem, but telling Parking Enforcement to start aggressively targeting these issues. PD could still ticket for these issues, but only secondary to stops for the violations listed in #2; resource constraints mean PD should not focus their limited number of stops on these issues.
5) Prioritize motor vehicles, not bikes and pedestrians. No matter who is at "fault" in any given crash, the reality is that cars weigh multiple tons, and bikes and pedestrians don't. To be frank, PD has a history of not recognizing this fact and targeting cyclists -- as a parent of young children, I have to say that, while it would be wonderful if everyone followed the law, my main concern is not a bike going through a crosswalk; it's a multi-ton vehicle blowing through a stop sign in our neighborhood and killing one of my kids. At the moment, PD has been -- arguably inappropriately -- using STEP grants to disproportionately enforce against cyclists. I hope that PD understands this item's focus is motor vehicles, and the data they come back with reflects that. 6) Return motor vehicle enforcement as a "regular" duty outside of our Motor Unit. I think one of the most frustrating things in Santa Monica at the moment is watching someone run a red light or stop sign, while a police officer is next to you in traffic, and seeing the cop do...nothing. I personally see this happen on a regular basis in Sunset Park. Maybe there's some higher priority call at the moment, but when that officer doesn't appear to be heading anywhere in particular thereafter, it's hard not to wonder what in the world is happening. I know we have a Motor Unit, but enforcing traffic laws beyond high-visibility enforcement events need to be a part of regular patrol duties, if we want to create the deterrence effect necessary for safe streets. At the moment, people are -- rightfully -- not worried about being pulled over even if they commit an unsafe driving violation right in front of an officer. (And, by the way, I've had officers tell me directly that they're ignoring dangerous traffic violations, which...is...bad...). 7) Direct the City Manager to direct Chief Batista to start lobbying State Sen. Ben Allen on our need for automated enforcement. State law prevents us from getting speed cameras at the moment, and we were left out of the most recent pilot which added Malibu. Unfortunately, CA law enforcement groups have lobbied against automated enforcement; I hope that Chief Batista can personally get in touch with State Sen. Allen to express his support for this greatly-needed safety intervention, so that State Sen. Allen will push harder to allow Santa Monica speed cameras.
Thank you all so much again; I think street safety (really, the lack thereof) is the #1 issue in Santa Monica today, and I am hopeful that Council's direction will have an immediate impact on the problem.
Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1680 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: David White; [email protected]; Anuj Gupta; Santa Monica Forward Subject: Support for Agenda Item 16L
Attachments: 2025-01 CC Support items 16L SM Spoke-SaMoSSA-SMF.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members, Please find a joint letter of support from Santa Monica Spoke, the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward to express our full support of item 16L to prioritize the deterrence of dangerous driving within Santa Monica which indeed poses an immediate threat to the safety of residents and everyone who visits our city.
With gratitude and appreciation,
Cynthia Rose, Cris Gutierrez, Brad Ewing & Carl Hansen
Santa Monica Spoke, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward --
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.
January 27, 2024
RE: Support Agenda Item 16L
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members:
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance are joined by Santa Monica Forward in writing to express our full support to prioritize the deterrence of dangerous driving within Santa Monica that poses an immediate threat to the safety of residents and everyone who visits our city.
Traffic violence and mobility issues are a key part of public safety, and we again encourage the city to take a 360° approach to the issues of safety with resources dedicated to prevention and diversion. We can only benefit with high-visibility enforcement operations targeted against the most egregious offenders that threaten our safety - dangerous car driving, e.g. speeding and distracted driving.
The Council established in 2016 Santa Monica’s Vision Zero, declaring “Vision Zero is Santa Monica’s initiative to reduce severe traffic injuries and deaths on city streets by 2026.” With the recent influx of pedestrian-involved crashes - resulting in serious injuries and heartbreaking death - we must double down if we have any hope of improving street safety or or realizing Vision Zero.
Traffic lawlessness is a huge threat to public safety in the same way that other crimes are threats to persons or property. People need to know that their safety when walking, biking, using active mobility or driving a vehicle is a priority.
Our streets amount to approximately a whopping 24% of our collective public space, the largest public space in Santa Monica. Everyone using our streets, particularly children, elders and the most vulnerable, must be able to count on Council leadership and our Police Department to consider carefully and responsibly an accurate and meaningful approach to public safety and be dynamic in looking at every possible mitigation or solution to meet our safety goals.
Eliminating traffic violence is the very definition of public safety and necessary, equitable and appropriate enforcement measures and programs should be prioritized for safety on our streets.
These efforts are critical if we are to achieve safety for our community and visitors.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 2 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 16L
EXTERNAL
Council,
We've had yet another deadly hit and run and yet another child hit. Although a lot of street safety requires infrastructure or smaller vehicles, SM's streets have gained a well deserved reputation for being the wild west of speeding, running red lights, and blasting through stop signs. We need highly visible enforcement at a significant level to get drivers to start following laws and respecting other road users. The decline in this enforcement over the last ~5 years runs directly contradictory to the city's Vision Zero 2026 plan that's woefully offtrack.
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1683 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 3 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: I support item 16L
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I wholeheartedly support Item 16L and want to thank Council Members Zwick and Hall for bringing this forward.
The lack of effective and well-targeted traffic enforcement has strongly contributed to our traffic violence crisis. Drivers frequently ignore traffic laws and the safety of the vulnerable humans they share the road with.
While enforcement alone will never be the solution to this issue, and while we must continue to engineer safe streets that are safe for all users at all times, we're not there yet. Until we design truly safe streets, we must make it very clear that people who operate deadly vehicles on our streets must be respectful of all road users and must understand that our streets do not belong to whoever has the largest and deadliest vehicle.
We must engage in PROPER traffic enforcement, which includes high visibility enforcement (I have ideas if SMPD feels uninspired), understanding the difference between a traffic stop and a pretextual stop, ensuring enforcement does not disproportionately target specific communities., and avoiding victimblaming rhetoric or actions.
As some of the data included in this article shows, while some safety improvements have been implemented over the past few years, traffic enforcement has significantly dropped, and fatal and severe injury crashes simply have not gone down. While SMPD did not suffer from budget cuts in the way other departments (including the DOT) did, they have dropped the ball completely when it comes to traffic safety.
Not only that, but the fact that SMPD had to be begged to include traffic safety as part of public safety in a recent report, their poor and ineffective use of the yearly $300k OTS Grant they receive, the discourse held by Lieutenant Green when being questioned about it by council memeber Zwick just a few weeks ago, the constant anecdotes of people on bikes being ticketed for rolling through stop signs (despite it being safer) by SMPD, all show that SMDP lacks understanding about what traffic safety really means and what the true sources of danger are.
My personal experience with SMPD has told me that the safety of vulnerable road users isn't something they're concerned with. When I was hit while riding my bike in a painted bike lane by a driver who ran a stop sign while on her phone, the officer who came to the scene dismissed it as "accidents happen".
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 4 When I reported a driver who threatened me with their vehicle on video, I had to insist repeatedly for the officer to even take the report. When I asked police officers why they weren't doing anything about dozens of drivers who were parked in a bike lane in front of them, it turned into a 1h+ "argument" in which they shared very disturbing misinformation about the city's bike infrastructure, complained about it, made it clear that cars were their priority, and went on to make disturbing racist remarks.
Our Vision Zero goal for 2026 isn't exactly looking promising, and if we don't take drastic measures to make our streets safer now, lives will continue to be lost on our streets, people will continue to suffer from life-altering injuries, lose loved ones, and to feel like they must drive everywhere because they don't feel safe getting around with the protection of a 2-ton metal box.
I hope you all support 16L, and many many many other measures to make our streets safe and accessible for all.
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1685 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 1 David Yakobson
From: Carter Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 3:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
Please approve the councilmember request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities! I am concerned about traffic safety because I travel every day in my community as a pedestrian, bicyclist, transit rider, and car driver.
We need more traffic safety enforcement of really dangerous and reckless behaviors, which I see all the time in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Best,
Carter
310-200-1088
(Sent while mobile)
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sean Besser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ocean Park Association Subject: Letter from Ocean Park Association in Support of Item 16L
EXTERNAL
Hello Council Members,
The Ocean Park Association asks that you vote yes on Item 16L (more details here).
Dangerous driving is a common and regular occurrence on Ocean Park’s streets. Residents feel trepidation every time they walk the neighborhood and many have expressed feeling fearful when crossing our major thoroughfares. Efforts to enforce our laws against the most egregious driver behavior would be most welcome.
We also support the collection of data on traffic enforcement in our neighborhood. The police department regularly attends our monthly meetings and our members all appreciate the statistical crime data they present. Members have requested traffic data in the past and would also welcome this additional information.
Regards,
Sean Besser, President, Ocean Park Association
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 2:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.L
EXTERNAL
There is virtually zero enforcement on the bike path of prohibitions against motorized vehicles that exceed 20mph.
There should be consistent strong enforcement. It can be dangerous out there.
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 8:51 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Anuj Gupta; Ramon Batista; Susan Cline Subject: Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets Supports 16-L Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete, and Councilmembers,
Yesterday we sent the following message to the group of parents, grandparents, and community members who look to Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets for information and action alerts about what they can do to make our city's streets safer for children, older adults, and everyone who walks, bikes, and rolls around our city.
We were disheartened and concerned to learn about the injury of a minor on Pico and 14th last week. However, we know that such incidents are a result of decisions made by transportation system users and the city (including inaction). After years of calls for action, measures like 16L which will bring more transparency and enforcement of traffic violations that have direct safety consequences are necessary to restore the public's trust in the ability of the city to manage disorder on our streets.
Councilmembers Zwick and Hall are taking action to address the rise of dangerous driving in Santa Monica! Their request aims to increase the safety of all residents by directing the City Manager and Chief of Police to prioritize the following:
Increased Enforcement: More high-visibility operations targeting dangerous driving behaviors.
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 2 Data Transparency: Quarterly reports to the City Council and the public detailing traffic stops, enforcement actions, and trends in traffic enforcement. Restoring Traffic Enforcement: A proposal to restore the police department's traffic enforcement capabilities to pre-2020 levels.
SMPD Has Reduced Enforcement Versus Other Cities and Past Years Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets co-founder Juan Matute analyzed publicly-available data on traffic stops and traffic fine revenues for Santa Monica Next. The Santa Monica police department does not publicly share data on the enforcement actions and trends in traffic enforcement that follow from traffic stops, so the analysis relies on publiclyavailable financial data. The analysis shows that Santa Monica Police Department traffic enforcement has declined in recent years and is low relative to other California cities.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
City Ignores Council Direction when Repaving Neilson Way City of Santa Monica staff have chosen to ignore the direction of the city council in implementing speed humps or other traffic calming measures on Neilson Way, a higher-speed thruway between the pedestrian-oriented business district on Main Street and the beach. Walking between Main Street and the Beach is not only a very popular activity, our cities blend of commercial districts and picturesque coastal vistas is part of what makes Santa Monica special.
To improve safety of those crossing this busy throughfare, former Mayor Phil Brock proposed a resolution in 2021 and councilmembers gave city staff direction in 2023 when approving a repaving contract.
However, the City recently repaved Neilson without adding any traffic calming measures.
A Crash Analysis Studio Can Save Lives
Improving street safety in Santa Monica requires the city to learn from mistakes and what hasn't worked well in order to make streets safer moving forward. But what can the council do if city don't follow their direction?
The implementation of a Crash Analysis Studio in Santa Monica would be a crucial step toward addressing the alarming frequency of deadly car crashes within the city. This initiative would provide a dedicated platform for systematically studying the causes and patterns behind traffic fatalities, utilizing advanced data analysis, forensic reconstruction, and community input. By pinpointing specific factors such as road design flaws, driver behavior, and Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 3 high-risk intersections, the studio can generate actionable insights to guide city planners, traffic engineers, and policymakers in making evidence-based decisions. This proactive approach would not only help prevent future accidents but also foster a sense of safety and accountability, demonstrating the city’s commitment to protecting its residents and visitors.Beyond identifying problems, the Crash Analysis Studio would serve as a catalyst for meaningful change by ensuring the implementation of effective safety measures. These could include redesigning hazardous roadways, enhancing pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, and introducing advanced traffic management technologies. The studio would also provide a platform for engaging the community in safety initiatives, fostering a culture of shared responsibility. By translating data-driven findings into tangible improvements, Santa Monica could position itself as a leader in urban traffic safety, setting an example for other cities to follow. Ultimately, this initiative would save lives, reduce injuries, and create a more livable and sustainable environment for all.
City's Budget Process and Next Steps
The leadership of Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets will be following the city's implementation of street safety measures in the upcoming biennial budget and capital improvement program. We expect Measure K revenues to be used for crucial street safety projects, like the planned traffic signal at the intersection of Wilshire and Chelsea, where a member of our community was recently killed by a hit-and-run driver while crossing the street. We expect the full restoration of the Safe Routes to School Program, which had its budget slashed during COVID when students were learning remotely.
The City of Santa Monica's budget is strained due to a combination of reduced revenues and uncertain legal liabilities. We would rather see these limited funds go to traffic safety implementation than further study. But, if implementation is slow, we will advocate to fund the formation of a robust Crash Analysis Studio from the city's public safety budget so that the city can learn what many of the transportation professionals and parents who cofounded Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets already know — that our city government must make different choices to improve the safety of kids, seniors, and anyone who walks or rolls around Santa Monica.
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets is a group of parents and advocates working to make Santa Monica safer for all people who bike and walk.
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 1 David Yakobson
From: Susan McCorry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 8:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,Please approve the councilmember request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities!I am concerned about traffic safety because ... Sincerely, Susan
Susan McCorry 310-392-9244
“We're all just walking each other home." Ram Dass
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 2 David Yakobson
From: Alison Pearson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 7:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
Please approve the councilmember request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities. The recent bicyclist and pedestrian deaths are deeply concerning and show that increased enforcement and physical traffic calming measures are needed for drivers to take our traffic laws seriously. We shouldn’t be waiting for someone to die to fix dangerous intersections! Regards,
Alison Pearson Arya
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 3 David Yakobson
From: Yasmin Carey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc: Hubby
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,Please approve the councilmember request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities!I am concerned about traffic safety because ... Sincerely, Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 4 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Council members,
Please approve the council-member request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities! I am concerned about traffic safety because I have noticed a marked increase in dangerous driving behavior over the last several years: speeding in residential neighborhoods, passing in the center lane on Lincoln in rush hour traffic, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and a whole host of aggressive, unsafe behaviors that seem to consistently go unenforced.
Directing the police department to step up enforcement is a great first step towards restoring safety on our streets.
I would suggest following up quickly with automated red light and speed enforcement as I believe this is a much more efficient way to provide for traffic safety, but reprioritizing traffic enforcement would be a welcome first step that I’m sure will yield immediate results.
Sincerely,
Ryan Olson
1021 Pine St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 5 David Yakobson
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council-members,
I walk, bike, bus, and sometimes even drive.
I support all efforts to make our streets safer for all, through better street design, enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities.
Please support safer streets in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 6 David Yakobson
From: Rachael Dwork <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,Please approve the councilmember request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities!I am concerned about traffic safety because I would like to walk my toddler and my dogs without fear of getting hit. I am not joking when I say this is a DAILY occurrence!!! Cops have watched it happen and did NOTHING!!!! I should not feel like I need to put a cam on my kid’s stroller or play chicken with a G-Wagon.
We need more speed bumps, more bump outs, better crosswalks and actual enforcement.
Sincerely,
Rachael Dwork-Hoeflicker
[email protected]
850-933-5062
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) 7 David Yakobson
From: Danny Pravder <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 3:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 16L: Support for Safe Streets
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,Please approve the councilmember request to improve traffic safety through enforcement operations, police transparency, and budget priorities!I am concerned about traffic safety because ... Sincerely, Musically,
Danny Pravder
Homegrown Recording & Collective
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.homegrownrecording.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oXn1ajSpBUugvwc5 zsOiHC5bpj_w9Q-OzYvIgC9vvzERwlielgGdUsTjY7V_uNZPJx35DtQcgZw5EHlPMxoLr19T3zyu3eVRvA$ Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
Item 16-L
January 28, 2025
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Written Comments (6849 : Dangerous driving deterrence) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.M
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmember Hall and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis, that, in order to accurately capture lessons learned during the City’s response to the Palisades Fire and to better prepare for the next natural disaster or emergency crisis, the Council direct the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk’s Offices to conduct an After Action Review across all City Departments and to return to Council no later than 12 months from now with a public report, improvement action items, and implementation plan.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 20250128 16 Item - After Action Review of City Response to Palisades Fire - Hall Torosis
16.M
Packet Pg. 1699
Meeting: January 28, 2024
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBER DAN HALL AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE 2 CAROLINE TOROSIS
3 Request of Councilmember Hall and Mayor Pro Tempore Torosis, that, in order to 4 accurately capture lessons learned during the City’s response to the Palisades 5 Fire and to better prepare for the next natural disaster or emergency crisis, the 6 Council direct the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk’s Offices to 7 conduct an After Action Review across all City Departments and to return to 8 Council no later than 12 months from now with a public report, improvement 9 action items, and implementation plan.
10 After Action Reviews (AAR) are a critical tool used by organizations to assess an 11 organization’s performance during an event, capture lessons learned, determine 12 improvements to be made, and strategize over improvement implementation. 13 Following the destructive riots and looting of May 31, 2020, Council directed the 14 City to conduct a thorough AAR involving an independent, third party consultant, 15 community members, City staff, and City advisory bodies and commissions. This direction 16 resulted in a 121 page report from the OIR Group that outlined 44 recommendations for 17 the City to improve. The City has since implemented 38 of those recommendations and 18 have improved our operations.
19 We are eternally grateful for the preparedness and actions of our Santa Monica 20 Fire Department, Santa Monica Police Department, Office of Emergency Management, 21 Public Works Department, Department of Transportation, and City Manager’s Office - and 22 all of our City team during the Palisades Fire emergency. This item should not be 23 interpreted as an indication of Council’s displeasure at any department or office’s 24 response, rather as our guidance to seize this opportunity to improve as an organization. 25 As the City of Santa Monica sits at the nexus of massive urban sprawl, fault lines, 26 an ocean, mountains, and increasing risk of wildfires with a nearby suburban-rural 27 interface, we believe it is prudent for the City to use its largely successful response to the 28 Palisades Fire to prepare for future natural disasters. It is imperative to assure our entire 29 City staff, community leadership, and the general public that we are effectively capturing 30 these lessons, seeking wide community feedback, and improving where needed. 31 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
32 1. Direct the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk’s Offices to effectuate a City33 wide AAR for each department and office, with an emphasis on looking at the City 34 as a whole and across departments.
35 2. Direct the City Manager to retain an independent, third party consultant to lead this 36 effort and produce a comprehensive public report.
16.M.a
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: 20250128 16 Item - After Action Review of City Response to Palisades Fire - Hall Torosis (6850 : After Action Review of Palisades 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBER DAN HALL AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE CAROLINE
TOROSIS
Palisades Fire After Action Review
37 3. Direct the City Manager to return to Council no later than 12 months from today 38 with the above comprehensive public report outlining recommendations for each 39 department or office, and the City as a whole, with a plan to implement (or having 40 implemented) said recommendations.
41 # # #
16.M.a
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: 20250128 16 Item - After Action Review of City Response to Palisades Fire - Hall Torosis (6850 : After Action Review of Palisades City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 28, 2025
Agenda Item: 16.N
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall that, in conjunction with necessary updates arising out of SB 450, and in order to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas, the City Council directs the City Manager and the City Attorney to return with an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each. One year after implementation, city staff shall return with a report on any impacts of the ordinance, as amended, including data on net new housing units permitted, effects on displacement (if any), concentration of ownership, and other pertinent information to evaluate its success in affirmatively furthering fair housing and creating more affordable “missing middle” homes.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.N
Packet Pg. 1702
1 David Yakobson
From: Allan Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support of SB 450 16 Item to Amend Lot Split and Duplex Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Allan Brown
1014 Broadway, Box 997
Santa Monica, California 90401
28 January 2025
Dear Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, Hall, and Members of the City Council I am writing this letter to express my support for amending the city’s regulations in favor of certain lot splits and duplexes on areas zoned for single-unit residences.
In July 2013, I visited Santa Monica and immediately fell in love with the city. No matter where I was in Santa Monica, I could feel the ocean breeze yet still easily connected to all the excitement of LA county. I knew this was the city I wanted to be in. After graduating college in June 2014, I started my life in Santa Monica by renting a room of a homeowner; it was the perfect scenario for a young professional just getting started with his post-college life. After 3 years, my career grew, but my housing options didn’t.
The homeowner I was renting a room from had put his house on the market, and I had to explore another living situation. There were hardly any options for me. Finding an apartment with individuals looking for roommates proved difficult, and the limited one-bedroom apartments available were just financially impossible for me. I had to leave the city. I moved to Redondo Beach, a nice city, but not without its own problems with available rental options. I rented a room of a 3-bedroom backhouse with 2 other roommates. It was a good experience, but certainly not the life I had envisioned for myself post college.
In December 2023, I found an apartment in Santa Monica, and I returned to the city I love. That process wasn’t easy, because my options were so limited. In West Hollywood, and other parts of LA county, there are more options of apartments because of more duplexes and middle housing throughout their city. In Santa Monica, more usage of under-utilized land could bring back more businesses, improve enrollment Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 2 in our schools, and make the community thrive with a diverse population of working professionals and their families.
Santa Monica has unique characteristics and a rich history. I acknowledge that we must remember its history and preserve its unique characteristics that make Santa Monica so appealing. However, the world is changing, and it’s important that Santa Monica doesn’t fall behind our changing world. Without duplexes and more housing options, most that remain are housing options of single-family units, which are financially inaccessible to younger, working professionals like me. Without more multi-family units, we will continue to see properties held by older generations with their grown children in other, distant communities. These relics will leave our storefronts empty and our streets full of the un-housed due to ever-decreasing foot-traffic.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter. I believe that such amendments will attract people that will contribute positively to the city of Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Allan Brown
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 9:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: Agenda Item 16-N -- OPPOSE removing the owner-occupancy requirement - Jan. 28 City Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
Northeast Neighbors OPPOSE the proposed change to SB9 that removes the owneroccupancy requirement in lot spits and duplexes. (Agenda Item 16-N) This change will provide no affordability. This change will not benefit the City or community.
What it will result in is larger units and more opportunities for developers.
It is in the City’s interest to encourage owner-occupancy of these projects.
Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Gehman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Stephen Anderson
Subject: Support of SB 450 16 Item to amend lot split ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, Hall, and Members of the City Council, I strongly support your request to explore amendments to the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. This is an important step toward addressing Santa Monica’s growing need for diverse housing options and supporting the long-term vibrancy in the community.
Allowing for thoughtful updates—such as removing the owner-occupancy requirement, clarifying eligibility for vacant or demolished parcels, and permitting roof decks—will help create much needed new housing types. These changes will help alleviate the pressure on Santa Monica’s housing market, where the current supply cannot meet the demand. By enabling the increased density on eligible lots, we can provide opportunities for families and individuals who might otherwise be priced out of the community.
I commend the City Council for taking proactive steps to address these issues and for ensuring that any impacts from the ordinance are carefully monitored and assessed. The success of this initiative will not only be measured in new housing units but also in how it strengthens the diverse, inclusive, and vibrant character that makes Santa Monica such a special place to live and work.
Thank you for y our consideration of this important matter. I am confident that these updates will help pave the way for a more sustainable and equitable future for Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
DANIEL GEHMAN, AIA LEED AP
principal
Irvine | Los Angeles | Nashville
60 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606
oƯice 949.474.6030 ext. 122 cell 949.412.2697
www.danielian.com
Schedule a meeting with me via Calendly.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 2 David Yakobson
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: Bruce Leddy; Nancy Coleman
Subject: Item 16N, Jan 28th, 2025 - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
TO: Mayor Negrete, Council Members, & City Manager White RE: Item 16N - Oppose
The Board of NOMA objects to Item 16N, the directive to staff to provide an update of our ordinances governing ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits. Specifically, the item requests removal of the owner occupancy requirement, the removal of which is NOT required by state law and is at odds with the intent of state law to limit the availability of ministerial approval to property owners who reside on a property from the date of approval. Removing the owner occupancy provision – as well as all limitations to demolition – will open all single-family residential properties to speculative purchase by developers.
This will lead to the destruction of family neighborhoods in favor of profit-driven development.
We urge you to vote NO on item 16N, or to modify it to retain an owner occupancy requirement that is consistent with current state law and is crucial to our not ceding all control of our existing residential neighborhoods to developers.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Bruce Leddy for
The NOMA Board
NOMA'S Next Meeting: THUR. FEBRUARY 6TH
at 7PM on ZOOM
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81526517066
smnoma.org
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 3 [email protected]
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 4 David Yakobson
From: Amy Horwath <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16.N - Support for SB450 to Amend Lot Split & Duplex Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
I am writing to the city council in support of agenda item 16.N to amend the City's regulations for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential.
My husband and I recently lost our home in the Palisades Fire and are now renting a townhome and are residents of Santa Monica. We encountered significant difficulties with high demand and a lack of inventory when securing temporary housing in Santa Monica.
We strongly support as many rental and for-sale market rate duplexes and ADUs as possible, particularly in single family neighborhoods where no new housing has been created in our lifetime. The creation of more “missing middle” homes would help to alleviate housing pressure in the market.
Thank you,
Amy Horwath
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 5 David Yakobson
From: Roger Sanchez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support of SB 450 - Item 16: To Amend Lot Split and Duplex Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, Hall, and Members of the City Council, I am writing in strong support of your request to explore amendments to the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential. This is an important step toward addressing Santa Monica’s growing need for diverse housing options and supporting the long-term vibrancy of our community.
As a Santa Monica resident who started a business here shortly after college, I have experienced firsthand the challenges that arise from the lack of housing in our city. Currently, the choices available are largely limited to single-family homes, older apartment buildings, or small condominiums converted from apartments. There is little room for the “missing middle” housing that would provide attainable options for a broader range of residents.
Allowing for thoughtful updates—such as removing the owner-occupancy requirement, clarifying eligibility for vacant or demolished parcels, and permitting roof decks—will help create much-needed new housing types. These changes will alleviate the pressure on Santa Monica’s housing market, where the current supply cannot meet demand. By enabling the increased density on eligible lots, we can provide opportunities for families and individuals who might otherwise be priced out of the community.
Additional housing of this nature will also provide direct economic and community benefits. Santa Monica’s businesses, including restaurants, shops, and service providers, rely on a robust local population to thrive. By increasing housing opportunities within the city, we reduce the strain on those commuting from outside Santa Monica due to a lack of supply or affordability. This aligns with the city’s sustainability goals, as reducing commuter traffic contributes to lower carbon emissions and a more livable urban environment.
I commend the City Council for taking proactive steps to address these issues and for ensuring that any impacts from the ordinance are carefully monitored and assessed. The success of this initiative will not only be measured in new housing units but in how it strengthens the diverse, inclusive, and vibrant character that makes Santa Monica such a special place to live and work.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. I am confident that these updates will help pave the way for a more sustainable and equitable future for Santa Monica.
Best,
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 6 Roger Sanchez
President and CEO | Uncomn Projects ®
Powering Your Brand™
805 878 6887
[email protected]
www.Uncomn-Projects.com
8581 Santa Monica Blvd #511, West Hollywood, CA 90069
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 1/28/25 agenda item 16-N -- OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
January 27, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/28/25 agenda item 16-N -- Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE
Dear City Council Members:
We wrote to you in December asking you to not remove the voice of the residents by expanding development “streamlining”. But you moved forward with a plan for ministerial approval of “housing projects” in all nonresidential zones.
Now you are proposing ministerial approvals in single family neighborhoods for more duplexes and lot splits than the state requires, which undermines both the residents and “little d” democracy.
We are writing to oppose Item 16.N., which would allow “ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each.”
Owner-occupancy is a requirement in R1 because, absent the presence of an owner, you have just converted R1 to R2 in violation of the LUCE. Furthermore, expanding ministerial approval for full demolitions will encourage the sale, demolition, and construction of rental units in neighborhoods characterized by home ownership. The upzoning and demolition prospects makes these lots much more likely to be purchased by developers than homeowners.
We are very concerned that you would move forward with this without the following information, which you have not sought:
1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff. We expect decisions that impact residents to be based on data. Prior to any procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 8 levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each incomelevel RHNA target now.
2. No Evidence Process Needs to be Faster, that this Process Slows or Would be Faster With Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.
3. No Evidence Process is More Expensive, that the Expense is Preventing Housing, or the that Cost Savings for a Project Resulting from the Change. Again, without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the costs of the process with and without a public process. We have yet to see any full public accounting of a project so that we can see not only what the public process costs, but how that compares to the overall costs and profits of a project. We shouldn’t be asked to forego public engagement for an unknown benefit to developers.
4. No Information About How Many Parcels are Impacted. “Parcels zoned for single-unit residential” is a huge area and includes parcels of many sizes and with different topography. We need an inventory of all parcels by size, along with an analysis of what the impact would be if all of them were to be modified under this change.
5. No Analysis of Impact on State Housing Laws. Given the fluidity of state housing laws, it’s imperative to understand how such an ordinance relates to our compliance with the current housing element and how it impacts our future obligations to build more market rate units. We already saw that council is unwilling to request an amendment to current the staff “error” upzoning Ocean Park Boulevard based on the unsubstantiated claim that it would trigger Builder’s Remedy. We are very concerned that enacting this ordinance could then never be reversed, lest staff and council claim a reversal would throw us into another Builder’s Remedy.
6. No Evidence Such an Ordinance Makes Housing More Affordable. We have said many times before that we do not object to affordable housing, we object to projects that do not comply with local zoning. Here, there are no affordability requirements in this proposal. We do NOT need more marketrate housing and we cannot continue to approve projects with no affordable units, which leaves us unable to meet our affordability targets while overburdening our limited resources with market-rate units. Trickle down housing does not work. Furthermore, we are disappointed that council fails to require 30% affordable consistent with Prop A.
As we have shown, there are simply too many unknowns, both respect to where we are and what the impacts would be of this ordinance. The new council’s decision to push this forward, among other similar changes, merely confirms our fears – that they will be governing based on ideology, not data or evidence, for the purposes of increasing market rate housing density regardless of its impact on existing neighborhoods and residents.
No ordinance should be ordered, and no ordinance can be taken seriously, without first requesting all of the information above from staff. Then, ONLY IF a need can be demonstrated for expanding the existing streamlining provisions, it still should be limited as follows:
· Ministerial approval should not be available if one of the units will not be occupied by the owner; · Ministerial approval should not be available for duplexes and lot splits that exceed SB450’s demolition caps;
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 9 · Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and
· Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 10 David Yakobson
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Support for Agenda Items L and N – Public Safety and Housing Choice Initiatives
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for two critical agenda items under consideration:
Agenda Item L – Prioritizing the Deterrence of Dangerous Driving Agenda Item N – Expanding Diverse Housing Choices in Santa Monica Support for Agenda Item L – Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Dangerous driving continues to pose a significant threat to the safety and well-being of Santa Monica’s residents, visitors, and vulnerable road users. Agenda Item L, proposed by Councilmembers Zwick and Hall, is an essential step toward improving traffic safety and preventing unnecessary injuries and fatalities.
The proposed actions to increase high-visibility enforcement operations, provide transparent quarterly data reporting on traffic stops and violations, and develop a proposal to restore traffic enforcement capabilities to pre-2020 levels will enhance accountability and ensure progress in reducing dangerous driving behavior. These initiatives reflect Santa Monica’s commitment to public safety and are deserving of unanimous Council support.
Support for Agenda Item N - Expanding Diverse Housing Choices I also strongly support the request by Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall to amend Santa Monica’s regulations for ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes in single-unit residential zones. In line with SB 450 and the city’s goals of providing diverse and equitable housing options, this proposal represents a forward-thinking approach to addressing the housing crisis.
The specific amendments proposed, including removing owner-occupancy requirements, allowing roof decks, and ensuring construction feasibility for two units of at least 1,200 square feet each, will help foster the development of more affordable “missing middle” homes. Additionally, I appreciate the inclusion of a one-year review process to assess impacts such as housing production, displacement, and progress toward affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Santa Monica must take bold action to provide diverse housing options in high-opportunity areas while maintaining a commitment to equity and sustainability. This ordinance is a critical step toward achieving those goals.
Together, these two agenda items exemplify Santa Monica’s dedication to enhancing public safety and addressing the housing needs of our community. I urge the Council to approve both measures and continue prioritizing initiatives that make Santa Monica a safer, more equitable, and more vibrant city for all.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1715 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 11 Thank you for your leadership and thoughtful consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
Eli Gill
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 12 David Yakobson
From: Taylor Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on agenda Item 16N
EXTERNAL
Please vote no on 1/28/2025 agenda item 16N.
Owner occupancy assures we have neighbors, not developers, which is a reasonable and important cornerstone of the SB9 legislation, and the balance of interests negotiated by our state representatives.
Furthermore, rooftop decks are a luxury amenity which will serve to push rents well beyond the "missing middle" this agenda item proposes to restore.
Lastly, by all appearances, this agenda item is in response to the difficulties of the developers of the highly unpopular 1101 Stanford and 1230 Ashland projects. There are many other SB9 developments that appear to be progressing successfully and without neighborhood opposition under the current ordinance. The law was known to these developers when they purchased the properties and there are plenty of options for them under it. It is not your duty to ensure maximum profit for these specific developers and the mere request for this agenda item questions the integrity of the City Council.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1717 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 12:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Re: Item 16.N. Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Re: Item 16.N. Administrative Approval for Development in Non-Residential Zones – OPPOSE
Dear City Council Members:
We wrote to you in December asking you to not remove the voice of the residents by expanding development “streamlining”. But you moved forward with a plan for ministerial approval of “housing projects” in all nonresidential zones. Now you are proposing ministerial approvals in single family neighborhoods for more duplexes and lot splits than the state requires, which undermines both the residents and “little d” democracy.
We are writing to oppose Item 16.N., which would allow “ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each.”
Owner-occupancy is a requirement in R1 because, absent the presence of an owner, you have just converted R1 to R2 in violation of the LUCE. Furthermore, expanding ministerial approval for full demolitions will encourage the sale, demolition, and construction of rental units in neighborhoods characterized by home ownership. The upzoning and demolition prospects makes these lots much more likely to be purchased by developers than homeowners.
We are very concerned that you would move forward with this without the following information, which you have not sought:
1. No Baseline or Progress Established. You aren’t asking for any data relating to our development activity before instructing staff. We expect decisions that impact residents to be based on data. Prior to any procedural changes being made, you must request data from staff that includes: number of applications, status of each application, number of units in process by number of bedrooms and income levels, size of units, height of buildings, FAR of buildings, and aggregate progress toward each income-level RHNA target now.
2. No Evidence Process Needs to be Faster, that this Process Slows or Would be Faster With Change. Without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1718 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 2 up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the difference in timelines of a housing project with and without a public process.
3. No Evidence Process is More Expensive, that the Expense is Preventing Housing, or the that Cost Savings for a Project Resulting from the Change. Again, without the information from #1, you don’t know we are “behind” and need to “speed up.” Furthermore, you have presented no information about the costs of the process with and without a public process. We have yet to see any full public accounting of a project so that we can see not only what the public process costs, but how that compares to the overall costs and profits of a project. We shouldn’t be asked to forego public engagement for an unknown benefit to developers.
4. No Information About How Many Parcels are Impacted. “Parcels zoned for single-unit residential” is a huge area and includes parcels of many sizes and with different topography. We need an inventory of all parcels by size, along with an analysis of what the impact would be if all of them were to be modified under this change.
5. No Analysis of Impact on State Housing Laws. Given the fluidity of state housing laws, it’s imperative to understand how such an ordinance relates to our compliance with the current housing element and how it impacts our future obligations to build more market rate units. We already saw that council is unwilling to request an amendment to current the staff “error” upzoning Ocean Park Boulevard based on the unsubstantiated claim that it would trigger Builder’s Remedy. We are very concerned that enacting this ordinance could then never be reversed, lest staff and council claim a reversal would throw us into another Builder’s Remedy.
6. No Evidence Such an Ordinance Makes Housing More Affordable. We have said many times before that we do not object to affordable housing, we object to projects that do not comply with local zoning. Here, there are no affordability requirements in this proposal. We do NOT need more marketrate housing and we cannot continue to approve projects with no affordable units, which leaves us unable to meet our affordability targets while overburdening our limited resources with market-rate units. Trickle down housing does not work. Furthermore, we are disappointed that council fails to require 30% affordable consistent with Prop A.
As we have shown, there are simply too many unknowns, both respect to where we are and what the impacts would be of this ordinance. The new council’s decision to push this forward, among other similar changes, merely confirms our fears – that they will be governing based on ideology, not data or evidence, for the purposes of increasing market rate housing density regardless of its impact on existing neighborhoods and residents.
No ordinance should be ordered, and no ordinance can be taken seriously, without first requesting all of the information above from staff. Then, ONLY IF a need can be demonstrated for expanding the existing streamlining provisions, it still should be limited as follows:
· Ministerial approval should not be available if one of the units will not be occupied by the owner; · Ministerial approval should not be available for duplexes and lot splits that exceed SB450’s demolition caps;
· Streamlining should ONLY be provided to those projects that conform to existing zoning, without any state bonuses; and
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 3 · Streamlining should only be allowed for projects that achieve 30% affordable AND are consistent with local zoning WITHOUT state bonuses
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 4 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: David White; [email protected]; Santa Monica Forward Subject: Support for Agenda Items 16k and 16N
Attachments: 2025-01 CC Support items 16K and 16N SaMoSSA-SMF.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members, Please find a joint support letter for agenda items 16K and 16N from the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward.
With sincere appreciation,
Cynthia Rose, Cris Gutierrez, Brad Ewing & Carl Hansen
--
Cynthia Rose and Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SaMoSafeStreets.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) January 27, 2024
RE: Support for Agenda Items 16K and 16N
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council members:
The Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance and Santa Monica Forward would like to express our full support for the following items:
Support item 16K to undo the previous harm that criminalized homelessness and targeted our most vulnerable with the abject cruelty of taking warmth and basic comfort from folks without a home by adding the mere existence of “sleeping bags, or bedrolls” to the description of an encampment to section 1A. We applaud the proposed updated ordinance for section 1.1 to remove reference to “sleeping bags” and “bedrolls.” We also appreciate the renewed compassion of adding to section 1D “This ordinance does not prohibit those who are unhoused or homeless from using sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, and/or bedrolls while sleeping.” to the existing no camping ordinance. These updates better represent who we are in Santa Monica. Thank you.
Support item 16N: With the ongoing housing crisis we thank Council for taking leadership to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City of Santa Monica - specifically proposing an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential in the highest opportunity areas. In this current housing crisis we applaud our leadership for proposing to “removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes” and for ensuring that no standards within the ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs. Thank you
Thank you, City Council, for being leaders with intelligence, responsibility and a heart as you solve problems. We support and thank you for the proposed items 16K and 16N, and for leading responsibly and honorably.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: City Council -- 1/28/25 -- item 16-N -- Oppose removing the owner-occupancy requirement
EXTERNAL
January 27, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 1/28/25 agenda item 16-N -- Removing the owner-occupancy requirement in lot splits and duplexes I oppose the portion of item 16-N that removes the owner-occupancy requirement in lot spits and duplexes in R1 neighborhoods.
In 2021, the Friends of Sunset Park Boar opposed SB-9 because there was no affordability requirement.
Regarding affordability, I observed a few years ago the sale of two older single family homes on R-2 lots, one on Bay Street in Sunset Park and the other on 19th Street in the Pico neighborhood.
Each house sold for $2 million, and was then replaced by 3 townhouse-style condos which sold for $2 million EACH. Splitting the lot did not improve affordability.
Allowing a homeowner to rent out all of the units resulting from a lot split or duplex will not improve affordability.
So what's the point? Density for density's sake? Encouraging the reduction of greenspace in our residential neighborhoods? Already, with the increase in ADU's, there are fewer backyards in R-1 neighborhoods where kids can play. How does this improve the quality of life in our city? ********************************************************************* SB 9 – FOSP position in 2021:
Vancouver urban planner and University of British Columbia Professor Patrick Condon is the author of the new book Sick Cities. He says that unaffordability is caused by “an ever-increasing gap between wages and the price of urban land. In Vancouver there is no such thing as single-family zoning anymore.
We have incrementally quadrupled density … but we haven’t seen any decrease in per square foot housing costs. That evidence is indisputable….To summarize: Zoning is not the problem.” Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 6 A prime example of this in Santa Monica is an area of the Pico neighborhood that’s been zoned “multifamily” where a single-family home has recently been replaced by 3 townhouse-style condos. The three condos are currently on the market for $2 million each. Increased density has NOT resulted in increased affordability.
SB 9 is a proposed up-zoning law that would end single-family zoning in California by allowing 8 housing units where there is now one single-family lot (i.e., one parcel). Here is how this would happen:
1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single parcel in a single-family residential zone (the so-called “duplex” provision, but in reality a “two residential units” provision) and Govt Code 66411.7 (the lot-split provision).
a) The “two-residential-units-on-one-parcel provision” authorizes two residential units on a single lot, in a single-family residential zone.
b) The “lot-split” provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal size. c) An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially (approved by staff, not by Planning Commissions or City Councils), by right.
d) There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.
2. Under existing law, there is already a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).
a) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov.
Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
b) A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is allowed to be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more than 500 square feet. c) A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be located, only based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an ordinance.
d) “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD (California Dept. of Housing and Community Development) within 60 days.”
e) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to any category of affordable housing.
f) Here is link to the HCD website:
https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 7 g) Here is a link to the HCD Handbook:
https://hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-ta-handbook-final.pdf
3. Under SB 9, there are three scenarios that illustrate how many units could be built on one existing lot (parcel):
a) Scenario One: The “two residential units” provision of SB 9 (sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, but not limited to “duplexes”) is invoked, but not the lot-split provision: The single lot can now have two free-standing houses, two townhouses, or a duplex. There is no requirement as to whether the two residential units must be a “duplex,” or attached to each other, or free-standing. In addition, an ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the parcel. Total of 4 units: “Two residential units” plus an ADU and a JADU on the single lot.
b) Scenario Two: The lot-split provision of SB 9 is invoked, but not the “two residential units” provision allowed on each of the two new lots. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have one freestanding house or townhouse, PLUS an ADU and a JADU. Total of 6 units: “Two residential units” plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots. c) Scenario Three: Both the lot-split provision and the “two residential units” provision are invoked.
One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have two free-standing houses or townhouses, PLUS each lot is entitled to an ADU and a JADU. Total of
8 units: Four “residential units,” plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
N. Request of Councilmembers Zwick, Zernitskaya, and Hall that, in conjunction with necessary updates arising out of SB 450, and in order to facilitate diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas, the City Council directs the City Manager and the City Attorney to return with an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations governing ministerial approval for certain lot splits and duplexes on parcels zoned for single-unit residential by: (1) removing the owner-occupancy requirement for lot splits and duplexes and clarifying that vacant or demolished parcels, as well as lots with approved demolition permits, are eligible for lot splits and duplexes, (2) allowing one roof deck per unit, and (3) ensuring that no standard within this ordinance or the underlying zoning district shall preclude the construction of 2 units, not including ADUs, of at least 1200 square feet each. One year after implementation, city staff shall return with a report on any impacts of the ordinance, as amended, including data on net new housing units permitted, effects on displacement (if any), concentration of ownership, and other pertinent information to evaluate its success in affirmatively furthering fair housing and creating more affordable “missing middle” homes.
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.Revised Title. 1/24/2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 8 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 16N
EXTERNAL
Good evening Council,
Please support item 16N to facilitate more housing choices in Santa Monica. We need to build more of every type of housing for the city and county to recover from decades of inadequate construction.
Missing middle types of housing are a critical piece that should be encouraged at every opportunity.
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 1 David Yakobson
From: Peter Borenstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Discussion Item 16N
EXTERNAL
This amendment would conflict with Gov Code s 66411.7(g)(1) which imposes the owner-occupancy requirement for SB 9 lot splits statewide.
SB 450 changed a lot of things but it did not remove the owner-occupancy requirement, which is what the title of Item 16N suggests.
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1727 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450) 1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I support item 16N
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I fully support item 16N.
As if the housing crisis wasn't already bad enough, the climate catastrophe the LA region is currently going through (which sprawl and single-family neighborhoods surely contribute to) will only make the issue worse; it's already showing.
We must do everything we can to allow more people to live in our amazing, walkable, bikeable, livable city and this item is a great move in that direction.
It also happens to be a great use of state law.
I hope you all support item 16N.
Caro Vilain, 90404
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
Item 16-N
January 28, 2025
16.N.a
Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6872 : Updates arising our of SB 450)