Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 3 of 8)

• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps
• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Contracts awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder (not applicable in Santa Monica)
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget

2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.

Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.

3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $250 made in the prior twelve months.

A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or

4.E.f
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7034 : Property Insurance Brokerage Services)

Page 3 ends

other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.

4. Who is considered an officer of the City?
An “officer” is anyone who may make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a decision in the proceeding or who exercises authority over officers who may do so. This includes elected officials, members of appointed boards and commissions, the City Manager, and any individual who is a candidate for elected office or who has been a candidate in the twelve months prior to the decision. This definition is included on the Disclosure Form.

5. When should the disclosure occur?
The Disclosure Form must be completed (1) by a party to a contract with the City (or that party’s agent) at the time the party submits a response to a Request for Proposal or other competitive solicitation, enters into contract negotiations with the City, or executes a contract with the City, whichever is earliest; or (2) by a party to a license, permit, or other entitlement proceeding before the City at the time the party (or their agent) submits the license, permit, or entitlement application to the City. The party (or their agent) must submit a supplemental form if they make any new reportable contributions while the same contract, license, permit, or other entitlement is being considered. The party (or their agent) must also use the form if they need to correct any previously submitted form.

Parties are solely responsible for completing the form accurately, and could face penalties for failure to do so. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the body who enforces violations of the Levine Act. If a party is uncertain about whether they are required to report or combine a contribution, they should consult with their attorney.

Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

4.E.f
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure Form (7034 : Property Insurance Brokerage Services) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.F
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Matthew Hallock, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: Award Agreement to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management Program Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with WISE & Healthy Aging to operate a care management program for the Santa Monica Fire Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Sections 2.24.240(a) and 2.24.250(i) and is for a total amount not to exceed $1,250,000 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval and grant funding.

Summary
The Santa Monica Fire Department’s (“SMFD”) Care Management Program addresses the growing challenge of frequent utilization of the 911 emergency response system by vulnerable individuals with complex health and social needs. These frequent 9-1-1 calls strain emergency resources and the resulting response often fails to provide the calling party with a long-term solution. By proactively connecting high utilizers to communitybased services, the Program not only improves health outcomes and reduces emergency calls, but it also plays a critical role in preventing homelessness, which is a key City strategic pillar and aligns with the City’s current Homelessness Strategic Plan.

After an initial two-year pilot program, staff believes that continued investment in this approach will strengthen the safety net, reduce strain on City emergency services, and will promote a more equitable and sustainable system of care. Therefore, staff

4.F
Packet Pg. 434
2 of 5
recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with WISE & Healthy Aging to operate the City’s Care Management Program for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 and for a five-year term.

Discussion
At the start of the FY 2023-25 biennial budget cycle, SMFD entered into a partnership with WISE & Healthy Aging (“WISE”) for care management services. Funding was provided by Los Angeles County through the Westside Cities Council of Governments (“WSCCOG”). SMFD and WISE collaborated to provide hands-on support services to vulnerable community members identified by SMFD personnel as being excessive 9-1-1 callers with multiple complicated needs who may significantly benefit from care management support. This partnership is a pilot program that expires on June 30, 2025.

Care Management Program (CMP)
The WISE & Healthy Aging and SMFD Care Management Pilot Program was launched in September 2023 to address the growing volume of non-emergency 9-1-1 calls from vulnerable community members, particularly older adults with chronic health issues, mobility limitations, housing instability, and social isolation. The Program plays a critical role in preventing individuals from falling into homelessness by addressing root causes that can lead to housing instability, particularly among vulnerable populations such as older adults and individuals with chronic health issues. In addition, the Program provides these individuals with the following support services:
• Addressing underlying health and mobility issues
• Preventing evictions through hoarding and home safety interventions • Connecting clients to financial assistance and utility programs • Support for mental health and social isolation
• Facilitating long-term care and placement in supportive housing • Proactive engagement with clients before housing crises occur The Program also has public health and safety benefits. During the two-year pilot, the Program:
• Reduced fire hazards by addressing hoarding conditions in several homes

4.F
Packet Pg. 435
3 of 5
• Prevention of falls through home modifications and durable medical equipment installations
• Improved mental health by reducing isolation and providing access to social and psychological support
These efforts directly support the City’s strategic goals by improving individual health outcomes, enhancing public safety, and helping residents maintain housing stability.

Taken as a whole these efforts effectively work to reduce or prevent homelessness.

Throughout its first year, the Program demonstrated measurable success. For enrolled and closed cases, 9-1-1 calls dropped by 86% (from 192 to 26), and for active cases, calls dropped by 80% (from 56 to 11). Beyond the reduction in emergency service use, the Program improved participants’ quality of life, stabilized housing situations, and reduced public safety risks such as fall hazards and unsanitary living conditions. Staff recommends continued support and potential expansion of the Program to sustain these outcomes and to embed care coordination more permanently within SMFD’s EMS division. This approach represents a scalable, community-based solution that aligns with Council’s priorities around homelessness prevention, health equity, and the efficient delivery of City services.

The City’s Housing and Human Services (“HHS”) Department has already been notified by Los Angeles County of its allocation of funds from Measure A and the Local Solutions Fund for FY 2025-26. Measure A, which repealed and replaced Measure H as of April 1, 2025, is an ongoing half-cent sales tax approved by voters on November 5, 2024. It will enable continued progress on addressing homelessness with housing and related services while expanding funding to address the main drivers of homelessness through affordable housing construction and preservation, homelessness prevention, and support for vulnerable renters. The Local Solutions Fund (“LSF”) is an allocation of Measure A funding to the 88 cities of Los Angeles County, the six Councils of Government, and to the unincorporated areas. LSF funds programs consistent with the requirements set forth in Measure A or in Government Code section 64700 et seq (Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency). The FY 2025-26 allocation is

4.F
Packet Pg. 436
4 of 5
expected to be approximately $238,000. While future funding is not guaranteed, Measure A is an ongoing sales tax and the funding for care management services is also expected to be ongoing.

Exception to the Competitive Bidding Process
Consistent with the initial Proclamation of the City Council Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness adopted by Council on February 14, 2023, and most recently extended on March 11, 2025, with the 2025 Proclamation, this contract award qualifies as an emergency award pursuant to SMMC 2.24.240(a) and subsequently is recommended as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to SMMC

2.24.250(i).

Staff recommends an emergency award due to the severity and urgency of the homelessness crisis in the City. According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report published in October 2023, the fastest growing group in the nation’s population of people experiencing homelessness is older adults, comprising nearly half of the homeless population nationwide. This number is expected to triple by 2030 and older adult homelessness has increased by 25% in the Los Angeles Continuum of Care between 2020 and 2024. Because of WISE’s expertise and experience in serving vulnerable community members, particularly in Santa Monica, staff recommends an emergency award to WISE & Healthy Aging.

Staff recommends an initial one-year agreement, which aligns with the Measure A and LSF allocation beginning July 1, 2025, and a budget of $250,000 including contingency for any future allocations from Los Angeles County. After the initial term, the contract will have four 1-year renewal options, each aligning with the potential allocation from the County and ensuring there are non-General Fund monies available for the contracted services. WISE has an understanding that the proposed contract will be entirely grant funded and agrees to a termination without penalty provision should funding cease.

Environmental Review
The contract award to WISE & Healthy Aging is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no

4.F
Packet Pg. 437
5 of 5
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The case management services provided by WISE & Healthy Aging are administrative in nature. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the award contract would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Miscellaneous Grant Fund to award an agreement with WISE & Healthy Aging for care management services. Funds will be included in the FY 2025-27 Proposed Biennial Budget.

Agreement Request
Future Years
Amount Department Account # Total Contract Amount
$250,000 20420001.556480.21038 $1,250,000
Prepared By: Jonathan Tang, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Living Wage - WISE 2024
B. Levine Act Disclosure - WISE 2025
C. Oaks Initiative WISE 2025

4.F
Packet Pg. 438

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Living Wage - WISE 2024 (7039 : Award to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management)

4.F.a
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Living Wage - WISE 2024 (7039 : Award to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management)

4.F.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure - WISE 2025 (7039 : Award to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management)

4.F.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Levine Act Disclosure - WISE 2025 (7039 : Award to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management)

4.F.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Oaks Initiative WISE 2025 (7039 : Award to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management)

4.F.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Oaks Initiative WISE 2025 (7039 : Award to WISE & Healthy Aging for Care Management) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.G
1 of 14
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Department of Transportation, Transit Planning & Performance
Subject: Adoption of Big Blue Bus Fare Policy
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Adopt the proposed Big Blue Bus fare changes to be implemented in two phases beginning in August 2025; and

3. Receive and file the results of the Title VI Fare Equity Analysis.

Summary
A reliable and safe bus system in Santa Monica and on the Westside is critical to economic opportunity and growth for residents, workers, and visitors. To ensure the fiscal resiliency of Big Blue Bus, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is proposing fare changes that would address shortfalls in transit revenue as Big Blue Bus faces declining per boarding fare revenue, rising operational costs, and uncertainty surrounding future federal funding. Without transitioning to a more financially sustainable fare revenue model, DOT risks delays in the implementation of the Brighter Blue Five Year Service Plan and/or reductions in service and rider experience improvements such as the Transit Safety Officer program.

The proposal calls for increases to all existing fares and passes, as well as the elimination of two underutilized passes, the Annual Pass and the 30-Day Youth Pass.

While the proposed fare changes are increases relative to existing fares, when adjusted

4.G
Packet Pg. 445
2 of 14
for inflation, almost all fares would be less costly than those charged by Big Blue Bus a decade ago. The changes would be implemented in two phases to reduce financial burdens to riders. The first phase would be implemented on August 10, 2025, while the second phase would go into effect in the summer of 2027. A summary of the proposed fare changes is included as Attachment D.

Background
Currently, Big Blue Bus offers Single Rides, 1-Day Passes, 7-Day Passes, 10 Rides Passes, 30-Day Passes, and an Annual Pass for sale, while other regional, discounted, and free fare passes are also available to eligible riders. All Single Rides and Big Blue Bus Passes are sold at a Regular rate; all but the 7-Day and Annual Passes are sold at a discounted Senior/Disabled/Medicare (S/D/M) rate; and only the 30-Day pass is sold at a discounted Youth rate.

The following table shows the share of fare transactions by fare category (Ride or Pass type):

Fare Category Percent
Single Ride 46.9%
1-Day Pass 0.2%
7-Day Pass 0.3%
10-Ride 2.0%
30-Day 2.0%
Youth 30-Day 0.1%
Annual 0.1%
Interagency Transfers 6.2%
BBB to BBB Transfers 5.1%
U-Pass (i.e., UCLA) 12.4%
GoPass (i.e., K-12 & SMC) 14.5%
Access 4.2%
LIFE 3.4%
EZ-Pass 2.1%
E-Pass 0.5%
Total 100%
All Big Blue Bus Single Rides and Passes are available on TAP and Mobile Ticket.

Single Rides can also be paid using cash on board. The following table shows the share of fare transactions by fare media (TAP, Cash or Mobile Ticket):

4.G
Packet Pg. 446
3 of 14
Fare Media Percent
TAP 76.6%
Cash 19.6%
Mobile Ticketing 3.8%
Total 100%
While minor fare changes were made in 2017 and 2022, with the change in 2017 being a fare reduction, the last comprehensive changes to the Big Blue Bus fare schedule were approved by the City Council in October 2015.

The 2015 fare change increased the cost of a Single Ride Regular by 25 percent, from $1.00 to $1.25, and increased most other fare products by a comparable percentage, while the fare changes in 2017 lowered the Single Ride Regular contactless (TAP or mobile) fare from $1.25 to $1.10 to incentivize contactless payment (i.e., TAP and mobile tickets) over cash. An Annual Pass was also introduced in 2017.

The most recent fare changes in 2022 marked the conclusion of the year-long Big Blue Bus Contactless Fares Pilot during which only contactless methods of payment were accepted. The pilot was done to minimize interaction time at boarding and eliminate the exchange of physical payment forms (i.e., cash) between operators and riders to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. Additionally, the pilot served to assess such a policy’s impact on enhancing operational efficiency by decreasing dwell times at stops since cash transactions take longer than contactless payments. In addition to reinstating the option for cash payments on-board, other policy adjustments during the 2022 fare changes included introducing free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfers and a new 10 Rides Pass, eliminating paper passes, and increasing the age limit for complimentary Big Blue Bus rides from four to five years old.

The past decade has presented numerous challenges for transit providers nationwide, which have, amongst other things, levied significant financial pressures on transit agencies including Big Blue Bus. The region’s upcoming mega-events, such as the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games underscore the need for

4.G
Packet Pg. 447
4 of 14
a robust and resilient transit system to serve the transportation needs of the community and visitors.

Discussion
Several factors necessitate the proposed fare changes:
• The current average fare per boarding has decreased by 20 percent to 70 cents from the pre-pandemic average of 87 cents. Adjusting for inflation exacerbates this trend, which is the result of a combination of factors such as the free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfers implemented in 2022, the introduction of the free K-12 student GoPass Program in 2021, the expansion of fare-free programs at UCLA since 2020, and increased instances of fare evasion. • The operating cost per vehicle revenue hour is 21 percent higher now at $182 (as of FY2023-24) compared to less than $150 pre-pandemic. Labor costs make up the majority (71 percent) of operating costs, especially as efforts to offer the competitive wages needed to recruit and retain Motor Coach Operators have placed pressure on operating costs since the pandemic. While raising fares alone will not fully relieve these cost pressures, doing so will support DOT’s effort to continue offering competitive wages to Motor Coach Operators, thereby ensuring staffing levels needed to deliver the service enhancements planned in the years to come while addressing the reality of expenditures outpacing revenues. • The new federal administration’s policies have created uncertainty as to the future of federal funding to transit agencies. The “fiscal cliff” for transit agencies nationwide continues to be of serious concern in addition to rising inflation, which has led to increased costs on transit agencies.

The proposed fare changes would help mitigate the challenges of declining revenue per boarding, rising operational costs, and uncertainty surrounding future federal funding.

Big Blue Bus has maintained its current fare structure for many years; however, the obligation to operate a reliable and safe transit system necessitates this fare increase.

4.G
Packet Pg. 448
5 of 14
Beyond service enhancements proposed in the Brighter Blue service plan, safety initiatives partly supported by this effort include the Transit Safety Officer Program.

Launched in March 2024, this successful program places unarmed Transit Safety Officers throughout the system to ensure rider compliance with the code of conduct, leading to a comfortable, safe, and welcoming environment for everyone onboard.

Proposed Fare Changes
The goal of the fare changes is to raise fare revenue by modestly increasing the cost of single rides and passes while maintaining the free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfers and the availability of popular pass products. Below are the proposed changes to be implemented over a two-year period:

Table 1 Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Changes
Ride or Pass Current
Phase I
August 10, 2025
Phase II
Summer 2027
Regular
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile)
^ $1.10 $1.25 $1.50
Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.50 $1.75
1-Day Pass $4 $4.50 $5
7-Day Pass $14 $16 $18
10 Ride Pass^ $9 $10 $12
30-Day Pass $50 $55 $60
Annual Pass $500 Eliminate
Senior / Disabled / Medicare (S/D/M)
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile)
^ $0.50 $0.60 $0.65
Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.75
1-Day Pass $1.50 $1.75 $2
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50 $5 $6
30-Day Pass $24 $27 $30
Youth
30-Day Pass $19 Eliminate
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within two hours.

1. Increase Cost of Single Rides, 1-Day, 7-Day, 10 Rides, and 30-Day Passes The proposed cost increase to these fare products will result in an average fare per boarding of approximately 85 cents, which is comparable to pre-pandemic figures. These fares are still relatively inexpensive and in line with the other transit providers in the region as can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, and, when

4.G
Packet Pg. 449
6 of 14
adjusted for inflation, the proposed fares are comparable to or cheaper than Big Blue Bus fares during the 2010s.

2. Elimination of the Annual Pass
The Annual Pass, introduced in 2017, is proposed for elimination due to its extremely rare sales and usage. For a variety of reasons, and as the data shows, this pass has become irrelevant over time. In FY23-24, annual passes accounted for 7,156 rides, or less than 0.1 percent of all Big Blue Bus rides. Only five annual passes were sold during FY2023-24, and the low sales continue through this fiscal year.

3. Eliminate Youth 30-Day Pass
The Youth 30-Day Pass has experienced rare usage in recent years. The pass has also been made largely irrelevant with the introduction of the regional GoPass Program in 2021, which provides free transit usage for K-12 students at participating schools throughout the Big Blue Bus service area and is accepted as a valid fare product on Big Blue Bus. All schools in the Santa Monica-Malibu and Los Angeles Unified School Districts participate in GoPass, as do most public charter schools and many independent schools. In FY23-24, 30-Day Youth Pass ridership consisted of 4,986 trips, or less than 0.1 percent of total Big Blue Bus ridership. Only 142 passes were sold last fiscal year (or averaging about 12 monthly) and this has dwindled further with approximately 6 passes sold monthly through the first half of this fiscal year.

Big Blue Bus will maintain the following policies:

Free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus Transfers
Although a factor in reducing the average fare per boarding in recent years, the proposed fare changes maintain the popular free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfers. Free transfers were implemented in 2022 to spur ridership growth, which was realized with ridership increasing each subsequent year. The proportion of single ride transfers rose from 7 percent to 12 percent, indicating ridership gain and a significant benefit to those riders that take advantage of the free transfer policy.

Incentive for use of Contactless Fares

4.G
Packet Pg. 450
7 of 14
The fare policy of differentiating between cash and contactless Single Ride fares, with cash fares being slightly more costly, is recommended in order to continue encouraging riders to pursue contactless forms of payment. This incentive will also be extended to those eligible for S/D/M Single Rides. Slightly fewer than 20 percent of Big Blue Bus riders pay with cash, one of the lowest levels in the county and a regional success story in the effort to move riders away from cash payments onboard transit.

Equitable and Affordable Fares
While the proposed fare changes represent increases, the most price-sensitive ridership groups, namely low-income individuals and students, will still be able to ride free on Big Blue Bus with a qualifying pass. Big Blue Bus will continue to participate in the countywide LIFE (Low Income Fare is Easy) Program, which gives low-income riders 20 free rides every month or discounts on passes. In addition, Big Blue Bus will continue participating in the GoPass Program, which allows unlimited free rides for K-12 and community college students at participating schools. Notably, both SMC and UCLA offer their own pass programs that allow their students unlimited free rides on Big Blue Bus.

Finally, the proposed fare changes have no impact on Big Blue Bus’s agreement with Access Services, which allows their members (individuals with disabilities) to ride Big Blue Bus for free.

DOT will continue to promote reduced and free fare pass options and expand outreach efforts to include monthly workshops for older adults, those with disabilities, and lowincome individuals. These workshops will function as a “one stop shop” for the community to learn about Big Blue Bus’s services and reduced fare options such as the Mobility on Demand Everyday (MODE) and Low-Income Fare Is Easy (LIFE) programs.

Attendees will also receive one-on-one support to complete the application process.

Meeting riders where they are eliminates barriers for seniors, people with disabilities, and lower income individuals making public transportation more accessible.

Fare Capping
While developing these fare changes, DOT explored the potential to incorporate a “fare capping” system for Big Blue Bus. Fare capping would eliminate time-bound passes (i.e., 1-Day, 7-Day, 30-Day), allowing riders to pay as they ride until they hit a specific “fare cap.” For example, Big Blue Bus riders paying with a TAP card would pay for rides

4.G
Packet Pg. 451
8 of 14
until they paid the amount equivalent to a 1-Day or 7-Day pass. Any subsequent rides within the 1-Day or 7-Day period for TAP card users would be free, ensuring riders pay the lowest fare possible. Metro implemented fare capping on their system in 2023.

Fare capping on Big Blue Bus is not included in the currently recommended fare changes. Metro, as administrator of the TAP system, is working with partners to develop a single regional fare capping structure, rather than have each participating TAP transit system—like Big Blue Bus— with their own specific fare capping program. Citing technical and business rules complexity, Metro has tabled its regional fare capping efforts for the time being to focus on TAP Plus, which includes the launch of an “open payment” system for the region as discussed in the next section.

Open Payments (TAP Plus)
Metro is currently focused on rolling out “open payments” as part of the TAP Plus project on its system and on the other TAP-participating transit systems in the region including Big Blue Bus. An open payment system would allow riders to pay for rides on board using contactless-enabled credit and debit cards as well as mobile payment methods such as Apple Pay and Google Pay. Open payments offer another convenient contactless alternative for riders, reducing barriers to paying for (and by extension accessing) transit. Open payments could launch as soon as 2026. DOT is considering pricing the fare for open payments at the contactless rate, but will need to analyze further before making a final fare recommendation for open payments.

DOT staff are in regular communication with counterparts at Metro on both initiatives— fare capping and open payments—and are prepared to implement them as soon as it becomes feasible to do so.

Comparison of Proposed Fares to Peer Agency Fares
The tables below illustrate the proposed first phase of fare changes compared to fares currently charged by different agencies in the region, state, and country, with a focus on what peer agencies in LA County are charging. Fares shown for the other agencies are current as of the writing of this report, with potential fare changes by the other agencies not taken into consideration. Phase I of the proposed fare changes are used for comparison due to the possibility of the fares for peer agencies below changing between now and 2027, which is when Phase II of the fare increases are proposed. As

4.G
Packet Pg. 452
9 of 14
such, the shorter-term fare increases were seen as a more appropriate and relevant comparison.

Even after the proposed changes, Big Blue Bus fares will remain comparable to or lower than the fares of the other agencies in most cases. Fares on Big Blue Bus will be most comparable to those of Long Beach Transit (LBT), an appropriate comparison given the operational similarities between the two agencies. However, it is worth noting that Big Blue Bus offers one (1) free intra-agency transfer within 2 hours, while LBT does not.

Table 2 Regular Fare Comparison
Agency
Single
Ride
Regular
Day
Pass
Regular
Weekly
Pass
Regular
Monthly
Pass
Regular
Big Blue Bus – Proposed Fares
Phase I
$1.25 TAP/
$1.50
Cash
$4.50 $16 $55
Culver City Bus $1.00 - - -
Long Beach Transit $1.25 $4 $18^ $65
LA Metro $1.75 $5* $18* -
Foothill Transit (San Gabriel Valley) $1.75 $6 - $60
Muni (San Francisco) $2.75 $5.50 - $85
MTS Bus (San Diego) $2.50 $6* - $72
New York MTA $2.90 - $34* $132*
^ 5 Day Pass
*Fare Capped
Table 3 Senior/Disabled/Medicare Comparison
Transit System
Single Ride
S/D/M
Daily
S/D/M
Weekly
S/D/M
Monthly
S/D/M
Big Blue Bus – Proposed Fares
Phase I
$0.60 TAP/
$0.75 Cash
$1.75 - $27
Culver City Bus $0.35 - - -
Long Beach Transit $0.60 $2.50 $9^ $24
LA Metro $0.75 $2.50* $5* -
Foothill Transit (San Gabriel Valley) $0.75 $3 - $30
Muni (San Francisco) $1.35 - - $43
MTS (San Diego) $1.25 $3* - $23
New York MTA $1.45 - $17* $66*
^ 5 Day Pass
*Fare Capped

4.G
Packet Pg. 453
10 of 14
Public Hearings & Community Input
DOT held two public hearings in the first week of April to receive community and stakeholder feedback. Information in English and Spanish on the public hearings was disseminated on buses (flyers and digital screens), by email, text blasts, on the Big Blue Bus website, via Big Blue Bus and the City of Santa Monica’s social media channels, in a blog post published on the City of Santa Monica’s website, and a notice in the Santa Monica Daily Press.

The virtual public hearing was held on April 2, with about a dozen attendees, while the in-person public hearing was held the following day with approximately half a dozen attendees. Attendees who registered for the virtual public hearing were given the opportunity to submit a question while completing the registration, with questions addressed live by DOT staff during the hearing. Attendees at both hearings were given the chance to provide public comments on the proposed fare changes. Generally, comments expressed an understanding of the proposed fare changes given the present economic situation and inflation over the past several years. Most attendees who commented used the forum as an opportunity to ask questions or voice concerns around other elements of Big Blue Bus not directly related to the fare changes.

An online survey in English and Spanish soliciting feedback regarding the proposed fare changes and the general fare practices at Big Blue Bus was available between March 19 and April 10. A total of 1,234 respondents took the survey.

The following is a summary of responses to some of the survey questions:
• The vast majority of respondents (83 percent) ranked current fares on Big Blue Bus as either fair or affordable.
• Regarding the proposed fare changes, 47 percent of respondents ranked the proposed fare changes as either fair or affordable, while 49 percent ranked them as either somewhat or very expensive (the remaining responded unsure about how they felt).
• When asked about their preference between adopting the fare changes to maintain service levels and support planned service enhancements versus maintaining current fares but risk delaying service enhancements and/or service

4.G
Packet Pg. 454
11 of 14
cuts, respondents preferred at a rate of 2 to 1 (56 percent vs 27 percent) to implement the fare changes. The remaining 17 percent responded “unsure.” Other data points of note from the survey were that 92 percent of respondents say they are supportive or very supportive of free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfers. The popularity of the policy was a factor in not proposing any changes to these transfers.

Within the open-ended survey comments, respondents were more sensitive to raising S/D/M fares relative to Regular fares, even if they were not in the S/D/M category themselves. The detailed survey results are included as Attachment H.

Title VI Fare Equity Analysis
As required by federal law, DOT conducted a Title VI fare equity analysis of the proposed fare changes to determine whether the proposed changes result in either a disparate impact on minorities and/or a disparate income on low-income households.

The fare equity analysis found that the proposed fare changes, which include increases in the costs of rides and passes, do not exceed Big Blue Bus’s disparate impact or disproportionate burden thresholds as defined by Big Blue Bus policy. As such, no

4.G
Packet Pg. 455
12 of 14
additional analysis or mitigation efforts are required to implement the proposed fare changes. The full analysis is included as Attachment I.

Ridership Impacts
Using an industry standard elasticity of demand model, the full implementation of the fare policy changes are expected to increase fare revenue by up to 13 percent by FY2027-28. The model considers the impacts of the fare policy changes on ridership demand. The model forecasts a reduction of ridership by about 7 percent. The model only considers fare policy changes on ridership, holding all other factors that influence ridership constant. Actual change in ridership in the next few years will likely differ due to the other factors (beyond fares) that influence ridership including service levels and quality, the economy, demographics, and the existence of alternative transportation options to Big Blue Bus.

Communication Plan
Pending City Council approval, DOT will notify riders of the forthcoming fare changes (with Phase I to be implemented on August 10, 2025) by taking the following actions:
• Working with external partners and other departments within the City to ensure awareness of the fare policy changes
• Updating the Big Blue Bus website
• Updating the Little Blue Book, which is a guide containing current maps, schedules, and other Big Blue Bus information
• Updating pricing decals on bus fleet
• Disseminating information via social media
• Sending an email update to all mailing list subscribers Alternatives Considered
No fare increase
This scenario risks not being able to fully implement Brighter Blue service enhancements—including major improvements to service frequency on key routes, and expansion of early morning, late night, and weekend service across many routes—given

4.G
Packet Pg. 456
13 of 14
the additional resources required to roll out the planned improvements. This scenario may even necessitate service cuts. Wages offered to Motor Coach Operators and other front-line employees could become stagnant and risk becoming uncompetitive, which would also impact service levels by hampering recruitment and retention efforts in an already challenging labor market.

Elimination of Free Transfers
Complimentary transfers within the Big Blue Bus system, implemented in 2022, were considered for elimination given the impact on the average fare revenue per boarding that this policy exacerbates. However, there was a desire to avoid financially burdening riders who rely on transfers to reach their destination, especially with the high (and growing) rate of riders who benefit from this policy, which today is about 5 percent of all rides but 12 percent of all Single Rides. Additionally, this change alone would not have resulted in the generation of fare revenue expected from the proposed policy.

Environmental Review
The change in fares for the Big Blue Bus system is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15273, which states that CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
10/27/15 (attachment
A)
Big Blue Bus Fare Restructure
10/10/17 (attachment
B)
Big Blue Bus Fare Restructure
04/12/22 (attachment
C)
Approval of Proposed Fare Changes to the Big Blue Bus
Fare Policy
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seek authority to implement the proposed fare changes. The projected revenue will be budgeted in the Big Blue Bus passenger revenue account.

4.G
Packet Pg. 457
14 of 14
Fiscal
Year
Account
Description
Account Number Fare Change
Projected
Revenue
FY26/27 Passenger Revenue 60600002.409830 $390,000
FY27/28 Passenger Revenue 60600002.409830 $780,000
Using an industry standard elasticity of demand model, the full implementation of the fare policy changes are expected to increase fare revenue by up to 13 percent by FY2027-28, or by about $780,000 annually. The average fare per rider is expected to increase from 70 cents in FY2023-24 to 85 cents by FY2027-28.

Prepared By: Abdallah Daboussi, Strategic Transit Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - 10/27/15 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. Attachment B - 10/10/17 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. Attachment C - 04/12/22 Staff Report (Web Link)
D. Attachment D_BBB Proposed Fare Changes 2025-2027
E. Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation
F. Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments
G. Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials
H. Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments
I. Attachment I_Title VI Analysis
J. PowerPoint Presentation

4.G
Packet Pg. 458
Big Blue Bus Proposed Fare Changes: 2025
-2027
Ride or Pass Current
Phase I
August 10, 2025
Phase II
Summer 2027
Regular
Single Ride(Tap & Mobile)^ $1.10 $1.25 $1.50
Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.50 $1.75 1-Day Pass $4 $4.50 $5 7-Day Pass $14 $16 $18 10 Ride Pass^ $9 $10 $12
30-Day Pass $50 $55 $60
Annual Pass $500 Eliminate
Senior / Disabled / Medicare (S/D/M)
Single Ride(Tap & Mobile)^$0.50$0.60$0.65
Single Ride (Cash)$0.50$0.75$0.75
1-Day Pass $1.50 $1.75 $2
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50 $5 $6
30-Day Pass $24 $27 $30
Youth
30-Day Pass $19 Eliminate
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within two hours.

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Attachment D_BBB Proposed Fare Changes 2025-2027 (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Proposed Fare
Changes
2025-2027
Public Hearing

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Agenda
• Introduction • Overview • Proposed Fare Changes • Financial Impacts • Fare Payment Enhancements • Next Steps • Public Comment

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus is Proposing Fare Changes to:
• Address fiscal challenges
• Support planned customer experienceenhancements
Proposed Fare Changes include:
• Increased costs for single rides and passes
• Elimination of underutilized passes
• Two-phase implementation over a two-year period
No changes to:
• Free BBBtransfers and contactless incentives
• Access to discounted fares on Big Blue Bus through LIFE (low-income) andGoPass(student K-12) regional programs
Overview

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Fiscal Challenges
• Declining fare revenue per passenger
• Currently $0.70; Pre-pandemic $0.87
• Rising operational costs
• Currently $182 per revenue hour; Pre-pandemic $150
• Uncertainty of future federal funding
• New Federal Administration
Planned Customer Experience Enhancements
• Implementation of Brighter Blue 5-Year Service Plan
• Ongoing MotorCoach Operator Recruitment & Retention
• Safety Initiatives (e.g., Transit Safety Officers, Prohibition Orders)

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Recent Fare
Changes
• Fare Change in 2022
• Conclusion of Contactless Pilot
• Introduction of Free BBB to BBB Transfers
• Introduction of 10 Rides Pass
• Elimination of paper passes
• Increase age for free rides from 4 to 5 years old
• Fare Change in 2017
• Contactless fare (i.e., TAP) reduced to $1.10 (from $1.25) • Introduction of Annual Pass
• Fare Change in 2016
• Last fare increase
• Increased Regular Single Ride fare from $1.00 to $1.25 • Other fare increases across the board

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes
Increase cost of Regular and Senior/Disabled/
Medicare (SDM): • Single Ride • 1-Day Pass • 7-Day Pass (Available only for Regular) • 10 Rides Pass • 30-Day Pass Eliminate: • Annual Pass (Regular) • Youth 30-DayPass
Maintain: • Free BBB to BBB transfers • Cheaper fares on TAP and Mobile

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes: 2025-2027 – Regular
Regular Fares Current
August 10,
2025
Summer
2027
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $1.10 $1.25 $1.50
Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.50 $1.75
1 Day Pass $4 $4.50 $5
7 Day Pass $14 $16 $18
10 Rides Pass^ $9 $10 $12
30 Day Pass $50 $55 $60
Annual Pass $500 Eliminate -
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes: 2025-2027 – SDM & Youth
Senior/Disabled/Medicare (SDM) Current
August 10,
2025
Summer
2027
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $0.50 $0.60 $0.65
Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.75
1-Day Pass $1.50 $1.75 $2
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50 $5 $6
30-Day Pass $24 $27 $30
Youth Current
August 10,
2025
Summer
2027
30-Day Pass $19 Eliminate -
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Discounted Fare Programs • Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) • GoPass • K-12 Schools (SMMUSD and LAUSD) • Community Colleges (Santa Monica College)
• UCLA Bruin U-Pass and Grad Pass
• Access Services Free Fare Program

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Alternatives Considered • No Fare Increase • Risks not implementing full Brighter Blue service enhancements (e.g., frequency improvements,
early/late and weekend service)
• Risks Motor Coach Operator recruitment and
retention efforts, and safety initiatives
• Elimination of Free Transfers • Results in increase in fare revenue, but limited impact on fiscal challenges
• Decision to maintain: • Proven to increase ridership • Reduces burden on low-income riders

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Financial & Budget Impacts
Fully implementing proposed changes:
• Increases revenue by about 13 percent or $780,000 annually • Increases Average Fare per Rider to 85 cents by 2028
• Projected ridership decline of 7 percent
• Actual ridership and revenue impacts may vary due to other factors such as:
• Economic trends
• Service quality
• Demographic changes
• Alternative transportation options

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Future Enhancement: Open Payments
• Big Blue Bus participating in LA Metro’s ‘TAP Plus’Initiative • Onboard fare payment via credit/debit card or Apple/Google Pay expected in 2026

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Next Steps
• Public Hearings – April2 (Virtual)and April3,2025 (In-Person) • Public Comment PeriodCloses–April 10, 2025
• Present Proposal to City Council for Approval –May 13, 2025 • Notify Ridersand Community–May to August 2025
• ImplementPhase 1 –August 10, 2025
• Implement Phase 2 –Summer 2027

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Share Your Thoughts With Us
Public Comment:
• Each speaker will have 3 minutes to provide an oral comment at this hearing. • Speakers will be called in the order their speaker card was received. • Please provide your first and last name and city of residence before making your comment.

Online Survey:
• Feedback can also be shared through an online survey available in English and Spanish at:
bigbluebus.com/meetings. The survey deadline is April 10, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Cambios de
tarifas
propuestos
2025-2027
Audiencia pública

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus propone cambiosenlas tarifaspara:
• Abordardesafíosfiscales
• Apoyarlas mejorasenexperienciadel clienteplanificadas Los cambiospropuestosenlas tarifasincluyen:
• Incrementode loscostesenviajessencillosy pases
• Eliminación de pasesinfrautilizados
• Implementaciónendos fasesenun periodode dos años
No hay cambiosen:
• TransbordosBBB gratuitose incentivoscontactless
• Acceso a tarifascon descuentoenBigBlueBuscon programasregionales LIFE (bajosingresos) y GoPass(estudiantesde K-12)
Resumen

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Desafíosfiscales
• Reducciónde losingresosportarifasporpasajero
• Actualmente, $0,70; antes de la pandemia, $0,87
• Aumentode loscostesoperativos
• Actualmente, $182 poringresoporhora; antes de la pandemia, $150 • Incertidumbreante losfuturosfondosfederales
• Nueva Administración Federal
Mejorasenexperienciadel clienteplanificadas
• Implementacióndel Plan de servicioquinquenalBlighter Blue • Contratacióny retenciónencursode conductoresde autobuses • Iniciativasde seguridad(p. ej., Oficialde seguridadde tránsito, Órdenesde prohibición)

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Recent Fare
Changes
• Cambiosenlas tarifasen2022
• Finalizacióndel plan pilotoContactless
• Introducciónde transbordosgratuitosde BBB a BBB
• Introduccióndel pasede 10 viajes
• Eliminación de lospasesenpapel
• Incrementarla edadde viajesgratuitosde 4 a 5 años
• Cambiosenlas tarifasen2017
• Tarifa Contactless (p.ej., TAP) reducidaa $1,10 (desde$1,25) • Introduccióndel paseannual
• Cambiosenlas tarifasen2016
• Últimasubidade tarifas
• Incrementode la tarifaregular de $1,00 a $1,25
• Otrosincrementosde tarifasgenerales

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cambiosde tarifas propuestos
Incrementarelcostedel billeteregular y
sénior/discapacidad/ Medicare (SDM): • Viaje sencillo • Pasede 1 día • Pasede 7 días(solo disponible para billeteregular) • Pasede 10 viajes • Pasede 30 días Eliminar:
• Paseanual(regular) • Pasejuvenilde 30 días
Mantener:
• Transbordosgratuitosde BBB a BBB • TarifasmásbaratasenTAP y móvil

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cambios de tarifas propuestas: 2025-2027 – Regular
Tarifas regulares Actual
10 de
agosto, 2025
Verano
2027
Viaje sencillo (con TAP y móvil)^ $1,10 $1,25 $1,50
Viaje sencillo (en efectivo) $1,25 $1,50 $1,75
Pase de 1 día $4 $4,50 $5
Pase de 7 días $14 $16 $18
Pase de 10 viajes^ $9 $10 $12
Pase de 30 días $50 $55 $60
Pase anual $500 Eliminar -
^Incluye un transbordo gratuito de Big Blue Bus a Big Blue Bus en el plazo de 2 horas.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cambios de tarifas propuestos: 2025-2027 – SDM y Juvenil Sénior/Discapacidad/Medicare
(SDM) Actual
10 de
agosto, 2025
Verano
2027
Viaje sencillo (con TAP y móvil)^ $0,50 $0,60 $0,65
Viaje sencillo (en efectivo) $0,50 $0,75 $0,75
Pase de 1 día $1,50 $1,75 $2
Pase de 10 viajes^ $4,50 $5 $6
Pase de 30 días $24 $27 $30
Juvenil Actual
10 de agosto,
2025
Verano
2027
Pase de 30 días $19 Eliminar -
^Incluye un transbordo gratuito de Big Blue Bus a Big Blue bus en el plazo de 2 horas.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Programas de tarifas con
descuento • Tarifa de bajosingresoses fácil
(Low-Income
Fare is Easy) -(eninglés, LIFE)
• GoPass • Escuelasde K-12 (SMMUSD y LAUSD) • Colegios comunitarios(Santa Mónica College)
• PasesUCLA Bruin U-Pass y Grad Pass
• Programatarifasgratis de Access Services

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Alternativas consideradas • Si no aumentamoslas tarifas • Hay riesgode no poderimplementarensutotalidadlas mejorasdel servicioBrighter Blue (p.ej., mejorasenlas
frecuencias, serviciotemprano/tardíoy de fin de semana). • Se arriesgala contratacióny retenciónde losconductores de autobúsy las iniciativasde seguridad.
• Eliminación de lostransbordosgratuitos • Resultaríaenun incrementode losingresosportarifas, perotendríaun impactolimitadoenlosdesafíosfiscales.
• Decisiónde mantener:
• Estáprobadoque incrementaelnúmerode pasajeros.
• Reduce la carga enlospasajeroscon bajosingresos.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Impactos financieros y
presupuestarios
Si se implementanporcompletoloscambiospropuestos:
• Se incrementanlosingresosalrededordel 13 porciento, o $780 000 anualmente.
• Se incrementala tarifamedia porpasajerohasta los85 céntimospara 2028.
• Se prevéunadisminucióndel númerode pasajerosdel 7 porciento. • El impactoenelnúmeroactual de pasajerosy enlosingresos puede variardebidoa otrosfactorescomo:
• Coyunturaeconómica
• Calidad del servicio
• Cambiosdemográficos
• Opcionesde transportealternativas

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Futuras mejoras: Pagos abiertos
• Big Blue Bus participaenla iniciativa“TAP Plus” de LA Metro. • Se prevéelpagode losbilletesa bordocon tarjetasde
crédito/débito, o con Apple/Google Pay en2026.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Próximos pasos
• Audiencias públicas: 2 de abril(virtual) y 3 de abrilde 2025 (en persona)
• El periodo de audiencias públicastermina el20 de abrilde 2025. • Presentarla propuestaal ayuntamientopara suaprobación:13 de mayo de 2025.
• Notificacióna lospasajerosy a la comunidad: desdemayo hasta agostode 2025.
• Implementaciónde la fase1: 10 de agostode 2025
• Implementaciónde la fase2: Verano de 2027

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment E_Public Hearing Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus Proposed Fare Changes 2025-2027 - Virtual Public Hearing April 2, 2025
Public Comments
Juan Matute: I had a couple questions about the fare that will be charged for open loop payments. You know Title VI analysis requires an equity assessment for both fare amount, but also fare media. And so there's some question about whether moving to open loop represents a cash fare or represents an extension of the TAP fare. And so I’d encourage you to be more explicit about what the open loop payment fare would be as part of this Title VI analysis so that you don't have to do this same thing in a year in order if the FTA cares and they may care in strange ways about things like this I'm finding, so I'm finding with other DOT [unintelligible] so I would just encourage you to include the open loop TAP plus fare amount in this analysis and your findings and everything that goes through the City Council. Also, Big Blue Bus’ last two fare increases led to a pretty huge drop in service, about 25 – ridership – about 26% versus what was expected and a lot of this came because of just market trends in LA, but also Big Blue Bus’ service became a lot more expensive - not expensive - slow at the time because of general congestion on the West side. I've been participating in a statewide [unintelligible] trying to improve public transit in California and one of the things that I found that people forget is that when your vehicles go slower, you lose riders and it costs you more to operate the same amount of service, so your per passenger and per mile costs go up. And I'd really encourage the agency in increasing fares, which I understand is necessary to really redouble the efforts to improve service quality and reliability and so roll out the front facing camera ability and then also pursue whatever bus lanes that you may be able to both with Caltrans on Santa Monica and then also on Lincoln, also with Caltrans and any others. I know the Santa Monica Blvd. Safety study is coming up in the Abbott [unintelligible] community is going to be pushing for bus lane considerations for that. And so I would encourage the agency to take a more active role in those efforts where it's been much more passive in the past, because your customers are paying you to do that. That's part of what this fare goes to is to improve the customer experience.

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus Proposed Fare Changes 2025-2027 – In-person Public Hearing April 3, 2025
Santa Monica Main Library
Public Comments
Chris Doyle: I’m Chris Doyle, I’m a Venice resident. I don't have my own transportation so I rely on you guys heavily, I'm on a blue bus every single day. My comments are more geared towards service enhancements because we all understand inflation, we understand the need to raise fares if it's not a huge increase I mean a few cents here or there I don’t think is gonna break the bank. But here are my comments. I think everybody in the room would agree with me that Route 3 down Lincoln to LAX is notoriously late, am I correct? I mean on average five minutes late. I take the earliest bus a lot of times down to Westchester, it runs around 5:20 to where I… the first bus is a couple minutes late, if you start off late with the first bus I don’t know how you keep on schedule for the rest of the day. It seems to me that the Route 3 is one of your more adjusted routes, it could use some more buses, I don't know if that's in the Brighter Blue, I didn't even know about the enhancement program until today. I'll look into that.

But that would be a suggestion because that's really, that's the bus I use all the time.

More buses on that one, maybe fewer buses on the 1 and 7. My experience has been that a bus stop along those routes, you'll see two buses at the same stop at the same time, seems like they’ve got a plethora of buses on the less used routes. It would make sense if the three ran 24 hours to LAX because a lot of people can't make their flights with the schedule the way it is and I figured if Metro can run bus 4 all the way up to Santa Monica and downtown all night long it seems like one route could be open all night to the public. That would make sense to me. Seems like we have like three buses that serve UCLA, last I checked on the map UCLA is nowhere close to Santa Monica.

I'm not sure how we got involved in serving that college unless we just have that many students on the beaches that are going there. That seems an unusually large amount of buses going all the way up to UCLA, seems like they could be handled by Metro. One other concern I have when I do take the Pico bus, the number seven, it's always very congested at the 18th St. stop which serves the college. It seems like there could be some kind of agreement worked out maybe with the school where you get a shuttle that would only have to go maybe five blocks north or south on Pico and alleviate all that congestion, because when you stop there, I stopped there today, it’s like a sardine can because of all the students that flood the bus. I think they’d be better served, there would be better security and better service all around, if there was a a shuttle that served them directly just for a few stops and alleviate all that on the seven because it’s crazy every single day. And lastly the rapid buses aren’t rapid. I don't really see the point, like for example to take the Rapid 3 from here just as far as Venice, you're gonna skip Navy Street and Sunset I think, a couple of little side streets. Well if I get on the bus

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) in Santa Monica, if it's a rapid bus, I'd like it to get me all the way to LAX with very few stops, maybe a couple here, a couple in Venice. That’s something I would look into. So that’s my feedback. Thank you.

Amy Gottstein: Good evening. Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m a big fan of the Big Blue Bus, gave up my car eight years ago almost to this very day in favor of public transit exclusively and it's been working really great. I'll admit that I perhaps misunderstood the Brighter Blue, I thought it was guaranteed by Council but apparently not so I take that back. I wish though that there was a better way to attract and retain drivers, perhaps if they knew that it wasn't really an easy job, it's not just sitting there driving, there's a lot more to it, it's very complicated. I would definitely agree with Chris, the first speaker, about frequency, about the like doubling up of buses like the number seven which I experience more often, I’m not really on the three so much. It would also be really nice, as it turned out, the way that the buses are scheduled they often meet in intersections at the same time and at shared stops at the same time, which means that people can't catch their transfer. But I also, late one night I experienced a late night ride home from the airport, and missing you know that the driver who was on the seven wouldn't wait for me to board the bus, he saw me, he was at a red light and didn't let me board. And so I would appreciate if drivers might be a little bit more flexible when they see somebody running across the street desperate to catch the bus instead of denying them and being like, you know, too bad, so sad, you know, it’s like, I then had to carry a suitcase uphill to, you know, from Lincoln to 23rd St. as a result and I wasn’t very keen about that. So, but overall I'm just really grateful, you guys are doing a great job, I really just wanna see more frequency and I feel like I'd be more supportive of the fare increases if there was an equal trade-off as far as like the benefit to riders rather than kind of teasing us with, you know, some of these things, so anyway. Again, thank you so much.

Jerry Rubin: Thank you very much. My name is Jerry Rubin, longtime resident of Santa Monica and been taking the blue bus forever. Never had a driver’s license, never had a car in my life and kudos to the blue bus. Great bus company and I'm sure it's gonna be utilized more as the Olympics come here and as the World Cup comes here so, in our great environmental city, let’s remember like their motto says, go green, ride blue. I thought the fare increases were gonna be much more actually. They seem extremely modest and I know the others are here talking about service changes but it doesn't really look like anybody's opposed to this modest change over the years. I think it's good that they're not eliminating the transfers or not doing, my gosh. I would’ve thought that fare increase would’ve come five years ago. But I'm a senior citizen, I get a deal. I

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) still wish there was a way to get it to all TAP cards cause I see the delay so much when those dollar bills get stuck there and my gosh people would love it if they said my gosh I wish I would've gotten the card earlier instead of fussing around with this money, it makes it harder on the drivers, their job is to be safe driving, not to get stressed out. So I know you did it and then because of the pressure you went back again, but I just wish you would do it. You'll be needing it more as the Olympics come and everything, so get people to know that PayPal, all that kinda stuff, faster… faster service, everything. I kind of like the local buses, the 3, better than the rapid, I don’t think it gets there much faster but you guys are expert, you know better than me about scheduling. I'm pretty good. I go to my app, come out, buses are usually pretty much on time. I can, I take a lot of them and I think they are, for the most part, pretty darn good. And I love it, and I love that I got that Transit app, so I can just schedule when I'm gonna leave Starbucks to go over and catch the bus home. And by the way, when I think of the price increase, for the price, man, that's even cheaper than a scone at Starbucks now. So what I'm saying is, it's a real deal, try to encourage your people to do it. And one thing I hope could be done in the future is at some point wherever you have the room to do it, to get T-shirts and things that’ll promote the blue bus, and our City Council members and elected officials can wear it, and get people excited about using the blue bus because it's really such a deal. And I have friends that are so addicted to their cars but once they got on the bus, they realized, wow this is easier than I thought it was. So please, let's all be ambassadors for the blue bus and let's get out there and push it. That’s it. Thank you.

Su Nitao: Good evening. Thank you for the slides. [unintelligible] It’s very good for, you know, the community to know the changes. And thanks for the nice refreshment. [unintelligible] Thank you. My question, I’m concerned because the Culver City bus doesn’t go through, no more, station, Aviation Station or LAX stop. [unintelligible] Not only me. I guess more people get off from Culver City… I live in Culver City, Culver City bus [unintelligible] LAX bus terminal, the number three bus, but like ten minutes, twenty minutes, doesn’t come, show up. You know, all stopped, more crowded the bus. You know that’s [unintelligible] the minute, I just I want more bus come, you know, frequency.

That's my concern. Used to be the K line, Metro K line, go to the 14 bus [unintelligible] 14 bus doesn’t go to the LAX, just go to the Culver City, you know, center. So, I don't have a lot much. That’s, I did more bus coming, you know… [unintelligible] that’s my point. thank you for your presentation and nice auditorium, very wonderful. I didn’t know, I didn’t much know, I just asked, what today [unintelligible]. Thank you.

Amy Gottstein: With respect to folks who pay cash fare, more often than not they're not paying the full fare, so as it stands today, fare, cash fare is $1.25 for non

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) senior/disabled, and more often than not folks only pay $1.00, and so I'm afraid that this pattern will continue regardless of the fare increase, but at the same time it will hit folks who use TAP card harder than it'll affect the folks who pay by cash, so there’s that.

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment F_Public Hearing Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) PUBLIC

HEARINGS
APRIL
2025

A U D I E N C I A S
PÚBLICAS
ABRIL
DE 2025
bigbluebus.com 310.451.5444
Este lugar tiene acceso para personas con discapacidades (ADA). Solicitudes para acomodaciones para personas con discapacidades y traducción deben hacerse por lo menos tres (3) días antes de la audiencia llamando al: 310.458.1975 ext. 2386 BIG BLUE BUS ESTÁ

ORGANIZANDO AUDIENCIAS
PÚBLICAS SOBRE LOS

CAMBIOS DE TARIFAS
PROPUESTOS. ¡POR FAVOR
ÚNETE A NOSOTROS!
The Santa Monica Main Library is ADA-accessible. Disability and translation accommodation requests should be made at least three (3) days prior to the hearing by calling: 310.458.1975 ext. 2386

BIG BLUE BUS IS HOSTING

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON

PROPOSED FARE
ADJUSTMENTS.

PLEASE JOIN US!
Ride BBB Routes 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, or 18.

Parking is available in the library garage (enter on 7th St., north of Santa Monica Blvd.).

Wednesday, April 2, 2025
5:30pm–7:30pm
Register: bigbluebus.com/meetings
Thursday, April 3, 2025
5:30pm–7:30pm
Santa Monica Main Library
Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium
601 Santa Monica Blvd.

IN-PERSON

HEARING

VIRTUAL

HEARING
Viaje en las rutas 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, o 18 de BBB.

Habrá estacionamiento disponible en el garaje de la biblioteca (entrar en 7th St., al norte de Santa Monica Blvd.).

AUDIENCIA
EN

PERSONA

AUDIENCIA

VIRTUAL
miércoles 2 de abril de 2025
5:30pm–7:30pm
Regístrate: bigbluebus.com/meetings
jueves 3 de abril de 2025
5:30pm–7:30pm
Santa Monica Main Library
Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium
601 Santa Monica Blvd.

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment G
Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) bigbluebus.com | 310.451.5444
PUBLIC

HEARINGS
APRIL
2025
Ride BBB Routes 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 18, Rapid 3, Rapid 7, or Rapid 10. Parking is available in the library garage (enter on 7th St. north of Santa Monica Blvd.).

Wednesday, April 2, 2025
5:30pm–7:30pm
Register: bigbluebus.com/meetings
Thursday, April 3, 2025
5:30pm–7:30pm
Santa Monica Main Library
Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium
601 Santa Monica Blvd.

The Santa Monica Main Library is ADA-accessible. Disability and translation accommodation requests should be made at least three (3) days prior to the hearing by calling: 310.458.1975 ext. 2386

BIG BLUE BUS IS HOSTING

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
PROPOSED FARE ADJUSTMENTS.

PLEASE JOIN US!

IN-PERSON

HEARING

VIRTUAL

HEARING

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) bigbluebus.com | 310.451.5444

AUDENCIAS
P Ú BLICA

ABRIL DE
2025
Viaje en las rutas 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 18, Rapid 3, Rapid 7, y Rapid 10 de BBB. Habrá estacionamiento disponible en
el garaje de la biblioteca (entrar en 7th St., al norte de Santa Monica Blvd.).

AUDIENCIA
EN

PERSONA

AUDIENCIA

Este lugar tiene acceso para personas con discapacidades (ADA).

Solicitudes para acomodaciones para personas con discapacidades y traducción deben hacerse por lo menos tres (3) días antes de la audiencia llamando al: 310.458.1975 ext. 2386
BIG BLUE BUS ESTÁ ORGANIZANDO
AUDIENCIAS PÚBLICA ACERCA DE LOS
CAMBIOS DE TARIFAS PROPUESTOS.
¡POR FAVOR ÚNETE A NOSOTROS!

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Public hearing notice on buses and flyers

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) LOCAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2025 7
mandatory evacuation zones. It would
also direct local governments to provide
online resources about pet evacuation and
reunification assistance, including a list of
rescued animals.

Another key provision extends the holding
period for rescued pets to at least 90 days
before they can be adopted out, euthanized, or
transferred — a significant increase from the
current 72-hour minimum.

The bill is supported by Social Compassion
in Legislation, an animal welfare advocacy
organization.
“Time and time again, we’ve seen animals
abandoned or lost in the chaos of wildfires and
other disasters,” said Judie Mancuso, founder
and president of the organization. “This bill
is about making sure no pet is left behind.

It provides the necessary tools to coordinate
rescues, support evacuees, and reunite families
with their beloved animals.”
Animal rescuers who worked during
recent California wildfires have highlighted
significant gaps in the current system.

Aaron “AC” Christensen, founder of Animal
Advocacy Network, noted that his team was
able to assist with evacuations during the
Palisades Fire because of his credentials with
the City of Santa Monica, which allowed
them to cross fire lines and participate in first
responder briefings.
“The FOUND Act will help ensure other
cities have emergency plans that allow
rescuers like me to assist residents save their
pets,” Christensen said.

Jane Garrison, an experienced disaster
rescuer and founder of Oswit Land Trust,
expressed frustration with the current lack of
coordination.
“It was frustrating that qualified and
certified animal disaster rescuers were
willing to rescue animals following the fires
in L.A., but were turned away due to a lack
of coordinated plan,” Garrison said. “The
pain and suffering that animals experienced
due to this unpreparedness was cruel and
unnecessary.”
As California continues to face increasing
wildfire threats, proponents argue the
legislation represents a critical step toward
ensuring disaster response plans adequately
address the safety and well-being of animals.

The bill will be referred to a policy
committee in the coming days, according to
Zbur’s office.
[email protected]
FOUND
FROM PAGE 1
Time and time
again, we’ve seen
animals abandoned
or lost in the chaos
of wildfires and
other disasters
- Judie Mancuso, founder and
president of the organization

COMMUNITY NEWS
Citywide
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica to Honor Four
Outstanding Women at “Women Who Shape Santa Monica” Awards The League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
(LWVSM) is thrilled to announce the recipients
of the 18th annual “Women Who Shape Santa
Monica” awards. This year, Joanne Berlin, Shari
Davis, Carla Fantozzi, and Ana Gioconda Jara will
be honored for their exceptional contributions to
the Santa Monica community as dedicated advocates for education and social justice.

This year’s theme, “Moving Forward Together!
Women Educating and Inspiring Generations,” perfectly encapsulates the spirit and impact of these remarkable women.
“We are incredibly proud to recognize Joanne,
Shari, Carla, and Ana for their tireless work in
advocating for education and social justice,” said
Barbara Inatsugu, President of LWVSM. “Santa
Monica is a better place to live because of their enriching contributions.” The “Women Who Shape Santa Monica” award celebration, held annually in March to coincide with Women’s History Month, will take place in person on Wednesday, March 19, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Brookdale Ocean House in Santa Monica.

For more information, event details and to RSVP, please visit https://my.lwv.org/california/santa-monica.

EDITED BY SMDP STAFF
said. “I just told myself to stay in that pack
until about the halfway mark and then if I felt
good I could make a move. Ended up going
a little bit to the lead and no one really came
with me.”
Richtman, of Elburn, Illinois, was a
member of the Montana State cross-country
team, earning All-America honors as a junior
in 2022-23.

American Paul Pilkington won the 1994
edition in 2:12.13.

In the women’s race, Tejinesh Tulu of
Ethiopia took the title in 2:30.16.

Antonina Kwambai of Kenya was second
in 2:30.19. Savannah Berry of Orem, Utah,
was third in 2:30.31. Berry finished 12th at
last year’s U.S. Olympic trials.

MARATHON
FROM PAGE 1
We are incredibly proud
to recognize Joanne,
Shari, Carla, and Ana
for their tireless work in
advocating for education
and social justice
- Barbara Inatsugu, President of LWVSM

Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by Big Blue Bus on the following dates:

Wednesday, April 2, 2025, from 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. (Virtual) Those attending must register at: bigbluebus.com/meetings Thursday, April 3, 2025, from 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.

Santa Monica Main Library
Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium
601 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica, 90401
A short presentation will be conducted at the beginning of each hearing, from 5:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and a public comment period will be held for the remainder of each hearing, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Under the proposed fare structure, Big Blue Bus would implement the following changes:
• Increasing the cost of Single Ride, 1-Day, 7-Day, 10 Rides, and 30-Day Passes • Elimination of the Annual Pass and Youth 30-Day Pass.

See details of this proposal at bigbluebus.com/meetings.

Big Blue Bus will review all public comments submitted during the comment period until Thursday, April 10, 2025. Based on feedback received, Big Blue Bus may adjust the draft proposals as necessary, before submitting a Staff Report for City Council consideration. If approved by City Council, fare changes would be implemented in two phases, with the first phase occurring on August 10, 2025, and the second phase occurring in 2027.

Interested parties may comment in person at the hearing, or may submit written comments prior to the hearing. Written comments may be submitted by mail to Big Blue Bus, 1660 7th St., Santa Monica, CA 90401, Attn: Robert McCall, Community Engagement Manager. Feedback may also be shared through an online survey at bigbluebus.com/meetings.

The Santa Monica Main Library is wheelchair accessible. For disability and interpretation accommodation requests, please contact 310-458-1975 ext. 2386 at least three (3) days prior to the hearing. All written materials are available in alternate formats upon request. Big Blue Bus Routes 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 18 serve the Main Library. Visit bigbluebus.com for trip planning and schedule information.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

FOR BIG BLUE BUS PROPOSED FARE CHANGES

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 6 smdp.com WEEKEND EDITION, MARCH 28 - MARCH 30, 2025 NEWS

Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by Big Blue Bus on the following dates:

Wednesday, April 2, 2025, from 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. (Virtual) Those attending must register at: bigbluebus.com/meetings Thursday, April 3, 2025, from 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.

See details of this proposal at bigbluebus.com/meetings.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

FOR BIG BLUE BUS PROPOSED FARE CHANGES

COMMUNITY NEWS
Los Angeles
Los Angeles sheriff’s department to retest 4,000 DNA samples after using faulty kits for 8 months
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said this week it will retest 4,000 DNA samples and open an internal investigation after learning that it used potentially flawed test kits for eight months.

Sheriff’s officials said Wednesday that a test kit manufacturer sent a letter in August warning the department to stop using certain kits that were prone to giving incomplete results. However, the letter was received by a civilian employee who didn’t discard the kits or send them back, according to a department statement.

The department used the flawed kits from July through February, testing thousands of samples from criminal investigations.

The problem was discovered Monday when a supervisor at the department’s Scientific Services Bureau found the manufacturer’s letter.

The department said it has opened an internal investigation to assess how much the faulty kits have affected criminal cases, and will retest some 4,000 DNA samples. “We take the integrity of our criminal investigations and the reliability of our forensic testing very seriously,” Sheriff Robert Luna said in a statement. “The Sheriff’s Department is working diligently to assess the impact and to prevent such situations from occurring again.”
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said his office had begun working with the sheriff’s department to determine the extent of the problem.

Sheriff’s officials said the bad tests might have led to incomplete results, but they are “not likely to have falsely identified any individual.”
The department declined to name the manufacturer.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Citywide
Santa Monica Man Arrested in Federal Fentanyl and Gun Sales Case Federal authorities arrested a Santa Monica man and his father from the Mar Vista area of Los Angeles on Wednesday on charges related to illegal fentanyl distribution and weapons sales.

Francisco Javier Espinoza Galindo, 31, of Santa Monica, and his father, Antonio Espinoza Zarate, 55, also known as “El Gato,” were taken into custody following an investigation that uncovered multiple alleged sales of firearms and the dangerous synthetic opioid fentanyl.

Both men face charges of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. The elder Espinoza also faces charges of illegal reentry of a removed alien, according to court documents.

Federal investigators allege that in July 2023, Antonio Espinoza sold a pistol, rifle, ammunition and more than 500 grams of fentanyl pills to a buyer despite not being licensed to deal firearms. In subsequent transactions through February 2025, the father-son duo allegedly sold additional weapons and kilograms of fentanyl pills.

Court records indicate Antonio Espinoza is a Mexican citizen who has been deported four times between 2010 and 2017, and illegally reentered the United States each time. His criminal history includes felony convictions for narcotics possession for sale and illegal reentry.

The defendants made their initial court appearances Wednesday in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles. If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of life in federal prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years.

The arrests resulted from an investigation by the Homeland Security Investigations-led El Camino Real Financial Crimes Task Force, with support from multiple federal agencies and the Los Angeles Police Department.

EDITED BY SMDP STAFF
Los Angeles
Metro Board Approves Plan to Increase Women in Construction The Metro Board of Directors approved a motion Thursday to expand women’s participation in Metro-funded construction projects.

The initiative, authored by Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath and co-authored by several Los Angeles County officials, aims to address barriers women face in the construction industry, including lack of childcare and unsupportive work environments.

The plan includes expanding workforce equity standards in procurement, creating a regional roundtable, launching a “Built By Her” campaign, and establishing a Women in the Trades Summit.

Despite exceeding regional averages for female participation in construction trades, Metro still falls short of its goals, according to a recent workforce disparity study.

A report proposing new procurement and accountability measures tied to contractor hiring performance is due by June 2025.

EDITED BY SMDP STAFF
Los Angeles
Governor Newsom Signs Order to Speed Los Angeles Rebuilding After Fires
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday to accelerate rebuilding efforts in Altadena, Malibu, and Pacific Palisades following January’s devastating fires.

The order suspends certain permitting requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Act to expedite repairs and replacement of electric, gas, water, sewer, and telecommunication infrastructure.

The directive also speeds the process of moving utility equipment underground to prevent future fires, expanding upon previous orders removing regulatory hurdles for rebuilding. “We are determined to rebuild Altadena, Malibu, and Pacific Palisades stronger and more resilient than before,” Newsom said.

The governor previously urged Southern California Edison and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to develop rebuilding plans including underground infrastructure by March’s end.

EDITED BY SMDP STAFF

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 1 Alfredo Torales
From: Big Blue Bus <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:00 AM
To: Alfredo Torales
Subject: NOTICE: Public Hearing for Proposed Fare Changes April 2 & 3 View this email in your browser
Join Us to Discuss Proposed Fare Changes
Big Blue Bus is proposing the following fare changes:
 Increase cost of Single Ride, 1-Day, 7-Day, 10 Rides, and 30-Day Passes
 Eliminate the Annual and Youth 30-Day Passes
Read the details of the proposed changes at: bigbluebus.com/meetings Read The Proposed Changes
Lea en español sobre los cambios que se proponen.

As part of our community engagement process, we will host the following public hearings regarding the proposed fare changes:

Virtual Hearing
Wednesday, April 2, 2025
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.

In-Person Hearing
Thursday, April 3, 2025
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.

Santa Monica Main Library

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) 2 Register Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium
601 Santa Monica Blvd.

Can't attend the public hearings?

We still want to hear from you! Take our online survey before Thursday, April 10, 2025. Your feedback is valuable, and we look forward to reviewing your comments.

Take Our Survey
1444 4th St., Santa Monica CA 90401
Call us: (310) 451-5444 | Contact us via Santa Monica 311 | Visit us: bigbluebus.com Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) View this email in your browser
Big Blue Bus is Proposing Fare Changes
At Big Blue Bus, we strive to keep fares low so you can travel with ease. We are proposing our first fare increase in nearly a decade, due to the rising cost of fuel, utilities, and supplies we've faced in recent years.

Fare adjustments will also enable us to invest in customer experience improvements, such as our Transit Safety Officer program and Brighter Blue service plan, aimed at expanding access to safe, affordable, reliable, and convenient transit services for our community.

Pending approval by the Santa Monica City Council, the first phase of fare changes would take place on August 10, 2025, while the second phase would go into effect in the summer of 2027.

Big Blue Bus is proposing the following fare changes:

Increase cost of Single Ride, 1-Day, 7-Day, 10 Rides, and 30-Day Passes Eliminate the Annual and Youth 30-Day Passes
Big Blue Bus will maintain:

One free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within two (2) hours Discounted fares for contactless payments
Participation in regional fare discount programs such
as LIFE and GoPass
Visit bigbluebus.com to view detailed proposed changes.

We Want to Hear From YOU!
Learn More
Subscribe Past Issues Translate

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Take our online survey before Thursday, April 10, 2025, to share your thoughts. Your feedback is valuable, and we look forward to reviewing your comments.
1444 4th St., Santa Monica CA 90401
Call us: (310) 451-5444 | Contact us via Santa Monica 311 | Visit us: bigbluebus.com Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Take Our Survey
Subscribe Past Issues Translate

4.G.g
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment G_Public Hearing Notice Materials (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
1 / 15

39.87% 482

15.96% 193

27.38% 331

11.25% 136

3.64% 44

1.90% 23
Q1 How would you rate current Big Blue Bus fares?
Answered: 1,209 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 1,209

39.87%

15.96%

27.38%

11.25%

3.64%

1.90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Affordable
Somewhat
Affordable
Fair
Somewhat
Expensive
Very Expensive
Unsure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very Affordable
Somewhat Affordable
Fair
Somewhat Expensive
Very Expensive
Unsure

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
2 / 15
Q2 Please express your level of support for the following proposed fare changes, slated to go into effect in August 2025S/D/M= Senior, Disabled, Medicare
Answered: 1,006 Skipped: 207
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Suppo… Supportive Neutral/Un… Unsupporti…
Very Unsup…
Cashless from
$1.10 to $1.25
Cash Base
Fare from $1.2
to $1.50
S/D/M Base
Fare from $0.5
to $0.60
S/D/M Base
Fare from $0.5
to $0.75
1-Day Pass
from $4 to
$4.50
S/D/M 1-Day
Pass from $1.5
to $1.75
7-Day Pass
from $14 to
$16
Regular
10-Ride Pass
from $9 to $10
S/D/M 10-Ride
Pass from $4.5
to $5.00
Regular 30-Da
Pass from $50
to $55
S/D/M 30-Day
Pass from $24
to $27
Discontinue
selling the
Annual Pass
Discontinue
selling the
Youth 30-Day..

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
3 / 15

19.16%
191

22.87%
228

13.64%
136

16.55%
165

27.78%
277 997

14.81%
148

19.52%
195

13.21%
132

21.32%
213

31.13%
311 999

18.01%
179

18.71%
186

16.40%
163

16.70%
166

30.18%
300 994

14.26%
142

16.77%
167

15.66%
156

20.78%
207

32.53%
324 996

16.37%
163

21.59%
215

18.17%
181

17.07%
170

26.81%
267 996

16.30%
162

19.01%
189

17.00%
169

17.61%
175

30.08%
299 994

16.53%
163

20.18%
199

19.98%
197

16.63%
164

26.67%
263 986

19.62%
195

25.75%
256

15.79%
157

12.68%
126

26.16%
260 994

15.81%
156

21.28%
210

17.83%
176

16.41%
162

28.67%
283 987

15.91%
157

20.06%
198

18.24%
180

16.72%
165

29.08%
287 987

13.45%
133

17.19%
170

18.50%
183

19.31%
191

31.55%
312 989

16.53%
164

15.83%
157

34.58%
343

10.99%
109

22.08%
219 992

19.78%
196

19.68%
195

33.30%
330

9.49%
94 17.76%
176 991
VERY

SUPPORTIVE

SUPPORTIVE NEUTRAL/UNSURE UNSUPPORTIVE VERY

UNSUPPORTIVE
TOTAL
Cashless from $1.10
to $1.25
Cash Base Fare from
$1.25 to $1.50
S/D/M Base Fare
from $0.50 to $0.60
S/D/M Base Fare
from $0.50 to $0.75
1-Day Pass from $4
to $4.50
S/D/M 1-Day Pass
from $1.50 to $1.75
7-Day Pass from $14
to $16
Regular 10-Ride Pass
from $9 to $10
S/D/M 10-Ride Pass
from $4.50 to $5.00
Regular 30-Day Pass
from $50 to $55
S/D/M 30-Day Pass
from $24 to $27
Discontinue selling
the Annual Pass
Discontinue selling
the Youth 30-Day
Pass

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
4 / 15
Q3 Please express your level of support for the following proposed fare changes, slated to go into effect in Summer 2027
Answered: 873 Skipped: 340
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Suppo… Supportive Neutral/Un… Unsupporti…
Very Unsup…
Increasing the
Regular TAP or
Mobile Singl...

Increasing the
Regular Cash
Single Ride...

Increasing the
S/D/M TAP or
Mobile Singl...

Increasing the
Regular 1-Day
Pass from $4...

Increasing the
S/D/M 1-Day
Pass from $1...

Increasing the
Regular 7-Day
Pass from $1...

Increasing the
Regular 10-Rid
Pass from $1..

Increasing the
S/D/M 10-Ride
Pass from $5...

Increasing the
Regular 30-Da
Pass from $5..

Increasing the
S/D/M 30-Day
Pass from $2...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
5 / 15

14.91%
130

16.86%
147

13.88%
121

22.25%
194

32.11%
280 872

12.77%
111

14.38%
125

15.42%
134

22.90%
199

34.52%
300 869

14.60%
126

17.84%
154

15.30%
132

18.77%
162

33.49%
289 863

13.85%
119

20.02%
172

16.88%
145

18.39%
158

30.85%
265 859

12.27%
105

16.36%
140

16.00%
137

21.14%
181

34.23%
293 856

13.50%
116

16.88%
145

18.74%
161

32.13%
276 859

13.52%
116

16.55%
142

16.90%
145

19.35%
166

33.68%
289 858

11.76%
101

15.83%
136

16.53%
142

20.49%
176

35.39%
304 859

12.85%
110

17.52%
150

17.06%
146

19.16%
164

33.41%
286 856

12.44%
107

15.23%
131

17.21%
148

19.65%
169

35.47%
305 860
VERY

SUPPORTIVE

SUPPORTIVE NEUTRAL/UNSURE UNSUPPORTIVE VERY

UNSUPPORTIVE
TOTAL
Increasing the Regular
TAP or Mobile Single
Ride Fare from $1.25
to $1.50
Increasing the Regular
Cash Single Ride Fare
from $1.50 to $1.75
Increasing the S/D/M
TAP or Mobile Single
Ride Fare from $0.60
to $0.65
Increasing the Regular
1-Day Pass from
$4.50 to $5.00
Increasing the S/D/M
1-Day Pass from
$1.75 to $2.00
Increasing the Regular
7-Day Pass from $16
to $18
Increasing the Regular
10-Ride Pass from $10
to $12
Increasing the S/D/M
10-Ride Pass from
$5.00 to $6.00
Increasing the Regular
30-Day Pass from $55
to $60
Increasing the S/D/M
30-Day Pass from $27
to $30

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
6 / 15

14.02% 121

13.79% 119

19.47% 168

27.23% 235

21.44% 185

4.06% 35
Q4 How would you rate all of the proposed fare changes presented on the previous pages?
Answered: 863 Skipped: 350
TOTAL 863
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Affordable
Somewhat
Affordable
Fair
Somewhat
Expensive
Very Expensive
Unsure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very Affordable
Somewhat Affordable
Fair
Somewhat Expensive
Very Expensive
Unsure

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
7 / 15

56.32% 481

27.05% 231

16.63% 142
Q5 Considering the current fares and the proposed fare changes, which option would you prefer?
Answered: 854 Skipped: 359
TOTAL 854

56.32%

27.05%

16.63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Implementing
the proposed
fare changes...

Keep fares at
their current
levels but...

I'm unsure
and/or do not
have an opin...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Implementing the proposed fare changes to support current service levels and planned service enhancements (e.g., more buses, earlier and later service)
Keep fares at their current levels but potentially delay planned service enhancements or risk service reductions (e.g., fewer buses and longer wait times)
I'm unsure and/or do not have an opinion on this

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
8 / 15
Q6 Please share how you feel about the general fare policy practices at Big Blue Bus
Answered: 839 Skipped: 374

34.13%
285

25.75%
215

18.20%
152

8.26%
69 13.65%
114 835

74.49%
622

17.96%
150

4.55%
38 1.20%
10 1.80%
15 835

67.26%
563

18.16%
152

11.35%
95 1.55%
13 1.67%
14 837

62.41%
523

20.05%
168

11.93%
100

2.51%
21 3.10%
26 838
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Suppo… Supportive Neutral/Un… Unsupporti…
Very Unsup…
Discounting
fares for TAP
and Mobile...

Free Big Blue
Bus to Big
Blue
Bus
Transfer...

Participating
in free and
reduced fare...

Allowing fare
payment on
board with...

VERY

SUPPORTIVE

SUPPORTIVE NEUTRAL/UNSURE UNSUPPORTIVE VERY

UNSUPPORTIVE
TOTAL
Discounting fares for
TAP and Mobile
payments compared to
Cash payments
Free Big Blue Bus to
Big Blue Bus
Transfers Within 2
Hours
Participating in free
and reduced fare
programs such as
LIFE and GoPass
Allowing fare payment
on board with
credit/debit card or
Apple/Google Pay
(Future Consideration)

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
9 / 15

26.17% 218

67.95% 566

5.88% 49
Q7 Are you eligible for Senior/Disabled/Medicare Fares? Answered: 833 Skipped: 380
TOTAL 833
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Unsure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Unsure

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
10 / 15

43.74% 360

52.37% 431

3.89% 32
Q8 What is your gender?
Answered: 823 Skipped: 390
TOTAL 823
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Male
Female
Non-binary

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Male
Female
Non-binary

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
11 / 15

2.44% 20

17.11% 140

24.33% 199

16.75% 137

12.22% 100

6.85% 56

20.29% 166
Q9 Which age category do you belong to?
Answered: 818 Skipped: 395
TOTAL 818
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-61
62+

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-61
62+

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
12 / 15

24.94% 198

53.78% 427

9.19% 73

1.89% 15

15.24% 121

2.02% 16

4.91% 39
Q10 What is your race/ethnicity? Select all that apply
Answered: 794 Skipped: 419
Total Respondents: 794
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hispanic/Latino
White
Black/African
American
Middle Eastern
or North
African
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Native American
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Hispanic/Latino
White
Black/African American
Middle Eastern or North African
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American
Other (please specify)

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
13 / 15

25.03% 193

14.14% 109

12.06% 93

16.21% 125

10.12% 78

22.44% 173
Q11 What is your annual household income?
Answered: 771 Skipped: 442
TOTAL 771
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under $25,000
$25,000-$34,999
$35,000-$48,550
$48,551-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000 or
more

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under $25,000
$25,000-$34,999
$35,000-$48,550
$48,551-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000 or more

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
14 / 15

41.56% 335

27.79% 224

14.76% 119

9.06% 73

3.47% 28

3.35% 27
Q12 How many people currently reside in your household? Answered: 806 Skipped: 407
TOTAL 806
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 2
3 4
5 6+

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1 2
3 4
5 6+

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
15 / 15
Q13 Thank you for completing this survey. Please free to share any other thoughts or comments you may have around these proposed fare changes or our fare practices in general.

Answered: 305 Skipped: 908

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
1 / 17
Q13 Thank you for completing this survey. Please free to share any other thoughts or comments you may have around these proposed fare changes or our fare practices in general.

Answered: 305 Skipped: 908
# RESPONSES DATE
1 I need LIFE but just barely don’t qualify. I need some discount as I take the bus to work everyday and can barely afford it
4/10/2025 5:46 PM
2 Rate hikes should come with enhanced services, not just to support current services to pass on costs to consumers reliant on public transportation
4/10/2025 10:34 AM
3 The Fare Changes are Fair and reasonable. Big Blue Have the Best Fare Prices.. 4/10/2025 8:54 AM 4 The answer at the end about reduced rides or implement fare changes and maintain or increase service was a loaded and ridiculous question without a good third option. The 3rd option was stay neutral or no opinion
4/9/2025 7:16 PM
5 I absolutely CANNOT support nor agree with ANY increases when these buses do not run ontime [often running 2+ minutes fast or slow on BBB 7, 17, or R12], SOME of the drivers have bad attitudes [I don't earn $25/hr], the temperature is not comfortable [close the windows and turn down the A/C when the sun SETS]. Drivers need to EARN their current pay before I can validate giving them raises and benefits, much less hiring Transit Safety Officers. We are the lowest earning people in the area who are first to be replaced with machines, hit hardest by inflation [groceries!] and last to get a pay-raise to afford SURVIVAL and you want to raise our fare prices? How about applying for federal grants instead? California has the nation's highest homelessness.
4/9/2025 5:49 PM
6 Please make the busses run on time and consistently. Many times a bunch of busses go by very quickly with no bus after for half hour+. This is very inefficient for everyone. 4/9/2025 3:19 PM
7 I think prices will come down eventually and the fare can stay the same 4/9/2025 2:14 PM 8 Since September 2024, I have been regularly using BBB, CC, and Metro buses and I prefer the BBB experience to the other Westside buses. Generally clean and on-schedule, and often with working WiFi, I am so grateful for this service that is also a BARGAIN! I absolutely support the increases in price, which are fair and understandable with inflation and other cost increases. 4/9/2025 12:20 PM
9 I prefer not to see increase in day passes and bulk passes such as the 10 trips for 9 dollars.

There should be an incentive for regular users. And please begin to enforce the fare. Too often I am on a bus with disruptive homeless forcing me to find alternate often more expensive routes. Last I would also emphasize the importance of customer service amongst your operators. Too often my bus won’t approach the curb at pick up, or will drop me off with the back door against a tree, because I’m deeemed to be able bodied. 4/9/2025 8:53 AM
10 would be great adding enough overhead protection from rain and shielded sides to lessen wind, plus lighting and a signal sensor to alert driver of rider waiting at the bus stop 4/8/2025 9:54 PM
11 I would like to see a Limited Line 1 running from Ocean Avenue (or 4th Street) to Westwood Blvd. It would only stop at major streets: 4th St., Lincoln, 20th St., 26th St., Bundy, Sepulveda, and Westwood Blvd. This would greatly help people to get to these major streets, quicker. This bus could run back and forth on Santa Monica Blvd. It could save time for many passengers. This bus could run from 6 A.M. to 7 P.M. weekdays. 4/8/2025 5:27 PM
12 Please dont raise fares 4/8/2025 5:08 PM
13 Please operate route 41 on weekends 4/8/2025 4:18 PM 14 So happens I'm standing waiting for a bus that was due 35 minutes ago what about that?!? 4/8/2025 3:01 PM 15 Don't increase the fares! Cut police funding to support our transit!! 4/8/2025 1:53 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
2 / 17
16 I appreciate your service very much. 4/8/2025 11:22 AM 17 Brighter lighting at bus stops so waiting early morning or late night feels more secure and less vulnerable for seniors
4/8/2025 10:35 AM
18 Would be VERY in support of the ability to pay directly from an Apple Pay/google wallet card or just a regular credit card with tap abilities, thanks! 4/8/2025 10:01 AM
19 Don't increase fare for senior and disable 4/8/2025 10:00 AM 20 If you want to raise fares, raise them for adults (whether in cash or through TAP). Leave the discounted populations out if it (keep the S/D/M and Youth fares the same). Personally, I'd pay more to keep them from being disadvantaged.
4/8/2025 9:32 AM
21 seniors get assaulted more frequently so please do something about this 4/8/2025 9:28 AM 22 I appreciate the thought and consideration put into the fare changes. I strongly support public transportation.
4/8/2025 9:25 AM
23 Better authority for drivers to deal with the general public who have mental issues by communicating with law enforcement for immediate assistance. Also ....... *** Have safety officers on the bus to deal with said situations prior to calling law enforcement. 4/8/2025 9:23 AM
24 The reason your costs are increasing is because of your unions. You need to get rid of the unions and hire private industry workers to run and maintain your buses. This will actually help bring down your costs.
4/8/2025 9:23 AM
25 I said unsure for discounting fare if a tap card is used. I think a tap card costs $1 or $2 so for low income riders it might be better to forego buying the card. If the tap card is free (not sure if it is currently) for those in discounted fare programs like S/D/M, LIFE, or GoPass then I support discounted fare for using TAP. I think it is safer for drivers to not have as much cash on board. Fare collection would be easier for BBB by using TAP and boardings are faster with TAP. Riders would still be able to reload TAP cards on the bus using cash. 4/8/2025 8:12 AM
26 I believe raising the cost of fare is a disservice to the community, and Big Blue Bus should be seeking ways to reduce fare in an effort to help those who most need (and use!) the bus system.
4/8/2025 8:06 AM
27 I don't believe that increasing dates is the only way to improve service. There is plenty of money to tap into for service improvements without having to squeeze more money out of riders, for example, police budgets or executive salaries 4/8/2025 8:02 AM
28 Biggest issue is safety. I feel like there are always people not paying and crazy people on the bus which makes me feel unsafe and there fore not want to pay to use it ever. Implement something like New York where there are police stops that check if everyone has paid and fine those who don’t
4/8/2025 7:03 AM
29 If fares pass $2/ride, then people (like me) with cars will just drive instead. I take the bus to lower my carbon footprint, but my car is a faster, reliable option. Get City Council to better fund Metro instead of increasing fares.
4/8/2025 4:48 AM
30 Safety on the bus is my main concern so if you make it safer I'm all for a fare increase. 4/8/2025 4:29 AM 31 I know I said I was unsupportive but actually if I could pay with my debit card, I would pay whatever y'all want. I would be happy to pay an extra service fee for whatever it costs to let me pay with a debit card just for the convenience. I can afford all of the fair changes, but they're inconvenient bc carrying cash or uploading money on your TAP card is inconvenient. I accidentally deleted the app without logging out one time and straight up lost the $20 I had loaded on my card, and I called customer service to get it resolved but they had me on hold for over and hour and it was not worth it for $20. Anyway, I'm getting off topic. Personally, I find that paying more in fares is inconvenient, not unaffordable. 4/7/2025 11:42 PM
32 I haven't caught a bus since post pandemic days, although rode my fair share for several years, the rounded off fares are most practical, seniors and disabled riders are limited and i figure have their fair share of limitations to bare with. Those annual passes and student passes should not be eliminated. Busses are practical and useful can facilitate traveling within a region with ease, if all other bus lines were like bbb they would be much cleaner and rideable. 4/7/2025 10:17 PM
33 All drivers have been wonderful and buses are clean and easy to reach the yellow strip bug ringer.
4/7/2025 9:38 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
3 / 17
34 Too many stops lack lighting; driver’s frequently pass by passengers after dark; certain routes do not have enough frequency and others seem underutilized 4/7/2025 8:11 PM
35 None of these changes will matter if there’s no improvement in customer service. Things like drivers not looking to see if there’s a passenger(s) waiting at the bus stop, really matter. You’d be surprised how often this happens on a DAILY basis and it makes us late for our destinations. Grrrrr!
4/7/2025 7:29 PM
36 I use the BBB as well as the Metro system and the Culver City buses. I appreciate the public transportation systems. Thank you for working on making public transportation even better. I understand that your work is very com[plex.
4/7/2025 7:07 PM
37 I still have not gotten over--and likely will never get over--the BBB's misuse of grants from the Obama Administration to destroy perfectly good bus benches and replace them with lily pad seats. Not only did they take this money intended to improve mass transit and used it to make mass transit worse. Neither Ed King nor anyone else at BBB went to jail for this theft of federal funds, and that is a shame. The other thing that needs to be done is to empower drivers to stop their bus and wait for police in order to remove nonpaying riders from the bus. I would DEFINITELY support a fare increase to increase police presence on the busses. No more free rides, and no more drama from people who ride illegally without any type of repercussion. And again, those who misused federal funds should be brought to justice, and the old bus benches should be brought back.
4/7/2025 6:51 PM
38 I think the bus service is good, and take regularly. I am not sure how individuals can make judgemenys regarding money matters without seeing the full picture. 4/7/2025 6:31 PM
39 Best of luck. 4/7/2025 6:08 PM
40 Any improvements to enhance the riders commute is very welcomed. 4/7/2025 6:07 PM 41 I wish the city of Santa Monica would divert funds from SAMO PD & fully fund BBB so it can be free for all.
4/7/2025 6:07 PM
42 I think its important to have respectful and kind drivers that people feel safe with, I dont feel that way most of the time
4/7/2025 6:06 PM
43 Keep the fucking homeless out and keep the busses clean 4/7/2025 5:49 PM 44 Is distance based pricing too difficult too difficult to achieve? 4/7/2025 5:44 PM 45 I think the Big Blue Bus generally provides very good service and is a very fair deal for the price.
4/7/2025 5:19 PM
46 Tell your drivers to be more polite please. 4/7/2025 5:04 PM 47 I don't believe you need to increase the fares in order to have more lines out or accurate wait times. Giving an incentive for using paperleas/cardless methods and also allowing for money to be used efficiently within the city would really do it. Re-allocate spending. You'll find that santa monica doesn't need to increase prices to do more. 4/7/2025 4:47 PM
48 Raising prices in this economy is hurting people who need to ride the bus 4/7/2025 4:39 PM 49 Route 9 may be better served as an on call service. It's extremely unreliable with one bus and driver showing up on whim.
4/7/2025 4:33 PM
50 I honestly don't mind these price increases at all on a monetary level. But the current level of service is APPALLING. The principle of being asked to pay more for service that's so consistently bad is insulting. Ghost buses, inaccurate time estimates, 20-30 minute waits even at popular commute times - come on, be serious. I'm happy to pay more, but you need to elevate your level of service - getting it to "Very Satisfactory" is probably too high an ask, but at least take it from "Very Unsatisfactory" to just "Unsatisfactory" for a start. 4/7/2025 4:31 PM
51 BBB has courteous and professional bus drivers. I enjoy riding the BBB. 4/7/2025 4:23 PM 52 Your fares are already higher than the Culver City Green Bus. 4/7/2025 4:19 PM 53 4/7/2025 3:56 PM
54 I’m a teacher and the fare increases would disproportionately harm teachers, students, the economically vulnerable, and the disabled. SM should invest more in BBB. 4/7/2025 3:48 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
4 / 17
55 . 4/7/2025 3:44 PM
56 Took No. 10 BBB to DTLA for 28 years. Used BBB on the Westside, LAX runs and local-local Santa Monica. Great transportation system!
4/7/2025 3:39 PM
57 Monthly fares for youth. 4/7/2025 3:27 PM
58 I take the bus almost every day. If the bus were free, it would be so much quicker. I know that is more costly to pay for the infrastructure to take payments than it would be to make it free.

It’s a public service, it should be free, and it would be faster (we saw this when it was free during covid).
4/7/2025 3:22 PM
59 The prices supposed seems reasonable. Compared to Metro proposal. 4/7/2025 3:15 PM 60 Two increases in two years feels like a lot. But thank you for great service! 4/7/2025 3:09 PM 61 Prices keep going up on everything while the wages stay the same. People can not afford anything anymore
4/7/2025 2:46 PM
62 I strongly feel that fares should get enforced. Dirty and smelling homeless people should not be on the bus as they make for a really terrible and deterring experience for everyone else. 4/7/2025 2:38 PM
63 A study of some sort to present what would be changed or improved with an increase in fares should be done looking at effects of ridership. Greater frequency on all existing lines would make the system more reliable and make me more open to dare increases. 4/7/2025 2:33 PM
64 I Know That Increases Are Inevitable, But With The Uncertainty Federal Cuts To Social Security I Think It Might Be Better To Delay Them As Much As Possible 4/7/2025 2:28 PM
65 Fare is fine to raise but need a better service. 4/7/2025 2:27 PM 66 This survey is not comprehensive. It does not provide alternatives in case the fare increases do not happen. For example, why do we have free wifi on the buses? I'd rather have more frequent service. The bus to downtown Los Angeles could have higher fare (as in the past) as long as longer buses were provided and/or more frequent service. The LA Commuter Express is more expensive than regular LA Metro and I don't see anyone complaining. 4/7/2025 2:26 PM
67 Please tell your business drivers to stop passing up black riders on bus stops. The number 7 bus is always late fix it please.
4/7/2025 2:24 PM
68 Love you guys thanks for making it affordable to get to work 4/7/2025 2:23 PM 69 You know very well that having less service gives you less riders. You know very well but there will be fewer people able to afford cars. You know very well that taking care of the city means better service from buses more frequent service even if it’s smaller buses. You know very well that having have people give little change slows everything down so tap cards should be encouraged. Bus drivers are very nice about people who don’t have fairs and that’s a good thing. For handicap people it slows the bus driver down too much. We know that it’s hard to make schedules realistic because traffic changes daily, on the other hand when a bus at rushhour seems constantly a half hour late we wonder if you should be changing the schedule. But it doesn’t seem to be true every single week. — we really appreciate the bus service. I just hate it when the number five which goes once an hour passes me by (on Olympic ) at Granville by Trader Joe’s just west of Barrington. I wish they paid attention because it’s hard to catch that bus. I’ve noticed that the Big Blue Bus drivers are nicer than the metro drivers overall.

Thank you for that! Maybe there’s a way of asking drivers under what circumstances they could be leaving their car at home. What would make that more likely? Remember under the Trump regime everything is gonna go up substantially so prepare for that – more riders hopefully. And city planning could make life more pedestrian friendly. The days of making everything work for cars/rich people are long over. My first car-1st job- cost me 10 hours of work a week! A lower endused car now cause 250 hours of fast food worker minimum wage!! A new car then could cost me as little as 800 hours of work (Austin Healey Sprite). To my surprise, given the same $20 fast food worker minimum wage, the lowest price MSRP new car is 810 hours of work. But food and rent are much much more Thank you for listening to my collection of many relevant details. Dahlia van Gelder, Santa Monica resident over 20 years. 4/7/2025 2:20 PM
70 Rates and service is great as is 4/7/2025 2:20 PM
71 I think it seems fair the proposed changes. It would be nice to make sure the bus is safe for everyone to take and that the service is as smooth as possible for everyone. 4/7/2025 2:18 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
5 / 17
72 If you really want to reach climate goals and encourage public transit usage, you should not be increasing the fees for the people already relying on your services. Lower income people already make up the majority of bus users in SM/LA, so don't punish us with the rest of the city's autofetishism by making us pay for the more sustainable option 4/7/2025 2:15 PM
73 Biggest wish is to integrate fare practices (e.g., transfers) with Metro 4/7/2025 2:14 PM 74 Not all seniors are tech savvy and not all seniors can afford higher rates. Please consider that not everyone can use technology. Thank you
4/7/2025 2:13 PM
75 I love the Blue Bus 4/7/2025 2:12 PM
76 Still one of the best ran transit agencies on the west coast. 4/7/2025 2:11 PM 77 It is hard enough to be disabled. Please try to reduce how much the disabled rates are impacted.
4/7/2025 2:10 PM
78 We pay so much in taxes as is. Instead of using raising the fares, you should be better allocating our tax dollars.
4/7/2025 2:10 PM
79 I answered for myself. I am sure there are others who find the fares to be costly. 4/7/2025 2:10 PM 80 Concern that raising fares on public transit disproportionately impacts low income residents of our community which is particularly harmful in a time of increases financial insecurity. Also 50% increase in fares — even in a 2 phase implementation plan — is significant and will impact people’s bottom lines.
4/7/2025 2:10 PM
81 I have to take the #9 route on a regular basis and it’s unreliable. Always too early or too late.

Comes only every 40+ minutes.
4/7/2025 2:09 PM
82 na 4/7/2025 2:09 PM
83 decrease fare prices 4/7/2025 2:09 PM
84 We should be encouraging public mass transit as much as possible and one way to do that is to keep fares affordable. People who drive cars should be subsidizing this, not people who take mass transit. Tax drivers of cars in the city of Santa Monica. Cars have more of a negative impact on our roads and public safety, not to mention climate! 4/7/2025 2:09 PM
85 Thank you for the bus! I appreciate the price, cleanliness and the people. I especially appreciate that it takes cars off the road! I can afford higher prices. Some of my fellow riders may feel the pinch more than me, though.
4/7/2025 2:09 PM
86 Thank you for your efforts balancing affordability and system wide financial prudence 4/7/2025 2:09 PM 87 Public transportation should be 100% free. 4/7/2025 2:09 PM 88 We want to encourage people to ride public transit, not discourage! Do NOT increase fares! 4/7/2025 2:09 PM 89 Thank you! 4/7/2025 2:08 PM
90 Public Transportation should be free service . Especially for youth, students, seniors & disabled.
4/7/2025 2:08 PM
91 Public transit should be free to the public fare collection is a waste of time 4/7/2025 2:08 PM 92 we should stop giving lapd such an inflated budget and invest in la metro instead 4/7/2025 2:08 PM 93 I would like to see safety officers on buses (similar to Metro). I have been harassed on the bus and I know from talking to people they view the busses as unsafe. I think safety officers could lessen this view.
4/7/2025 2:08 PM
94 How dare you let large numbers of riders hop on board WITHOUT PAYING AT ALL — OR PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY GOING OFF TO WORK AND DRIVERS LET THEM STICK $1 IN FARE MACHINE WITHOUT TELLING THEM IT’S $1.25. Make everyone pay the fare then you’ll have the money — INSTEAD OF MAKING US HOMELESS AND INDIGENT

CUSTOMERS WHO LEGITIMATELY ALWAYS PAY BE SLAPPED IN THE FACE BY YOU LETTING PEOPLE WITH NICE CLOTHES AND NEW IPHONES BOARD FOR FREE. YOU

NEED TO MAKE LIFE PROGRAM (OR CREATE A BBB LIFE-TYPE PROGRAM) FREE ALL

MONTH FOR INDIGENT PEOPLE THAT ARE ON EBT AND GENERAL RELIEF (LIKE SAN FRANCISCO DOES) AND REQUIRE RENEWAL EVERY 3 MONTHS TO KEEP ONLY 4/7/2025 2:07 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
6 / 17

LEGITIMATE PEOPLE ON THE FREE-ALL-MONTH LIFE (OR A LIFE-TYPE BBB PROGRAM) —> AND MAKE EVERY RIDER PAY, NO EXCEPTIONS — TELL THEM IT IS

NOT A FREE SHUTTLE, MAKE THEM TAP A CARD, DOWNLOAD TAP INSTANTLY TO USE ON THEIR PHONE OR PAY $1.25 CASH. No more free rides for anyone. Jeez, stop letting so many people board for free on every bus every day. DO YOU WANT TO GO INTO RALPH’S AND PAY $15 FOR A STEAK WHILE EVERYONE ELSE WALKS OUT WITH FREE STEAK???? That is what you are doing to those of us who take our Life program measly 20 rides that only lasts about a week, then we use our general relief money to PAY YOUR STINKIN’ BUS FIR RIDES THE OTHER 3 WEEKS EVERY MONTH, WHICH TAKES FOOD

OUT OF OUR MOUTHS WHILE YOUR HORRIBLE LAX POLICIES AND PUSHOVER DRIVERS LET SO MANY PEOPLE GET THE SAME PRODUCT FOR *FREE.* AND STOP LETTING FILTHY HOMELESS ON BUSES FREE — I AM HOMELESS AND I FOLLOW LAWS AND RULES, AND PAY!!!
95 Everything is getting more expensive in society, which means your main body of riders is getting more and more squeezed financially. Don't be part of the problem. It's more important to keep prices down than implement all of these largely unnecessary upgrades. 4/7/2025 2:07 PM
96 We are a nation sent the first man to the moon, I am sure we can do better for the public transportation if we prioritize it. Thanks a million for everything 4/7/2025 2:07 PM
97 It's still very sad that during the pandemic, you implemented a super express bus on Pico and then got rid of it and never re-implemented it since it was actually something that was useful 4/7/2025 2:06 PM
98 Perhaps, you look somewhere other than the fare price to make changes. 4/7/2025 2:06 PM 99 Absolutely ridiculous to increase fare rates when everything is already overpriced/price gouging outrageous. So shameful. Residents do not want to pay for the corrupt development going on the city. We pay the highest taxes and yet our community benefits keep getting taken away. I don’t even recognize my own hometown.
4/7/2025 2:06 PM
100 I don’t like the two-phase approach— why is the initial fare increase insufficient? 4/7/2025 2:06 PM 101 Disabled people in a normal world have free rides 4/7/2025 2:06 PM 102 The bus is for people with low income. Don’t raise the price. Thank you 4/7/2025 2:06 PM 103 It pisses me off that the TAP card money can expire AND YOU GET TO KEEP MY MONEY.

WTH. SUCH A SCAM
4/7/2025 2:05 PM
104 Poor people take the bus and are counting every penny. If people can afford it they take an Uber.
4/7/2025 2:05 PM
105 I would love to know if Big Blue Bus route 9 could resume the route at least to Entrada and then turn around instead of stopping at San Vincente. So many people working along West Chanbel or up Rustic Canyon are finding getting to and from work very difficult! 4/7/2025 2:05 PM
106 Love the Big Blue Bus!! 4/7/2025 2:04 PM
107 For line R7 add a late night route either a smaller bus or a regular bus from ucla plaza to at least the metro rail on expo. Many ucla employees need it. 10:30pm to 12am. Mon- sat 4/7/2025 2:04 PM
108 Enforce fare payment at point of entry. I witness passengers being waved through by drivers EVERY single day
4/7/2025 2:04 PM
109 Considering the current pricing, weekly and monthly passes don’t make sense for most people — they should be significantly more discounted. Even for someone like me, who uses it for a round trip every weekday, it’s actually cheaper to just buy single TAP tickets rather than a pass.
4/7/2025 2:04 PM
110 I use Big Blue Bus nearly every day as a commute to work and while I can currently afford but we should be figuring out how to make it cheaper/free. The majority of people who use public transportation skew lower income and the entities that control this should work towards making our public transportation accessible
4/7/2025 2:04 PM
111 If all drivers made all passengers pay their fare instead of letting them only pay $1 instead of $1.25; and if all drivers made all passengers pay instead of letting them ride free, there would be no need for fare increases. It is unfair to ask the paying riders pay for those who do not.

And then ask them for more money. All day long half of the passengers do not pay. While the 4/7/2025 2:03 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
7 / 17
other passengers pay All day long some passengers pay only a dollar when the fare has been $1.25 for several years.
112 I support fare increases but I believe that the S/D/M fares should stay the same. These groups tend to have lower incomes and less financial support within their household. 4/7/2025 2:03 PM
113 With all the current and upcoming price increases raising prices on peoples day to day commute investments to work and school etc. makes it a burden. 4/7/2025 2:03 PM
114 N/a 4/7/2025 2:03 PM
115 After Covid it was announced that the busses would remain free. Free was better the third party you pay and the amount collected isn’t enough to promise more service etc. other cities are able to offer free fares. It was more on time and less confrontation, arguing and even violence. Dome drivers are on a vendetta to make people pay and other drivers are human.

Fare boxes sometimes don’t work etc.
4/7/2025 2:02 PM
116 A fare increase is necessary for increased wages for drivers, additional routes and extended hours of service.
4/7/2025 2:02 PM
117 More busses more often, cleaner busses, bus lanes should be prioritized 4/7/2025 2:02 PM 118 Seniors and disabled folks should not have to bear the burden. Regular riders can support these changes but making more of an effort to limit homeless useage or implement escorting folks off who cannot maintain civility while on public transport needs to happen. 4/7/2025 2:02 PM
119 Raising fares is not going to magically make the busses go faster and ensure that each bus comes on time, and I highly doubt it will add more busses. Stop trying to charge people to make up for your lack of financial planning and reduce some of the funding for other things that are implemented that serve absolutely no purpose to the public. Making public transport even more expensive is only going to make less people take it. The people who use the bus are made up of individuals who cannot afford, for the most part, another mode of transportation and in this economy every penny counts. This is only going to negatively impact riders. 4/7/2025 2:02 PM
120 I support Northbound lines going until at least midnight so that I could use E line train to return from downtown Los Angeles or Santa Monica at night without driving or rides hare use. 4/7/2025 2:02 PM
121 The fares do not go far enough. We should double or even quadruple bus fares and use those funds to increase safety and cleanliness. The goal should be to get as many middle income Santa Monicans on the bus.
4/7/2025 2:01 PM
122 Open loop payments, as supported in london (oyster card) and sydney (opal card) make taking public transit so much easier. I'd also like to see increased priority on streets for buses- eg. a bus/carpool lane on santa monica blvd. Lastly, it would be great to see increasing frequency prioritized over adding new routes.
4/7/2025 2:00 PM
123 BBB is very cheap. I’d gladly pay more to Improve service while keeping the means tested discounts cheap.
4/7/2025 2:00 PM
124 Very supportive….use all the time and really appreciate it. 4/7/2025 2:00 PM 125 Wages are not increasing , so fares shouldn’t increase too. 4/7/2025 1:59 PM 126 please increase the frequency of the Rapid 10 line so it runs all day like it used to before 4/7/2025 1:59 PM 127 Get WIFI 4/7/2025 1:59 PM
128 Instead of increasing the fare, BBB needs to start charging “everyone “ who try to get in the bus. I pay everyday to get in however I saw sometimes someone sneak in to get pretend they don’t have money or they are taking their time to look for their wallets and almost every drivers say “ok, you don’t have to pay”. This is EXTREMELY unfair that whoever HAS to pay everyday when we get in. It seems “regular “ passengers need to pay no matter what u like others. I would like to be clear: I am struggling to pay everything all my expenses as well like others. I am just diligently pay what I am supposed to. 4/7/2025 1:59 PM
129 Public transit should be free or as affordable as possible. Raising prices for anything is ridiculous. Transit servicing, upkeep, upgrades should be funded by the city, not the riders.

People are already paying their taxes. If anything, public transit riders should be rewarded for supporting the public transit system in a city that is notoriously overwhelmed by single driver vehicles + smog. The bus + train system has been lagging far beyond other cities. 4/7/2025 1:58 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
8 / 17
Comprehensive + expanding rail system is LATE. Whose fault is that? Bus + train riders ?? Are you serious? Hello ??????
130 Mass transit should be trying to add riders, therefore the fares should encourage ridership 4/7/2025 1:58 PM 131 The city has been financially mismanaged for decades by the incompetent/crooked City Council and Deep State, they covered up the sexual molestation scandal caused by city employee for years and finally had to pay over $200M in taxpayer dollars for the settlements.

Now the coffers are empty but the Council wants to rob poor people who ride buses by raising the bus fare. They also want to sell what’s left of public land to pay reparations? That’s INSANE. These councilmembers need to be removed from office (thank you Assemblywoman Annamarie Avila Farsi for AB 1079). Incompetent Councilmembers including the carpetbaggers have to be replaced by normal Santa Monicans not beholden to special interest groups or sick totalitarian and racist ideologies.
4/7/2025 1:58 PM
132 Demographics are tools used to discriminate and jump to conclusions. Public transport and stops should be clean and safe and convenient. Public transport should be free. air purification on public transport should meet the same standards as public school indoor air quality requirements. The safety staff is just riding around doing nothing. I could cut back on that staffing before cutting back on rides. Bus stops need wind/sun/rain shelter and automated signs need to be legible not 15 feet in the air. A depression is coming. We will need public transportation to be clean, safe, on time, electric and frequent. And valuentineered on site and near site solar canopy parking lots for charging the busses. Not remote solar. Not coal burning.

Ask yourself what would Jimmy Carter do?
4/7/2025 1:38 PM
133 Hopefully decrease the number of cheating people. I see often the people get on a bus from back door and no pay fare.
4/7/2025 12:26 PM
134 I think all cash fares should be in increments of 25 cents to make it easier for folks to pay. 55 cents just is an added burden of getting a nickel. It doesn’t seem worth it. I’d rather we increase the regular fare a bit and keep the SDM the same 4/7/2025 11:56 AM
135 Hi, Fare increases haven't happened in a long time, so I totally understand the need. I don't necessarily think penalizing cash payment is necessary, but I'm with you on all the incremental increases. I call it "fair", because I find it just and reasonable. Of course, it's nice when fare increases parlay into service improvements that affect me. As I said some ten years ago in a previous round of surveys, can we please get more Number 2 buses during normal daytime hours? That went unheeded. To this day, we stand in midtown for 20+ minutes waiting for a Number 2, frequently giving in and taking a Metro. Wilshire Blvd. is LA's Main Street. Let's keep it moving. I appreciate that with Big Blue Bus, passengers generally do have to pay their fares. The situation on the Metro buses is a farce--droves of people entering through the back door without paying. (Or am I paying for them?) The operators have been great lately. I should give a special mention for one or two when I get the specs. I did for Juan some years ago and I never saw him again. I guess he was promoted... Sorry I missed the in person hearing. KW [email protected]
4/7/2025 11:48 AM
136 I'm supportive of BBB and appreciate the excellent service, friendly drivers, clean buses and reasonable fares.
4/7/2025 10:32 AM
137 Keep the fares the same. Avoid confusion. Treat customers as poor people struggling in a Society of greedy and selfish financial rapists.
4/7/2025 10:14 AM
138 I understand that you need to raise fares to pay your drivers and other employees, but it's not anything that makes me happy.
4/7/2025 10:10 AM
139 The biggest issue is safety & cleanliness on BBB. Also, how can you increase the fare when half the riders don't pay?? I've ridden the bus daily for 25 years & now see many riders simply walk past the driver, mumble something & don't pay! Then we have the mentally unstable riders (that walk on without paying) yelling, cursing, and making it a very stressful process.

Please deal with the above issues before trying to raise the fares, seems ridiculous at the moment! Also, BBB leadership should ride all the bus lines incognito so they can get a real picture of how things really are.-Thank you!
4/7/2025 10:05 AM
140 Please build proper bus shelters. 4/7/2025 10:03 AM 141 The most annoying issue about BBB is the complete failure to show up on time. people loss their jobs because the bus is late 30-50% of the time. Also the inability to fix the homeless on the bus issue, it’s a safety issue. Totally unacceptable, fix it and more people will ride the bus. 4/7/2025 9:58 AM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
9 / 17
142 keep homeless people off the bus. People are just walking on the bus with no fare and the drivers arent doing anything
4/7/2025 9:47 AM
143 Thank you Big Blue Bus drivers and staff. Appreciate all your kindness and help riding the bus.

Thank you!
4/7/2025 9:45 AM
144 I wish you all the best. 4/7/2025 9:38 AM
145 Big Blue Bus Fare Free!!!!!!!!! no charges!!! 4/7/2025 9:34 AM 146 If you must increase fares then please increase service. For example Rapid 10. It should come every 30 minutes in the morning till 9:00 am. Also it should offer earlier pick ups in Downtown LA.
4/7/2025 7:09 AM
147 Hope R10 will be more interesting 4/7/2025 7:07 AM
148 Interagency transfer should be easier 4/7/2025 12:29 AM 149 The service is pretty infrequent and unreliable compared to the bus systems I’m used to in my home country. If the frequency and reliability of the service was much improved then fare rises would feel more justified but at the low fares compensate for the poor quality of the service at times
4/6/2025 6:08 PM
150 Big blue bus already charged higher fares compared to other small city transit systems. My job isn't changing its already low transit subsidy to account for these fare hikes, so that's more money out of my pocket when I'm not seeing any increase in wages and dealing with increases in many other daily expenses
4/5/2025 11:27 AM
151 More clear service. Train drivers more nice. 4/5/2025 9:24 AM 152 Please make comparison articles on fare hike in other cities and or states such as New York City or Boise, Idaho.
4/3/2025 8:35 PM
153 Increasing the fares will only be fair if it's followed by a substantial improvement in service such as more frequent buses on certain routes (route 18 for instance: a bus every 30 mins during peak hours is simply not good enough). A better communication and marketing efforts are essential to promote big blue bus and encourage people to use it more. 4/3/2025 8:28 PM
154 Please keep the blue bus affordable. Tax the rich. 4/3/2025 5:45 PM 155 Things are so expensive already. I ask that you keep the bus fare what it is now without increasing it please.
4/3/2025 1:58 PM
156 For starters this is a ridiculous exercise because bbb will receive approval from council in favor of the proposed rate hikes no matter the responses here or during public hearings. The benefit of safety officers is dubious at best given the extraordinary cost of over $3M for the five year contract already approved by council. A couple of these survey questions are unfairly loaded/biased in their phrasing such as discontinuing the “rarely used” annual pass. Also Question 5 response options offer a false choice asking what’s preferred between supporting the *definite* fare increases or feel the threat of risking reduced service. In other words, support us or else! However it is false and misleading to even suggest riders may be risking reductions to the better blue changes *already approved* by council, and which came at its own cost of roughly $300K. It is also not the fault of riders that bbb is struggling to attract and retain new drivers. Being a rider who went car-free in favor of public transit, the Very Worst aspect of all regarding bbb service - which is neglecting to be addressed whatsoever - is riders remain consistently set up for failure when attempting to transfer because buses are scheduled to meet in intersections and shared stops at the very same time. The manner of scheduling guarantees riders involuntarily miss connecting with their preferred transfer and instead be forced to wait for the next arrival. In some circumstances that could mean riders wait 20+ minutes, thereby intentionally creating inefficient trips. Frankly I’d be willing to support rate hikes once scheduling adjustments are made to remedy that significant inefficiency 4/2/2025 7:53 PM
157 The 7-day pass should also be applied to the Senior/Disabled/Medicare (S/D/M) fare too 4/2/2025 5:45 PM 158 Fix wait times for buses!! 4/2/2025 4:58 PM
159 Do not change SDM prices! 4/2/2025 4:50 PM
160 If the 30 day pass could with somehow with the other transits, that would be helpful 4/2/2025 6:02 AM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
10 / 17
161 Differential between cash and non-cash is unfair (unfare), but I don't support increasing either in most categories.
4/1/2025 9:08 AM
162 I see that the Big Blue Bus is working to ensure riders' confidence and, happily, to restore service lost due to the pandemic.
3/31/2025 8:00 AM
163 I am a senior with a disability. I use a walking stick. I usually have packages or a cart. I am respectful to the drivers, but most are not respectful in return. They don’t lower the step or move the bus close to the curb. Homeless are allowed to ride free, when my card ran out I had to pay. I plan on moving after 42 years living in SM. Transportation on BBB is dirty, sometimes scary and some of the drivers for the most part rude. Retrain your drivers in common courtesy and respect. It was better in the past.
3/31/2025 7:32 AM
164 Easier to pay cash than obtain picture id for lower fares for seniors with a disability 3/30/2025 9:10 PM 165 If you didn't let half the riders ride for free you wouldn't have to raise the fares. I'm tired of paying my fare and then watch people being allowed on for free while I have to pay. They give all kinds of excuses why they can't pay and then laugh as they walk back to a seat or pull out 2 smart phones, or they board through the back door without any consequences. Some walk in the front door and just sit down without even asking if they can get a free ride, as if they're entitled to it. I'm sick and tired and angry that I have to pay while the driver decides who they will or will not let on for free.
3/30/2025 8:23 PM
166 If you do implement these fare changes, the biggest improvement I’d want to see is buses running later on the 17 and 18 lines. I often go to Sawtelle and the Aero theatre by bus, but there is no way for me to get back unless I Uber.
3/30/2025 3:29 AM
167 Thank you for providing bus service. It makes my life in LA enjoyable. 3/29/2025 11:33 AM 168 Maybe consider different fare tiers according to income instead of age. 3/28/2025 6:22 PM 169 Anything for more frequent service. And I really want the 14 to go further south to Westchester and to the airport.
3/27/2025 8:01 PM
170 Metro cash is $1.75 BBB should be the same price as Metro or $2.00. BBB S/D/M fare should be $1.00 discount fare $0.75 (9am to 3pm) with proper proof of S/D/M otherwise no proof $1.00 fare applies proof for discounts must be a must show or no discounts Apple Pay along with Google Pay are needed not in the future but now in 2025. Transit Token needs many improvements like a QR scan to improve getting on the bus The buses cash boxes are always broken the dollar bills stuck coins you need new cash boxes or improvements Tap machine at the back door is a great way to get onto the bus
3/27/2025 7:39 PM
171 The BBB is a great resource for the Westside. The proposed increases are small and would only bring BBB fares up to the level LA metro’s current costs. The value in a public transit system lays in its utility. I’d rather pay more for better frequencies and more safety than an inexpensive system that isn’t particularly useful.
3/27/2025 5:41 PM
172 Most can't afford these increases. 3/27/2025 2:32 PM 173 Clean up downtown and nomo service 3/27/2025 1:11 PM 174 Right now with inflation and high prices I’m on a budget , I understand the proposed hike , but is gonna extremely hard on us the hike
3/27/2025 8:16 AM
175 Thank u 3/27/2025 7:23 AM
176 Reducing the number of bus trips, resulting in longer wait times, would be a hardship— especially for senior/disabled population!
3/27/2025 6:09 AM
177 Add more late night bus service on main lines 1,3,7, 14. Plus run line 5 every 30 minutes and bring back the weekend service
3/26/2025 8:22 PM
178 I only ever see safety crews riding relatively safe parts of the routes. There are certain hot spots of problems - I’m sure drivers can identify them - and the safety crews should focus there. The fares are prohibitively expensive for local travel within Santa Monica. I hope you consider charging fares based on distance traveled by having riders tap when the enter and exit the bus.
3/26/2025 6:02 PM
179 Fares should be reduced/free for Veterans 3/26/2025 10:55 AM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
11 / 17
180 I support the fare increase 3/26/2025 10:39 AM
181 transportation should be a free service provided for all . The taxes that we pay on everything we have to purchase.
3/26/2025 9:26 AM
182 Please don’t raise the prices. We can’t afford life as it is. 3/26/2025 6:39 AM 183 paying on board with apple or google pay would be great 3/25/2025 7:48 PM 184 We should continue to support senior, disabled and low income folks especially these difficult times.
3/25/2025 4:17 PM
185 Justify price increases with rush hour time slots and a plan for bus lanes to avoid traffic. 3/25/2025 3:53 PM 186 Please do something about the homeless issue! Make the bus drivers enforce the fare I've seen many do nothing about it and just let them on with all their baggage taking up lots of space and making the bus smell. We either all have to pay to the fare or none of us do. 3/25/2025 12:57 PM
187 Don't raise the fare prices for S/D/M, they don't generate a lot of money and rely on social se 3/25/2025 9:42 AM 188 Allow metro to and from bbb transfers within 2 hours. Allow metro rides to work on bbb instead of necessitating cash payments. It creates issues when metro rides are added to a tap card but bbb requires only a cash fare
3/25/2025 1:11 AM
189 Have goPass, family visiting doesnt. Family was confused why la Metro had unlimited 2 hour transfers, BBB 1 2 hour transfer. Would like the same standards. Matching LA metro fair would also not be bad, as I think its very fair.
3/24/2025 6:05 PM
190 PLEASE DO NOT RAISE THE BUS FARE. THANK YOU 3/24/2025 4:43 PM 191 Kind awareness on three buses heading towards LAX being what it's in the retic fee on Reno late flights is in the tens of thousands
3/24/2025 8:47 AM
192 Hello. Thank you for listening. I'm unsupportive of the increases because revenues from increases never get to where they were intended to go to. Everyone along the line takes “their piece”, and by the time we to implementing all the proposals, there’s only crumbs left for menial and fractional adaptations of the proposed plans. Thank you for listening. 🤜🤛 3/23/2025 2:10 PM
193 Big blue bus is an awesome service, well priced, reliable with friendly and helpful drivers 3/23/2025 12:29 PM 194 I only support higher fare changes IF there really will be changes to the bus system with lower wait times and more buses
3/23/2025 10:26 AM
195 I am for the first increase of fares NOT the second phase. I want to be clear that it’s NOT that I’m against a discount to tap / digital pay riders. It’s that I am against taxing cash riders for using cash. I would be for prices staying the same IF the scheduled stayed the same and did NOT increase. I am definitely for increasing the schedule IF you’re going to increase the fare.

Meaning don’t increase the fare and the schedule stays the same. There should be more buses and more times earlier and later.
3/23/2025 4:22 AM
196 My kids use the Big Blue Bus to go everywhere —- thank you!! We all use the bus & metro to go DTLA, but have had some uncomfortable scenarios on the train :( Coming from NYC, I’m huge advocate of good & safe public transportation.
3/22/2025 11:21 PM
197 For the questions about cash pricing vs. TAP/mobile pricing, I see it differently than you presume. I have been riding about a decade with a TAP card. I use a TAP card because I like the physical card myself, and the low price with the card is great. But philosophically, what I want you to know is that I oppose charging a higher price for people who want to use cash.

Many poor people can't manage card use easily. If they want or need to use cash, they should not have to pay a higher price. ... I think things like BBB at Night (like a uber/lyft equivalent) are wasteful and unneeded. I think the new multicolor rider displays you put in the buses, with silly messages about scooter rules, were more wasteful spending. ... If you don't increase rates, the one service you absolutely need to retain, or even expand, is BBB#3 to and from LAX. Ideally it needs to operate even earlier in the a.m. and later at night than it currently does. ... If you do increase rates, I think you should fully exclude the Senior/Medicaid/? - category riders. Don't raise rates on them. Thank you.
3/22/2025 4:20 PM
198 I would absolutely support fare increases if at least 50% or more of that went to pay increase and better benefits for drivers and mechanics!
3/22/2025 1:39 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
12 / 17
199 Raise taxes on the billionaires-don’t punish the poorest of people who are forced to use your unsafe and unreliable public transportation. I say this as someone who has been physically and sexually assaulted on at least 4 different occasions while using public transportation. 3/22/2025 1:02 PM
200 Asking for demographic information is by definition a tool for discrimination and jumping to conclusions All fare increases will reduce bus use. Busses are unreliable. The stops provide no shade, rain or wind protection, security cameras or seating and the arrival system displays are invisible. Save money by skipping stupid designs that don't work. IF you aren't providing shelter, then don't spend money on pretending to. Public busses need continuous fresh air circulation and MERV 14 filtration to help reduce contagion. county should think about the well being of inhabitants and habitat by making public transport free and safe. 3/22/2025 10:33 AM
201 Thank you for getting the word out early about fare changes. Figure out more places, e.g., stores, where one can load a Tap card. Offe
3/22/2025 8:57 AM
202 Very affordable pricing. It is definitely competitive to LA Metro’s fares for the quality and service given.
3/22/2025 8:43 AM
203 Always satisfied with public transportation in Southern California. 3/22/2025 8:14 AM 204 Better integration with LA Metro. E.g., with fare capping. 3/21/2025 10:18 PM 205 I don't think the extra money will be used for anything. Bus service is already pretty bad. 3/21/2025 7:44 PM 206 provide seating at ALL bus stops 3/21/2025 7:17 PM
207 Public transit should be free! 3/21/2025 7:04 PM
208 I support fare increases if it also increases service frequency, routes, and dedicated bus lanes 3/21/2025 6:35 PM 209 I feel that since all buses are alternative fuel and WE as consumers paid higher fares for this to occur have the right to demand reduced fares without a delay in bus scheduling and frequency of those scheduled stops. Has Blue Bus forgotten how on board everyone was for the alternative fuel bus and it's expenditure? It seems as though all has been forgotten and the use of impractical methods are implemented now for you're cost analysis in futures. The other potential hazard I can forsee is the use of Ai for cost analysis and prospectus. Ai generated spread sheets, and, cost analysis is never good As Ai does not have reasoning, nor does it consider the human condition in its evaluations. Prohibit this and you will find that deficiency is a matter of reasonable affect. Newer trending ways and means should never be the means to the end. If it ain't broke why fix it. Raising Senior/Disabled/Medicare more than a nickel will surely be an unconscienable act indeed. I know EVERYONE wants to make as much money off the upcoming Olympics as possible however consider the excess lines and more patronage you will have and levy that into you're profit making. Of the Utmost importance you will be killing an opportunity for this class of humans their continued Right to Freedom and Usefulness and desacration of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and this highly protected Class of People has become the popular thing to do. We suffered enough. With all due respect, Sir and Madam, I have my own entitlement. I have spoken. **Should you wish to know me, you may call 310-619-8506, at you're convenience, Sincerely,
3/21/2025 6:06 PM
210 Question #5 is a false choice. Enhanced service changes (frequency of #7, etc.) have already been enacted. Are you suggesting we will lose these if we don't increase fares for the poor? This is untrue.
3/21/2025 4:47 PM
211 MORE security on the buses should be considered with the fare increases 3/21/2025 2:20 PM 212 Improve service along with fare increases especially on weekends! We need more weekend routes to leisure locations - this can be very attractive considering hassle of parking and driving. Service patterns are super M-F heavy and commuter focused. Frequency increases are desperately needed on core arterial routes to make transfers something reasonable. The second round of fare increases should be contingent on service improvement and NOT AUTOMATIC.
3/21/2025 1:58 PM
213 BBB runs a better service than most comparable transit agencies at a lower user cost. Small, predictable fare increases are preferable to waiting for a crisis and then a sharp increase, or a deterioration of service.
3/21/2025 12:40 PM
214 I have no complaints about the BBB bus service. The bus stands with tiny mental umbrellas should be replaced with ones that contend with the weather. 3/21/2025 12:33 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
13 / 17
215 Keep rates low. Cut your expenses. Have more security. 3/21/2025 11:42 AM 216 Please bring back the Rapid service!! You recently discontinued it, resulting in EXTREMELY long rides and uncompetitive service. Rapid-bus service is absolutely essential! 3/21/2025 11:26 AM
217 Add TAP machines at popular bus stops so people can get tap cards easily. 3/21/2025 9:37 AM 218 If BBB needs more funds it should be coming from somewhere else in the city budget, and not from the people. This is ridiculous
3/21/2025 8:22 AM
219 Ok to increase for better service and more buses 3/21/2025 8:22 AM 220 I think it’s not fair for people that pay their fare if you are raising te price and at the same time letting people get on for free. Too many homeless also. 3/21/2025 4:42 AM
221 Is this a fuel, utilities, etc costs issue or is this a cutting service so have to increase fares issue? Contrasting statements in survey. Why not go electric and eliminate fuel costs? Some buses are constantly empty meanwhile there are barely any buses that go north south, except near the ocean. It seems a reappraisal of routes needs to happen. Lastly, only a few lines actually need security. Most BBB buses are safe, at least during the daytime, so no need for that added expense. Now Metro.. that’s a different story.. When it comes to BBB, clean up the issues on the promenade and the buses will be safer.
3/20/2025 11:06 PM
222 Raise rates for rich people. 3/20/2025 10:13 PM
223 I understand the need for funding, and that the prices haven't been raised in a decade, but it would suck to have higher prices and no more discount on TAP card holders. I have been a lover of BBB for a decade and a half, and I use it heavily, and I don't have the budget for higher fares, especially not increases so close to eachother. Please reconsider. 3/20/2025 7:59 PM
224 Increasing fare prices will reduce ridership numbers. This will result in reduced fare revenues and make the total operating revenues even worse). Big Blue Buses should either maintain the current fare prices or reduce the fare prices (example: to $1 for both cash & TAP regular fares). 3/20/2025 7:55 PM
225 i would prefer a more in depth survey relating to if i would or would not like to be in support for the up charge in fare for Medi-Cal, GoPass etc. i would not and am not in support for the fare change starting Summer 2027 and risk longer wait times and less busses; as opposed to more busses, shorter wait times, and later and earlier routes. thank you for this survey. 3/20/2025 7:14 PM
226 Fuck you 3/20/2025 4:41 PM
227 there was a question about an annual pass. not sure of the terms but if there was a way to pay for an annual pass with monthly payments, that would seem more logical. I would think most bus travelers are not going to pay a lot up front for a bus pass. 3/20/2025 4:13 PM
228 Services are getting better by the day but there’s no need to raise for the elderly, disabled, and youth
3/20/2025 3:15 PM
229 Demonstrating positive effects, both with data and in passengers' comfort, of theTransit Safety Officer program would change feelings toward 2027 increase from "neutral" to "strongly support"
3/20/2025 11:23 AM
230 Ability to pay with a debit/ credit card and Apple Pay would be really convenient! But it would only he convenient if other transit organizations allowed their use too 3/20/2025 10:12 AM
231 I wish the survey would have been more specific about exactly what the fare changes will be used for. It seems designed to push in favor of raising fares without full transparency. 3/20/2025 9:33 AM
232 Implementing general credit card/tap to pay payments would be a gamechanged. 3/20/2025 8:46 AM 233 I note the current s/d/m Tap fare of 50¢ is 43.3% of the full Tap rate. Raising it to 60¢ (1st phase) increases the percentage to 48%. When the 2nd phase kicks in the percentage 3/20/2025 8:40 AM
234 With rents always rising there is less and less money available. As a senior I walk and take the bus as often as possible (now that it is safe again) but fare increases would definitely affect that. I’d probably have to go back to more car usage. 3/20/2025 8:09 AM
235 If you do end up raising rates and eliminating the 30 day youth pass, please ensure that affected members of the community are made aware of resources such as LIFE, GoPass, etc so they can continue riding the bus
3/20/2025 6:45 AM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
14 / 17
236 You need to have more consistent schedules to be increasing the fare 3/20/2025 5:24 AM 237 This is an amazing bus system. Thank you so much! 3/20/2025 5:14 AM 238 Agree with most of them 3/19/2025 10:25 PM
239 A complete overhaul of the fare system in general, such as ending the concept of flat rate fares altogether and instead look to variable rated fares (cheaper fares for shorter trips, higher fares for longer trips) should be explored using TAP in/TAP out. 3/19/2025 9:58 PM
240 Public transportation should be free. 3/19/2025 8:24 PM 241 Currently it looks like the Go Pass is only valid until September 30, 2025. Do not eliminate BBB free youth rides unless GoPass will be extended through 2028. Reinstating a program is much harder than keeping an underutilized program. We need to cultivate ridership among young people and families.
3/19/2025 7:58 PM
242 Love the buses, but they are a public resource. Make the city with the highest GDP in the US pay for them, not the poorest people in the city!
3/19/2025 7:17 PM
243 I would support moderate increases but only if you really actually improve service and not waste the money. Also, you should not raise any rates for seniors or the disabled , just regular fare
3/19/2025 7:16 PM
244 We love the BBB and use it all the time, unless we are walking! So very grateful. Thank you!! 3/19/2025 7:12 PM 245 I strongly support the fare increases across the board, improving the BBB network has been incredibly helpful to me as a student at UCLA (esp. BBB Route 17) and further improvements are something I continue to look forward to. I think helping people who pay with cash to learn about alternatives (TAP, Special programs) is incredibly helpful as I still see many people pay with cash (especially around VA Hospital).
3/19/2025 7:04 PM
246 If the fare services lead to an increase in services, especially the regularity of rides and cleanliness great (not whatever extra safety officers because they do little for safety at the end of the day), but if the increases dont result in direct benefits, its hard to support especially for people who depend on the bus, are feeling the effects of inflation, but do not see increased wages for ourselves in this economy. at least make the passes cheaper instead so more people buy them
3/19/2025 6:59 PM
247 While the prices of a lot things are going up keeping the bus prices the same will help our community because not everyone has a fancy job
3/19/2025 6:41 PM
248 Using TAP should be incentivized by increasing cash costs but not TAP. We need more frequent buses
3/19/2025 5:44 PM
249 If the prices to go up... you better get train the bus driver on better customer service... lot have a Attitude problem with customers and they always rush the customers..or some of the drive speed and blow right by the bus without stopping... always on the horn to rush traffic so they can on time ...the big blue is hiring bad drivers and only training them on to drive the bus... 5 years ago the drivers where really good at customer service...today in 2025 most of them have Attitude issues and just thier to thier job and Collect a paycheck 3/19/2025 5:13 PM
250 I believe the bus should be free for all riders. I am especially concerned about increasing fares for those eligible for discounted fares. I strongly support alternatives to TAP such as outfitting busses for Tap-to-Pay with chip cards or apps like Apple Pay/Google Pay. 3/19/2025 5:03 PM
251 Thanks for the generally excellent service! 3/19/2025 4:50 PM 252 Fares are reasonable so a small increase is fine. Open loop payments by credit card would be great at attracting casual riders. There seems to have been a drop in reliability so please focus on keeping buses on schedule. BBB is doing much better with safety than Metro, so keep it up.
3/19/2025 4:48 PM
253 I would be more supportive of fares changes if busses actually arrived at their designated time.

When your bus doesn’t even show up it is worse an impacting people. You talk about increasing prices but who can hold Big Blue bus accountable for early/late arrivals or even no shows. There’s no compensation to the rider and as most people don’t have other means of transportation there is not much that can be done.
3/19/2025 4:44 PM
254 Please run at least one #14 bus after 11pm north to south 3/19/2025 4:42 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
15 / 17
255 Lower the fares blue bus standards has really sucked over the past 2 years rude bus drivers high fares etc
3/19/2025 4:39 PM
256 I believe regular fares could increase on small increments. But those that support low income, seniors, and disabled should remain the same. Perhaps taxes can be increased a tiny amount to assist in keeping services. Cash customers are typically lower income and should, therefore, not be penalized!
3/19/2025 4:17 PM
257 y'all tryna price ppl out of the system 3/19/2025 3:51 PM 258 1. STOP allowing people to ride the bus for free. I see it happening all the time. Drivers selectively wave people through. This is why you have a shortfall of income for BBB. 2. Do not increase the fare for seniors!
3/19/2025 3:49 PM
259 Please don't raise the fares on Big Blue bus, life is expensive enough as is. 3/19/2025 3:48 PM 260 Public transport services the most needy and vulnerable populations. The vast majority who are reliant on public transport also tend to fall between the cracks. We make too much money to be eligible for discounted or free fares and make too little too afford a car. And with stagnant wages, any increase in expense means cutting expenses elsewhere. For instance, I am in desperate need for new glasses, have no health insurance, cannot afford a car, barely make enough money to pay my share of rent, yet I also make too much money to qualify for any benefits. Increasing bus fare on top of runaway inflation of groceries and utilities means I will have to delay an optometrist appointment. And this comes with its own level of danger as I'm at an increased risk of retinal cancer that needs to be monitored through these very expensive appointments.
3/19/2025 3:46 PM
261 I like my Senior Tap card. 3/19/2025 3:44 PM
262 we're living in such precarious times, why schedule next stage for 2027 at this time? 3/19/2025 3:42 PM 263 It only makes sense for costs to rise. It's a miracle that BBB has been able to maintain such low fares for so long (and even the proposed fares are very affordable). With federal grant money most likely drying up, and the continued need to enhance service, switch to all electric buses, and perform station upgrades, the money has to come from somewhere. 3/19/2025 3:26 PM
264 Don't raise prices. About to be a GREAT recession. Similar to the 1929 depression. 3/19/2025 3:24 PM 265 I love Big Blue Bus and am fine with paying more to help ensure it stays as high quality as it currently is, but I obviously don't want it to negatively impact people who may be more dependent than I am. Implementing credit/debit card payments would significantly improve the experience for people who are infrequent users or out of town visitors as well. 3/19/2025 3:22 PM
266 I’m also a college student 3/19/2025 3:17 PM
267 Stop fare dodgers. This behavior must have negative consequences on the bottom line. 3/19/2025 3:17 PM 268 Properly fund city programs with our tax dollars instead of having governors waste it when they misappropriate homelessness funds
3/19/2025 3:16 PM
269 I am in favor of increasing fares if it means a noticeable increase in quality and quantity of service. I would also be supportive of a program that would allow lower income individuals to apply for a special reduced fare pass. But the quality of the service is very important, as a high quality public transportation can gain ridership from those who have the option to drive, but opt for public transit due to convenience, as well as offering discounts to those who need it. A lower quality and cheaper transit service will only attract riders who have no other option. 3/19/2025 3:16 PM
270 I would pay more to ride the bus if BBB actually enforced no entry for non- paying riders. Also no entry for passengers who have hygiene issues (they stink), are under the influence, are carrying way too much crap, or are making noise disturbances. The BBB should not be a free transit system for problem homeless people, which is what I sometimes witness 3/19/2025 3:13 PM
271 I would support fare raises if the buses ran every 10 minutes during SMMUSD school hours and every 15 minutes during other times. How can SM residents use the bus when they are late or don’t run on time. Or even at times just don’t show up. I’m talking about Route 5 and 8 in my experience.
3/19/2025 3:12 PM
272 I ride the buses occasionally and don't mind higher fares but I think higher fares would discourage low-income people from using the buses. I would prefer some type of Taxation to 3/19/2025 3:07 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
16 / 17
improve the buses and certainly not cut down on the routes or frequency of the buses. 273 Increasing fares for general riders is fine but we should not increase it for people who are seniors or disabled - they deserve their rider costs to maintain where they currently are 3/19/2025 3:06 PM
274 Public Transportation is a public benefit and should be a free service in any decent society.

Much like the Post Office, the Parks service, the schools, or the military, any expectations that such an organization should be run for profit are beside the point of the endeavor. Cash for the cost of public goods should be sourced entirely through progressive taxes. 3/19/2025 3:06 PM
275 Please keep fares stable for disabled and senior citizens. Work with large local employers to finance transit passes for their employees. If I were in charge of BBB I would generate revenue by fining all the idiots who refuse to move to the back of the bus when it's crowded and who block doors when others are trying to get on or off the bus. They need to learn some manners. 3/19/2025 3:06 PM
276 Right now, regular people are struggling and the economy is only getting worse. While BBB needs improvements, in the present the best thing you can do to support your riders (who are mostly low-mid income) is to keep fares as low as possible to reduce financial pains. I understand increasing the cost of the 10-trip, 1-day, or 7-day passes since mostly tourists use those ones, but the rest of the fares will negatively affect working class people. I would say this topic should be revisited in the future after the economy is (hopefully) better. We all want improvements to public transit. But at the moment, with many afraid of a recession, I don’t think increasing fares is the move.
3/19/2025 3:06 PM
277 The bus stop at Main & Sunset in Venice- has a problem where people going east will miss the bus because several buses line up and break there at the same time and don’t pay attention to riders waiting and will leave because they are standing between the two buses and don’t know which one is next. While on break buses should say “on break until 1:00pm…” so we know which bus to get on next without the driver sometimes ignoring us. My main concern on buses is first safety and second cleanliness. Would be nice to find a safe and efficient way for drivers to refuse service to people who appear mentally unstable and dangerous (who usually skip fares) and encourage safety at all times for female riders. A 911 emergency button at stops while waiting; like college campuses. And also people who are visually soiled with feces or urine, no shoes, or smell of alcohol, or tweaking from drugs should not be allowed entry and escorted off. They make the bus dangerous and literally soil the seats for other riders. Aside those riders never pay. Thank you.
3/19/2025 3:06 PM
278 transfers from culver city bus to BBB would be nice if less money 3/19/2025 3:04 PM 279 Since BBB is able to have high quality service at the current price of $1.10 whereas LA metro charges $1.75, i think that I would rather see fares rise to $1.75 and see an even better service (bus until 2am, more frequent route 17/18, etc.). Also fare capping would streamline services. 3/19/2025 3:03 PM
280 I live with only 221 dollars a month from DPSS. If you need more funding, ask the City of LA and City of Santa Monica for grants. People are barely surviving with the prices of food and rent as it is, and the poorest of the poor ride the bus. We have no choice, needing fo get fo doctors, pharmacies, grocery stores, work, home, etc., given we can’t afford cars. Not the place to make money from. Hate the proposal.
3/19/2025 3:03 PM
281 Thanks for asking. 3/19/2025 3:03 PM
282 Fare cost is less important to me than increased service. The number of different fare options seem too complicated, we should encourage whichever of them are fastest to operate during boarding.
3/19/2025 3:02 PM
283 I think it’s awful for you to raise prices right now. 3/19/2025 3:02 PM 284 Seniors cannot afford higher bus fares 3/19/2025 3:01 PM 285 The most important thing is having the buses come often!! If it costs a little more that is completely fine
3/19/2025 3:01 PM
286 Bus drivers constantly pass stops when running late and won’t pick up passengers. 3/19/2025 3:01 PM 287 I have been paying $1.75 twice a day to ride the bus. This is costly being that the bus is often unsafe or has drivers acting inappropriately.
3/19/2025 3:00 PM
288 If fare increases are needed, deliver clear value in exchange for it and communicate that to customers: ie do not simply keep service at current levels but EXPAND service and provide 3/19/2025 3:00 PM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Big Blue Bus Fare Change Survey
17 / 17
MORE FREQUENT service if fares are increased. At the same time, also seek increased funding from city and other sources.
289 If you all are going to raise the bus fare, making sure buses are coming at more frequently and there are more ways for people to pay, especially the elderly who may be against technology is important to consider. I would greatly appreciate a transfer for two hours. 3/19/2025 3:00 PM
290 Please allow K-12 discounts via TAP card to be applicable to BBB fares 3/19/2025 2:59 PM 291 Consider additional income-based programs if possible; I could afford to pay more than I do, but I answered knowing that plenty of people can't afford to pay more. 3/19/2025 2:59 PM
292 I do no support this increase. Public transportation is already expensive as it is for people who have low income/students/disabled and considering these are the poeple who usually prefer PT, I hope it will stay the same as it is
3/19/2025 2:58 PM
293 No comments. 3/19/2025 2:58 PM
294 To me personal it will be hard the increase because I have three kids that used the bus. Right now is helping the goo pass program but if they discontinued it, will be a hardship. 3/19/2025 2:58 PM
295 I think improved service and especially improved service and fare integration with Metro, CCB, etc. is more important than maintaining the current nominal fares despite inflation. With current poor reliability and integration, the presently lower fare than Metro is not unwarranted. 3/19/2025 2:56 PM
296 I am glad you still accept cash fares! I use a tap card but I think that program is corrupt and discourages transit use. Fares should be rounder numbers, especially with cash 3/19/2025 2:52 PM
297 Increase parking fees to generate more funding for BBB. Riders already pay enough by being delayed by all the people who choose to drive.
3/19/2025 1:59 PM
298 Funding for Brighter Blue is great and a worthy use. Funding for police on transit, however, makes riders feel less safe, wastes our fare and tax dollars, and is an inefficient use of funds when they could go to service improvements or much more effective and cost-effective unarmed ambassadors. Please do not use fare revenues for that. 3/19/2025 11:06 AM
299 please let you know the drivers ask the people pay the fair bus, because is very unfair to see people travel free.
3/19/2025 10:39 AM
300 Please enforce the fare on buses. Increasing fares only matter if drivers enforce the fare. I cannot count how many times that passengers walk past drivers without paying or riders simply ask drivers for free rides. Without any effort to enforce the fare, the proposed fare changes have substantially less meaning.
3/19/2025 10:24 AM
301 I think many people ride the bus because it's too expensive to afford a car nowadays. 3/19/2025 10:22 AM 302 For those on unlimited income, such as myself, the bus fares should not be increased. In fact, some countries in Europe, have free bus and train fares, especially for seniors. We should do the same.
3/19/2025 10:14 AM
303 Make fare capping like on LA Metro a thing (18 bucks/week) or (5 bucks per day) for those who use the buses to commute.
3/19/2025 9:51 AM
304 As a regular rider, I appreciate all that you do to keep me moving. The fares that you currently charge are quite cheap and increasing after all this time to at least match the level of inflation over the past few years is more than fair. Thank you!
3/19/2025 9:51 AM
305 Is the monthly ez pass affected? 3/19/2025 6:39 AM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 1 / 21

28.57% 6

9.52% 2

47.62% 10

14.29% 3

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q1 ¿Cómo calificaría las tarifas actuales de Big Blue Bus? Answered: 21 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 21
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Muy asequibles
Relativamente
asequibles
Justas
Relativamente
caras
Muy caras
No estoy
seguro/a

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Muy asequibles
Relativamente asequibles
Justas
Relativamente caras
Muy caras
No estoy seguro/a

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 2 / 21
Q2 Exprese su nivel de apoyo a los siguientes cambios de tarifas propuestos, que están programados para entrar en vigor en agosto de 2025.S/D/M= Sénior, Discapacidad, Medicare
Answered: 16 Skipped: 5
Incrementar la
tarifa de viaje
sencillo...

Incrementar la
tarifa de viaje
sencillo...

Incrementar la
tarifa S/D/M
con TAP, o l...

Incrementar la

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) E
ncuestadecambiosen lastarifaspropuestosporBigBlueBus
3/21
tarifa de viaje
sencillo par... Incrementar el pase de 1 día regular de $... Incrementar el pase de 1 día para S/D/M d... Incrementar el pase regular de 7 días de $1... Incrementar el pase regular de 10 viajes de...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) E
ncuestadecambiosen lastarifaspropuestosporBigBlueBus
4/21 Incrementar el pase de 10 viajes para... Incrementar el pase regular de 30 días de $... Incrementar el pase de 30 días para S/D/M d... Dejar de vender el pase anual debido...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 5 / 21
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Muy a favor A favor Neutral/No… No estoy a …
No estoy n…
Dejar de
vender el pase
juvenil de 3...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 6 / 21

18.75%
3 25.00%
4 12.50%
2 25.00%
4 18.75%
3 16

25.00%
4 25.00%
4 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 16

31.25%
5 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 16

25.00%
4 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 16

31.25%
5 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 16

31.25%
5 31.25%
5 6.25%
1 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 16

25.00%
4 18.75%
3 25.00%
4 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 16

25.00%
4 25.00%
4 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 16

25.00%
4 18.75%
3 25.00%
4 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 16

26.67%
4 20.00%
3 26.67%
4 13.33%
2 13.33%
2 15

26.67%
4 20.00%
3 13.33%
2 26.67%
4 13.33%
2 15

28.57%
4 21.43%
3 28.57%
4 7.14%
1 14.29%
2 14

21.43%
3 28.57%
4 21.43%
3 21.43%
3 7.14%
1 14
MUY A
FAVOR
A
FAVOR

NEUTRAL/NO
ESTOY

SEGURO/A
NO

ESTOY A
FAVOR

NO ESTOY
NADA A
FAVOR
TOTAL
Incrementar la tarifa de viaje sencillo regular con
TAP o móvil de $1,10 a $12,5
Incrementar la tarifa de viaje sencillo regular en
efectivo de $1,25 a $1,50
Incrementar la tarifa S/D/M con TAP, o la tarifa de
viaje sencillo con móvil de $0,50 a $0,60
Incrementar la tarifa de viaje sencillo para S/D/M
en efectivo de $0,50 a $0,75
Incrementar el pase de 1 día regular de $4 a $4,50
Incrementar el pase de 1 día para S/D/M de $1,50
a $1,75
Incrementar el pase regular de 7 días de $14 a $16
Incrementar el pase regular de 10 viajes de $9 a
$10
Incrementar el pase de 10 viajes para S/D/M de
$4,50 a $5,00
Incrementar el pase regular de 30 días de $50 a
$55
Incrementar el pase de 30 días para S/D/M de $24
a $27
Dejar de vender el pase anual debido a un uso
muy limitado
Dejar de vender el pase juvenil de 30 días (muy
poco usado), debido a la existencia de GoPass

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 7 / 21
Q3 Exprese su nivel de apoyo a los siguientes cambios de tarifas propuestos, que están programados para entrar en vigor en verano de 2027.

Answered: 13 Skipped: 8
Incrementar la
tarifa de viaje
sencillo...

Incrementar la
tarifa de viaje
sencillo...

Incrementar la
tarifa de viaje
sencillo par...

Incrementar el

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) E
ncuestadecambiosen lastarifaspropuestosporBigBlueBus
8/21
pase regular de
1 día de $4,... Incrementar el pase de 1 día para S/D/M d... Incrementar el pase regular de 7 días de $1... Incrementar el pase regular de 10 viajes de... Incrementar el pase de 10 viajes para...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 9 / 21
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Muy a favor A favor Neutral/No… No estoy a …
No estoy n…
Incrementar el
pase regular de
30 días de $...

Incrementar el
pase de 30 días
para S/D/M d...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 10 / 21

25.00%
3 16.67%
2 25.00%
3 25.00%
3 8.33%
1 12

15.38%
2 30.77%
4 23.08%
3 23.08%
3 7.69%
1 13

23.08%
3 30.77%
4 23.08%
3 15.38%
2 7.69%
1 13

25.00%
3 8.33%
1 33.33%
4 33.33%
4 0.00%
0 12

25.00%
3 8.33%
1 41.67%
5 16.67%
2 8.33%
1 12

15.38%
2 15.38%
2 46.15%
6 15.38%
2 7.69%
1 13

16.67%
2 8.33%
1 50.00%
6 16.67%
2 8.33%
1 12

16.67%
2 16.67%
2 41.67%
5 16.67%
2 8.33%
1 12

16.67%
2 8.33%
1 41.67%
5 25.00%
3 8.33%
1 12

16.67%
2 8.33%
1 50.00%
6 16.67%
2 8.33%
1 12
MUY A
FAVOR
A
FAVOR

NEUTRAL/NO
ESTOY

SEGURO/A
NO

ESTOY A
FAVOR

NO ESTOY
NADA A
FAVOR
TOTAL
Incrementar la tarifa de viaje sencillo regular
con TAP o móvil de $1,25 a $1,50
Incrementar la tarifa de viaje sencillo regular
en efectivo de $1,50 a $1,75
Incrementar la tarifa de viaje sencillo para
S/D/M con TAP o móvil de $0,60 a $0,65
Incrementar el pase regular de 1 día de $4,50
a $5,00
Incrementar el pase de 1 día para S/D/M de
$1,75 a $2,00
Incrementar el pase regular de 7 días de $16 a
$18
Incrementar el pase regular de 10 viajes de
$10 a $12
Incrementar el pase de 10 viajes para S/D/M
de $5,00 a $6,00
Incrementar el pase regular de 30 días de $55
a $60
Incrementar el pase de 30 días para S/D/M de
$27 a $30

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 11 / 21

16.67% 2

25.00% 3

16.67% 2

25.00% 3

8.33% 1

8.33% 1
Q4 ¿Cómo calificarías todos los cambios de tarifa propuestos expuestos en las páginas anteriores?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Muy asequibles
Relativamente
asequibles
Justos
Relativamente
caros
Muy caros
No estoy
seguro/a

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Muy asequibles
Relativamente asequibles
Justos
Relativamente caros
Muy caros
No estoy seguro/a

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 12 / 21

63.64% 7

18.18% 2

18.18% 2
Q5 Teniendo en cuenta las tarifas actuales y los cambios de tarifas propuestos, ¿qué opción preferiría?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Implementar
los cambios de
tarifas...

Mantener las
tarifas en su
nivel actual...

No estoy
seguro/a, o no
tengo opinió...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Implementar los cambios de tarifas propuestos para apoyar los niveles de servicios actuales y las mejores de servicios planificadas (p.ej., más autobuses, servicios tempranos y tardíos).

Mantener las tarifas en su nivel actual, pero retrasar potencialmente las mejoras de servicios planificadas o arriesgar reducciones de servicio (p.ej., menos autobuses y mayores tiempos de espera).

No estoy seguro/a, o no tengo opinión sobre esto.

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 13 / 21
Q6 Por favor, díganos cómo se siente con las prácticas generales de la política de tarifas de Big Blue Bus.

Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
Tarifas con
descuento para
pagos TAP y...

Transbordos
gratuitos de
Big Blue Bus...

Participar en
programas de
tarifas...

Permitir el
pago del
billete a bo...

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 14 / 21

27.27%
3 72.73%
8 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 11

50.00%
5 50.00%
5 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 10

40.00%
4 60.00%
6 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 10

20.00%
2 40.00%
4 40.00%
4 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Muy a favor A favor Neutral/No… No estoy a …
No estoy n…
MUY A
FAVOR
A
FAVOR

NEUTRAL/NO
ESTOY

SEGURO/A
NO
ESTOY
A
FAVOR
NO
ESTOY
NADA A
FAVOR
TOTAL
Tarifas con descuento para pagos TAP y móvil
comparadas con los pagos en efectivo.

Transbordos gratuitos de Big Blue Bus a Big Blue Bus en el plazo de 2 horas.

Participar en programas de tarifas gratuitas o reducidas, como LIFE y GoPass.

Permitir el pago del billete a bordo con tarjeta de
crédito/débito, o con Apple/Google Pay (se podría
considerar en un futuro).

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 15 / 21

45.45% 5

9.09% 1
Q7 ¿Opta usted a las tarifas Sénior/Discapacidad/Medicare? Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Si
No
No estoy
seguro/a

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Si
No
No estoy seguro/a

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 16 / 21

20.00% 2

80.00% 8

0.00% 0
Q8 ¿Cuál es su género?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Masculimo
Femenino
No binario

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Masculimo
Femenino
No binario

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 17 / 21

0.00% 0

9.09% 1

54.55% 6

27.27% 3

9.09% 1
Q9 ¿A qué categoría de edad pertenece?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Menor de 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-61
62+

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Menor de 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-61
62+

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 18 / 21
100.00% 11

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q10 ¿Cuál es su raza/origen étnico? Seleccione todas las que correspondan.

Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
Total Respondents: 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hispano/latino
Blanco
Negro/afroameri
cano
Oriente Medio
o norteafricano
Asiático/isleño
del Pacífico
Nativo
americano
Otro
(especifique)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Hispano/latino
Blanco
Negro/afroamericano
Oriente Medio o norteafricano
Asiático/isleño del Pacífico
Nativo americano
Otro (especifique)

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 19 / 21

54.55% 6

36.36% 4

9.09% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q11 ¿Cuáles son sus ingresos familiares anuales?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Menos de $25
000
$25 000-$34 999
$35 000-$48 550
$48 551-$74 999
$75 000-$99 999
$100 000 o más

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Menos de $25 000
$25 000-$34 999
$35 000-$48 550
$48 551-$74 999
$75 000-$99 999
$100 000 o más

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 20 / 21

18.18% 2

27.27% 3

9.09% 1

18.18% 2

9.09% 1
Q12 ¿Cuántas personas residen actualmente en su hogar?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 2
3 4
5 6+

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1 2
3 4
5 6+

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 21 / 21
Q13 Muchas gracias por completar esta encuesta. Si quiere, puede compartir con nosotros lo que piensa o hacernos llegar más comentarios en relación con los cambios de tarifa propuestos, o con nuestras prácticas de tarifas en general.

Answered: 5 Skipped: 16

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Encuesta de cambios en las tarifas propuestos por Big Blue Bus 1 / 1
Q13 Muchas gracias por completar esta encuesta. Si quiere, puede compartir con nosotros lo que piensa o hacernos llegar más comentarios en relación con los cambios de tarifa propuestos, o con nuestras prácticas de tarifas en general.

Answered: 5 Skipped: 16
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Gracias por tomarn9s en cuenta para los cambios y bendiciones 🙌 4/10/2025 2:51 PM 2 Porque no hablan acerca del aseo del bus y en dejar de que las personas de la calle suban ya que le dan mal olor y regularmente no pagan la tarifa
4/8/2025 10:04 AM
3 Las tarifas actuales me parecen perfectas , un pequeño incremento no me molesta. Más me gustaría mejorarán la atención al cliente al abordar.
3/26/2025 3:11 PM
4 Lamentablemente el servicio de BBB de Santa Mónica a Palisades en estos momentos no está en servicio, solo hace un recorrido de Santa Mónica a San Vicente y regresa, yo tengo que caminar de ahí hasta Channel Road y Entrada, así que un aumento en la tarifa no se me hace justo de por si pago 1.10 y pagar más en estos momentos no creo que sea justo tal vez más adelante
3/19/2025 5:40 PM
5 Yo entiendo que todo está subiendo pero no es justo que unos paguen y otros no deberían de ser parejos sugun la edad
3/19/2025 11:13 AM

4.G.h
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment H_Survey Results and Comments [Revision 1] (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Title VI Fare Equity Analysis
2025-2027 Proposed Fare Changes
April 2025

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 1 ends

Table of Contents
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................2 Background..................................................................................................................................2 Current Fare Transactions by Fare Category ...................................................................................3 Current Fare Structure ..................................................................................................................4 Proposed Fare Changes ................................................................................................................4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................5 Data Sources............................................................................................................................5 Definitions................................................................................................................................6 Title VI Policies .............................................................................................................................6 Fare Equity Disparate Impact Policy:.......................................................................................6 Fare Equity Disproportionate Burden Policy: ............................................................................6 Fare Equity Analysis ......................................................................................................................7 Disparate Impact Analysis......................................................................................................7 Disparate Impact Findings......................................................................................................9 Disparate Impact Conclusion .................................................................................................9 Disproportionate Burden Analysis...........................................................................................9 Disproportionate Burden Findings.........................................................................................11 Disproportionate Burden Conclusion....................................................................................11 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................11 Appendix....................................................................................................................................11

1.1 Public Meeting PowerPoint...........................................................................................11

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 2 ends

Purpose
In fiscal year 2024-2025, the Santa Monica Department of Transportation identified the need propose fare changes to Big Blue Bus fares to address declining per ride fare revenue, rising operational costs, and uncertainty in federal transit funding. Without transitioning to a more sustainable fare revenue model, Big Blue Bus would need to reevaluate planned service enhancements or possibly cut existing service.

The proposed fare changes are subject to a fare equity analysis as defined by Big Blue Bus’s Major Service and Fare Change Policy. The fare equity analysis, contained herein, is required to ensure compliance with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI regulations as defined by FTA Circular 4702.1B. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed changes result in a disparate impact on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, or a disproportionate burden on the defined low-income population.

Executive Summary
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance. In compliance with this law, Big Blue Bus has conducted a Title VI fare equity analysis of the proposed fare changes.

Background
Big Blue Bus last implemented comprehensive fare increases in 2016. At that time, the Santa Monica City Council approved a 25 percent increase in the cost of a Regular Single Ride, from $1.00 to $1.25.

All other rides and passes rose by a similar percentage during that period.

In 2017, the cost of a Regular Single Ride using contactless media (i.e., TAP or mobile ticket) decreased to incentivize contactless payment and discourage the use of cash to reduce time dwelling at stops due to fare transactions. By 2020, cash fare transactions had fallen to about one-third of all fare transactions.

In 2022, Big Blue Bus made changes that included: free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfers, a new 10 Rides Pass, elimination of paper passes and tokens, and increasing the age for free rides from 4 to 5 years old. The changes were made at the conclusion of a yearlong Contactless Fares Pilot, which sought to evaluate whether Big Blue Bus could go completely cashless. Big Blue Bus did not make a recommendation to permanently go cashless at that time due to several findings during the pilot.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 3 ends

Big Blue Bus is proposing fare increases to address fiscal challenges which include:
1) Declining per ride revenue. The average fare per ride has also fallen to roughly 70 cents, a 20% decrease from the pre-pandemic average of 87 cents.

2) Rising operating costs. Currently, it costs $182 per vehicle revenue hour to operate Big Blue Bus service compared to less than $150 pre-pandemic, a 21 percent increase due to rising labor and maintenance costs.

3) Uncertainty of federal funding. The new federal administration policies have created uncertainty around federal transit funds. The ‘fiscal cliff’ for transit agencies nationwide continues to be a pressing concern given reduced ridership (and by extension fare revenues), the end of COVID relief funding, and rising inflation. Big Blue Bus faces the same challenges.

Current Fare Transactions by Fare Category
The following chart breaks down fare transactions by Fare Category for FY2023-24:

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 4 ends

Current Fare Structure
Big Blue Bus fares vary based on rider type and fare category. Rider type includes Regular (age 19-61), Youth (age 5-18), Senior 62+/Disabled/Medicare (shown as S/D/M), and Child (age 5 and under).

Current fare categories include Single Rides, 1-Day Pass, 7-Day Pass, 10 Rides Pass, 30-Day Pass, and Annual Pass. Children aged 5 and under ride for free as well.

Ride or Pass Current
Regular
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $1.10
Single Ride (Cash) $1.25
1 Day Pass $4
7 Day Pass $14
10 Ride Pass^ $9
30 Day Pass $50
Annual Pass $500
Senior / Disabled / Medicare (S/D/M) & Youth
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $0.50
Single Ride (Cash) $0.50
1-Day Pass $1.50
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50
30-Day Pass $24
Youth 30-Day Pass $19
^ Includes free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

Proposed Fare Changes
The proposed fare changes will be introduced in two phases, with Phase 1 beginning in August 2025 and Phase 2 in the summer of 2027.

During Phase 1, Single Ride fares (both TAP/Mobile and Cash fares) will see increases ranging from between $.15 and $.25. Passes will see costs increase between $.50 and $5.00. Similar fare increases will occur for Senior/Disabled/Medicare riders. In this phase both the Annual Pass and 30-Day Youth Pass are proposed to be eliminated due to their extremely limited usage. Specifically with the 30-Day Youth Pass, the existence of the regional GoPass which provides students at participating K-12 schools and community colleges with free rides has made this pass rarely purchased or used.

The second and final phase will occur in Summer 2027. The table below provides the numerical increases expected in phases one and two.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 5 ends

Ride or Pass Current
Phase 1:

August 10, 2025 Change
Phase 2:

Summer 2027 Change
Regular
Single Ride (TAP & Mobile) ^ $1.10 $1.25 $0.15 $1.50 $0.25 Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.50 $0.25 $1.75 $0.25
1 Day Pass $4 $4.50 $0.50 $5 $0.50
7 Day Pass $14 $16 $2.00 $18 $2.00
10 Ride Pass^ $9 $10 $1.00 $12 $2.00
30 Day Pass $50 $55 $5.00 $60 $5.00
Annual Pass $500 Eliminate
Senior / Disabled / Medicare (S/D/M)
Single Ride (TAP & Mobile) ^ $0.50 $0.60 $0.10 $0.65 $0.05 Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.25 $0.75 -
1-Day Pass $1.50 $1.75 $0.25 $2 $0.25
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50 $5 $0.50 $6 $1.00
30-Day Pass $24 $27 $3.00 $30 $3.00
Youth
30-Day Pass $19 Eliminate
^Includes free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within two hours.

Methodology
Data Sources
The following fare equity analysis was completed using the results of an on-board rider survey conducted in March 2025. Additionally, overall fare transactions for FY23-24 were used where survey data was limited as some of the lowest utilized fare categories were not captured during the on-board survey. The on-board rider survey had 600 responses and collected information on:
• Fare Category (Ride or Pass) used
• Fare Media (TAP/Mobile Ticket/Cash) used
• Rider Type (Regular, S/D/M, College, Youth)
• Rider race/ethnicity
• Household income
• Household size
Rider demographics were combined with the fare category to determine the systemwide, minority, and low-income fare utilization for all fare payment options. The resulting comparison of fare utilization between minority and non-minority riders, and low-income and non-low-income riders, will establish whether the proposed changes result in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden as defined by BBB’s adopted policies.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 6 ends

Definitions
In performing the fare equity analysis, minority riders are defined as survey respondents who completed the race/ethnicity question and marked any category besides White-alone. Low-income riders are defined as survey respondents who completed the household income and household size questions and are deemed eligible to participate in the Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) program.

The household income limits established by the LIFE program are the same guidelines that BBB uses to determine which riders define the low-income population.

Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE), Household Income Limits Persons per Household Annual Income
1 $48,550 or less
2 $55,450 or less
3 $62,400 or less
4 $69,350 or less
5 $74,900 or less
6 $80,450 or less
Title VI Policies
As required by the FTA Title VI regulations, the public was engaged in the development of BBB’s disparate impact and disproportionate burden policies. These two policies will determine if the proposed fare media changes result in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.

Fare Equity Disparate Impact Policy:
“A disparate impact occurs when the percent minority population adversely impacted by a major service change is fifteen percent (15%) higher than the average minority population of the Big Blue Bus service area, or when the percent non-minority population beneficially impacted by a major service change is fifteen percent (15%) higher than the average non-minority population of the Big Blue Bus service area.

If a disparate impact exists as a result of the proposed changes, Big Blue Bus will determine whether there are alternatives that would serve the same legitimate objectives but with less disparate impact on the minority population. If there are no viable alternatives, Big Blue Bus must have a substantial legitimate justification for making the proposed change.” Fare Equity Disproportionate Burden Policy:
“A disproportionate burden occurs when the percent low-income population adversely impacted by a major service change is fifteen percent (15%) higher than the average low-income population of the Big Blue Bus service area, or when the percent non-low-income population beneficially impacted by a major service change is fifteen percent (15%) higher than the average non-low-income population of the Big Blue Bus service area.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 7 ends

If a disproportionate burden exists as a result of the proposed changes, Big Blue Bus may take steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impact of the proposed change on the low-income population.” Fare Equity Analysis
The fare equity analysis determines how minority and low-income populations are impacted by the proposed changes. Changes that result in a 15 percent or more difference between the impacted minority and low-income populations and their corresponding systemwide percentages would require further analysis to determine if there is a disparate impact or disproportionate burden, and or if mitigations should be considered to address potential impacts to those groups.

Disparate Impact Analysis

73.0% of all survey respondents identified as minority riders. Minority riders are considered any rider who did not choose ‘White alone’ when asked their ethnic/racial identity.

The following chart shows the difference in usage for each ride and pass proposed to be changed, for minority riders compared to riders overall. No ride or pass shows a difference of more than 15 percent between minority usage and overall usage.
73%
27%
Minority
Not Minority
March 2025 On Board Rider Survey -
Minority: Percent of Riders

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 8 ends

Minority Ride and Pass Usage versus Overall Usage
Cost Change Usage Minority vs.

Overall
Difference
Rider
Type Category Current
Proposed
Phase 2 Absolute % Minority Overall
Regular Single Ride (TAP/Mobile) $1.10 $1.50 $0.40 36% 53% 52% 0.6% Regular Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.75 $0.50 40% 21% 19% 2.1% Regular 1 Day Pass $4.00 $5.00 $1.00 25% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% Regular 7 Day Pass $14.00 $18.00 $4.00 29% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% Regular 10 Ride Pass $9.00 $12.00 $3.00 33% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% Regular 30 Day Pass $50.00 $60.00 $10.00 20% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% Regular Annual Pass $500.00 Eliminate 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
SDM Single Ride (TAP/Mobile) $0.50 $0.65 $0.15 30% 14% 17% -2.7% SDM Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.25 50% 5.5% 5.5% 0.0% SDM 1 Day Pass $1.50 $2.00 $0.50 33% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
SDM 10 Ride Pass $4.50 $6.00 $1.50 33% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
SDM 30 Day Pass $24.00 $30.00 $6.00 25% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%
Youth 30-Day Pass $19.00 Eliminate 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
The following chart shows the percentage increase for minority riders compared to non-minority riders for all Single Fare Rides including Regular and SDM rider types, and Contactless and Cash fare media.

There is a less than 1 percent difference between the increase in fares for minority and non-minority riders.

38.8% 39.7%
Minority Non-Minority
Average Fare Change on Minority Riders

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 9 ends

Disparate Impact Findings
• Minority riders comprise 73% of all systemwide riders. • All proposed changes are below the 15% threshold.
• Using Single Rides (Regular & SDM, and TAP & Mobile) as an example, minority riders will have a lower average fare increase (0.9%) than non-minority riders.

Disparate Impact Conclusion
Based on the 15% threshold established in the Disparate Impact Policy, there are no disparate impacts to minority riders based on the above changes to fare price and fare pass type. When comparing the percentage of minority riders impacted by fare type to the percentage of riders by fare type used overall, all fare mediums show a range between -2.7 percent and 2.1 percent. Although the proposed changes do not result in a disparate impact to minority riders, Big Blue Bus is committed to promoting fare programs such as the regional “Low Income Fare is Easy” (LIFE) program that provides free rides and discounted passes on Big Blue Bus.

Disproportionate Burden Analysis
In order to determine if respondents meet Big Blue Bus’s definition of low income, the on board rider survey asked respondents for household income and household size. Sixty-three percent (62.7%) of respondents were identified as low-income riders (riders whose reported household income and size met the established thresholds of the LIFE program).

The following chart shows the difference in usage for each ride and pass proposed to be changed, for low-income riders compared to riders overall. No ride or pass shows a difference of more than 15 percent between low-income rider usage and overall usage.

62.7%

37.3%
Low-Income
Non Low-Income
March 2025 Survey - Percent Low-Income Riders

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 10 ends

Minority Ride and Pass Usage versus Overall Usage
Cost Change Usage Low Income
vs. Overall
Difference
Rider
Type Category Current
Proposed
Phase 2 Absolute %
Low
Income Overall
Regular Single Ride (TAP/Mobile) $1.10 $1.50 $0.40 36% 46% 54% -7.7% Regular Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.75 $0.50 40% 17% 14% 3.4% Regular 1 Day Pass $4.00 $5.00 $1.00 25% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Regular 7 Day Pass $14.00 $18.00 $4.00 29% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% Regular 10 Ride Pass $9.00 $12.00 $3.00 33% 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% Regular 30 Day Pass $50.00 $60.00 $10.00 20% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% Regular Annual Pass $500.00 Eliminate 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
SDM Single Ride (TAP/Mobile) $0.50 $0.65 $0.15 30% 10.4% 8.4% 2.0% SDM Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.25 50% 17.3% 15.1% 2.3% SDM 1 Day Pass $1.50 $2.00 $0.50 33% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
SDM 10 Ride Pass $4.50 $6.00 $1.50 33% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
SDM 30 Day Pass $24.00 $30.00 $6.00 25% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0%
Youth 30-Day Pass $19.00 Eliminate 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
The following chart shows the percentage increase for low-income riders compared to non-low-income riders for all Single Fare Rides including Regular and SDM rider types, and Contactless and Cash fare media. There is a less than 1 percent difference between the increase in fares for low-income and nonlow-income riders.

39.5%

37.9%
Low-Income Non-Low Income
Average Fare Changes on Low-Income Riders

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy)

Page 11 ends

Disproportionate Burden Findings
• Low-income riders comprise 62.7% of systemwide riders. • All proposed changes are below the 15% threshold.
• Using Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) as a an example, low-income riders will see a slightly higher average fare increase of 1.6%.

Disproportionate Burden Conclusion
Based on the 15% threshold established in the Disproportionate Burden Policy, Big Blue Bus found that the proposed changes to fare prices do not constitute a disproportionate burden on low-income riders.

Furthermore, our analysis found the discontinuation of the 30-Day Youth Pass and Annual Pass do not disproportionately burden low-income riders as well. The difference the proposed fare changes had on low-income riders vs low-income riders overall by fare category range between -7.7 percent and 3.4 percent. Although the proposed changes do not result in a disproportionate burden impact on lowincome riders, Big Blue Bus is committed to promoting fare programs such as the regional “Low Income Fare is Easy” (LIFE) program that provides free rides and discounted passes on Big Blue Bus.

Conclusion
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance. In compliance with this law, Big Blue Bus has conducted a Title VI analysis on the proposed fare changes.

This analysis has found that the proposed changes will not result in a disparate impact on the minority population or a disproportionate burden on the low-income population.

Appendix

1.1 Public Meeting Presentation

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Proposed Fare
Changes
2025-2027
Public Hearing

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Agenda
• Introduction • Overview • Proposed Fare Changes • Financial Impacts • Fare Payment Enhancements • Next Steps • Public Comment

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus is Proposing Fare Changes to:
• Address fiscal challenges
• Support planned customer experienceenhancements
Proposed Fare Changes include:
• Increased costs for single rides and passes
• Elimination of underutilized passes
• Two-phase implementation over a two-year period
No changes to:
• Free BBBtransfers and contactless incentives
• Access to discounted fares on Big Blue Bus through LIFE (low-income) andGoPass(student K-12) regional programs
Overview

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Fiscal Challenges
• Declining fare revenue per passenger
• Currently $0.70; Pre-pandemic $0.87
• Rising operational costs
• Currently $182 per revenue hour; Pre-pandemic $150
• Uncertainty of future federal funding
• New Federal Administration
Planned Customer Experience Enhancements
• Implementation of Brighter Blue 5-Year Service Plan
• Ongoing MotorCoach Operator Recruitment & Retention
• Safety Initiatives (e.g., Transit Safety Officers, Prohibition Orders)

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Recent Fare
Changes
• Fare Change in 2022
• Conclusion of Contactless Pilot
• Introduction of Free BBB to BBB Transfers
• Introduction of 10 Rides Pass
• Elimination of paper passes
• Increase age for free rides from 4 to 5 years old
• Fare Change in 2017
• Contactless fare (i.e., TAP) reduced to $1.10 (from $1.25) • Introduction of Annual Pass
• Fare Change in 2016
• Last fare increase
• Increased Regular Single Ride fare from $1.00 to $1.25 • Other fare increases across the board

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes
Increase cost of Regular and Senior/Disabled/
Medicare (SDM): • Single Ride • 1-Day Pass • 7-Day Pass (Available only for Regular) • 10 Rides Pass • 30-Day Pass Eliminate: • Annual Pass (Regular) • Youth 30-DayPass
Maintain: • Free BBB to BBB transfers • Cheaper fares on TAP and Mobile

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes: 2025-2027 – Regular
Regular Fares Current
August 10,
2025
Summer
2027
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $1.10 $1.25 $1.50
Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.50 $1.75
1 Day Pass $4 $4.50 $5
7 Day Pass $14 $16 $18
10 Rides Pass^ $9 $10 $12
30 Day Pass $50 $55 $60
Annual Pass $500 Eliminate -
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes: 2025-2027 – SDM & Youth
Senior/Disabled/Medicare (SDM) Current
August 10,
2025
Summer
2027
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $0.50 $0.60 $0.65
Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.75
1-Day Pass $1.50 $1.75 $2
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50 $5 $6
30-Day Pass $24 $27 $30
Youth Current
August 10,
2025
Summer
2027
30-Day Pass $19 Eliminate -
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Discounted Fare Programs • Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE) • GoPass • K-12 Schools (SMMUSD and LAUSD) • Community Colleges (Santa Monica College)
• UCLA Bruin U-Pass and Grad Pass
• Access Services Free Fare Program

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Alternatives Considered • No Fare Increase • Risks not implementing full Brighter Blue service enhancements (e.g., frequency improvements,
early/late and weekend service)
• Risks Motor Coach Operator recruitment and
retention efforts, and safety initiatives
• Elimination of Free Transfers • Results in increase in fare revenue, but limited impact on fiscal challenges
• Decision to maintain: • Proven to increase ridership • Reduces burden on low-income riders

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Financial & Budget Impacts
Fully implementing proposed changes:
• Increases revenue by about 13 percent or $780,000 annually • Increases Average Fare per Rider to 85 cents by 2028
• Projected ridership decline of 7 percent
• Actual ridership and revenue impacts may vary due to other factors such as:
• Economic trends
• Service quality
• Demographic changes
• Alternative transportation options

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Future Enhancement: Open Payments
• Big Blue Bus participating in LA Metro’s ‘TAP Plus’Initiative • Onboard fare payment via credit/debit card or Apple/Google Pay expected in 2026

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Next Steps
• Public Hearings – April2 (Virtual)and April3,2025 (In-Person) • Public Comment PeriodCloses–April 10, 2025
• Present Proposal to City Council for Approval –May 13, 2025 • Notify Ridersand Community–May to August 2025
• ImplementPhase 1 –August 10, 2025
• Implement Phase 2 –Summer 2027

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Share Your Thoughts With Us
Public Comment:
• Each speaker will have 3 minutes to provide an oral comment at this hearing. • Speakers will be called in the order their speaker card was received. • Please provide your first and last name and city of residence before making your comment.

Online Survey:
• Feedback can also be shared through an online survey available in English and Spanish at:
bigbluebus.com/meetings. The survey deadline is April 10, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Cambios de
tarifas
propuestos
2025-2027
Audiencia pública

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus propone cambiosenlas tarifaspara:
• Abordardesafíosfiscales
• Apoyarlas mejorasenexperienciadel clienteplanificadas Los cambiospropuestosenlas tarifasincluyen:
• Incrementode loscostesenviajessencillosy pases
• Eliminación de pasesinfrautilizados
• Implementaciónendos fasesenun periodode dos años
No hay cambiosen:
• TransbordosBBB gratuitose incentivoscontactless
• Acceso a tarifascon descuentoenBigBlueBuscon programasregionales LIFE (bajosingresos) y GoPass(estudiantesde K-12)
Resumen

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Desafíosfiscales
• Reducciónde losingresosportarifasporpasajero
• Actualmente, $0,70; antes de la pandemia, $0,87
• Aumentode loscostesoperativos
• Actualmente, $182 poringresoporhora; antes de la pandemia, $150 • Incertidumbreante losfuturosfondosfederales
• Nueva Administración Federal
Mejorasenexperienciadel clienteplanificadas
• Implementacióndel Plan de servicioquinquenalBlighter Blue • Contratacióny retenciónencursode conductoresde autobuses • Iniciativasde seguridad(p. ej., Oficialde seguridadde tránsito, Órdenesde prohibición)

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Recent Fare
Changes
• Cambiosenlas tarifasen2022
• Finalizacióndel plan pilotoContactless
• Introducciónde transbordosgratuitosde BBB a BBB
• Introduccióndel pasede 10 viajes
• Eliminación de lospasesenpapel
• Incrementarla edadde viajesgratuitosde 4 a 5 años
• Cambiosenlas tarifasen2017
• Tarifa Contactless (p.ej., TAP) reducidaa $1,10 (desde$1,25) • Introduccióndel paseannual
• Cambiosenlas tarifasen2016
• Últimasubidade tarifas
• Incrementode la tarifaregular de $1,00 a $1,25
• Otrosincrementosde tarifasgenerales

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cambiosde tarifas propuestos
Incrementarelcostedel billeteregular y
sénior/discapacidad/ Medicare (SDM): • Viaje sencillo • Pasede 1 día • Pasede 7 días(solo disponible para billeteregular) • Pasede 10 viajes • Pasede 30 días Eliminar:
• Paseanual(regular) • Pasejuvenilde 30 días
Mantener:
• Transbordosgratuitosde BBB a BBB • TarifasmásbaratasenTAP y móvil

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cambios de tarifas propuestas: 2025-2027 – Regular
Tarifas regulares Actual
10 de
agosto, 2025
Verano
2027
Viaje sencillo (con TAP y móvil)^ $1,10 $1,25 $1,50
Viaje sencillo (en efectivo) $1,25 $1,50 $1,75
Pase de 1 día $4 $4,50 $5
Pase de 7 días $14 $16 $18
Pase de 10 viajes^ $9 $10 $12
Pase de 30 días $50 $55 $60
Pase anual $500 Eliminar -
^Incluye un transbordo gratuito de Big Blue Bus a Big Blue Bus en el plazo de 2 horas.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Cambios de tarifas propuestos: 2025-2027 – SDM y Juvenil Sénior/Discapacidad/Medicare
(SDM) Actual
10 de
agosto, 2025
Verano
2027
Viaje sencillo (con TAP y móvil)^ $0,50 $0,60 $0,65
Viaje sencillo (en efectivo) $0,50 $0,75 $0,75
Pase de 1 día $1,50 $1,75 $2
Pase de 10 viajes^ $4,50 $5 $6
Pase de 30 días $24 $27 $30
Juvenil Actual
10 de agosto,
2025
Verano
2027
Pase de 30 días $19 Eliminar -
^Incluye un transbordo gratuito de Big Blue Bus a Big Blue bus en el plazo de 2 horas.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Programas de tarifas con
descuento • Tarifa de bajosingresoses fácil
(Low-Income
Fare is Easy) -(eninglés, LIFE)
• GoPass • Escuelasde K-12 (SMMUSD y LAUSD) • Colegios comunitarios(Santa Mónica College)
• PasesUCLA Bruin U-Pass y Grad Pass
• Programatarifasgratis de Access Services

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Alternativas consideradas • Si no aumentamoslas tarifas • Hay riesgode no poderimplementarensutotalidadlas mejorasdel servicioBrighter Blue (p.ej., mejorasenlas
frecuencias, serviciotemprano/tardíoy de fin de semana). • Se arriesgala contratacióny retenciónde losconductores de autobúsy las iniciativasde seguridad.
• Eliminación de lostransbordosgratuitos • Resultaríaenun incrementode losingresosportarifas, perotendríaun impactolimitadoenlosdesafíosfiscales.
• Decisiónde mantener:
• Estáprobadoque incrementaelnúmerode pasajeros.
• Reduce la carga enlospasajeroscon bajosingresos.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Impactos financieros y
presupuestarios
Si se implementanporcompletoloscambiospropuestos:
• Se incrementanlosingresosalrededordel 13 porciento, o $780 000 anualmente.
• Se incrementala tarifamedia porpasajerohasta los85 céntimospara 2028.
• Se prevéunadisminucióndel númerode pasajerosdel 7 porciento. • El impactoenelnúmeroactual de pasajerosy enlosingresos puede variardebidoa otrosfactorescomo:
• Coyunturaeconómica
• Calidad del servicio
• Cambiosdemográficos
• Opcionesde transportealternativas

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Futuras mejoras: Pagos abiertos
• Big Blue Bus participaenla iniciativa“TAP Plus” de LA Metro. • Se prevéelpagode losbilletesa bordocon tarjetasde
crédito/débito, o con Apple/Google Pay en2026.

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Próximos pasos
• Audiencias públicas: 2 de abril(virtual) y 3 de abrilde 2025 (en persona)
• El periodo de audiencias públicastermina el20 de abrilde 2025. • Presentarla propuestaal ayuntamientopara suaprobación:13 de mayo de 2025.
• Notificacióna lospasajerosy a la comunidad: desdemayo hasta agostode 2025.
• Implementaciónde la fase1: 10 de agostode 2025
• Implementaciónde la fase2: Verano de 2027

4.G.i
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment I_Title VI Analysis (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus
Proposed Fare
Changes
2025-2027
City Council Meeting
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Big Blue Bus is Proposing Fare Changes to:
• Address revenue and fiscal challenges
• Support planned rider enhancements
Proposed Fare Changes include:
• Increased costs for single rides and passes
• Elimination of two (2) underutilized passes
• Two-phase implementation: 2025 and 2027
No changes to:
• Free Big Blue Bustransfers and contactless incentives • Access to discounted fares programs (e.g., LIFE)
Overview
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Fiscal Challenges
• Declining fare revenue per passenger
• Currently $0.70; Pre-pandemic $0.87
• Rising operational costs
• Currently $182 per revenue hour; Pre-pandemic $150
• Uncertainty of future federal funding
Planned Rider Enhancements
• Implementation of Brighter Blue 5-Year Service Plan
• Safety Initiatives (e.g., Transit Safety Officers, Prohibition Orders) Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Summary of Proposed Fare Changes
Eliminate: Maintain:

Increase cost of
Regular and S/D/M
fare products:
• Free BBB to BBB transfers
• Cheaper fares on TAP and
Mobile
• Annual Pass (Regular)
• Youth 30-Day Pass
• Single Ride
• 1-Day Pass
• 7-Day Pass (Regular)
• 10 Rides Pass
• 30-Day Pass
S/D/M = Senior/Disabled/Medicare
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes: Regular
Summer
2027
August 10,
Regular Fares Current 2025
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $1.10 $1.25 $1.50
Single Ride (Cash) $1.25 $1.50 $1.75
1 Day Pass $4 $4.50 $5
7 Day Pass $14 $16 $18
10 Rides Pass^ $9 $10 $12
30 Day Pass $50 $55 $60
Annual Pass $500 Eliminate - ^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Proposed Fare Changes: SDM & Youth
Summer
2027
August 10,
Senior/Disabled/Medicare (SDM) Current 2025
Single Ride (Tap & Mobile) ^ $0.50 $0.60 $0.65
Single Ride (Cash) $0.50 $0.75 $0.75
1-Day Pass $1.50 $1.75 $2
10 Rides Pass^ $4.50 $5 $6
30-Day Pass $24 $27 $30
Summer
2027
August 10,
Youth Current 2025
30-Day Pass $19 Eliminate -
^Includes one free Big Blue Bus to Big Blue Bus transfer within 2 hours.

Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Public Comments
Public Hearings
• One (1) Virtual and one (1) In-Person
• About 18 total attendees
• Comments generally expressed
understanding given economic situation
Online Survey
• 1,234 responses
• 83% rated currentfares“Fair/Affordable”
• 47% rated proposed fares“Fair/Affordable”
• 49% rated proposed fares “Somewhat/Very
expensive”
• 2 :1prefer implementing fare changes to
supportservicelevels and enhancements
(next slide)
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Survey Q5: Considering the current fares and the
proposed changes, which option would you prefer?
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) • Title VI Fare Equity Analysis on proposed fare changes conducted to determine impacts to populations
• Results of Analysis:
• No disparate impact to minority populations
• No disproportionate burdens on low-income populations • No additional analysis or mitigation efforts required to implement the proposed fare changes
Title VI Analysis
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Discounted Fare Programs
• Low-Income Fare is Easy (LIFE)
• GoPass
• K-12 Schools (SMMUSD and LAUSD)
• Community Colleges (Santa Monica College)
• UCLA Bruin U-Pass and Grad Pass
• Access Services Free Fare Program
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Financial & Budget Impacts
• Increases revenue by about 13 percent or $780,000 annually • Increases Average Fare per Rider to 85 cents by 2028
• Projected ridership decline of 7 percent
• Actual ridership and revenue impacts may vary due to other factors • Alternatives Considered
• No Fare Increases
• Eliminate Free Transfers
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Next Steps
 Notify Ridersand Communityvia:
 Big Blue Bus Website
 Little Blue Book
 Fare Decals on Buses
 Social Media
 Email
 Coordinate implementation of changes with TAP Office
 ImplementPhase 1 –August 10, 2025
 Implement Phase 2 –Summer 2027
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding ofcategorical exemption pursuant to
Section15273 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA);

2. Adopt the proposed Big Blue Bus fare changes to be
implemented in two phasesstarting in August 2025; and

3. Receive and file the results of the Title VI Fare Equity Analysis.

Item 4-G
May 13, 2025
Item 4-G
May 13, 2025

4.G.j
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6754 : Big Blue Bus Fare Policy) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.H
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to Clarify the Date, Time, and Location of the Meetings Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Make a finding that the attached Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to Clarify the Date, Time and Location of the Meetings (Attachment A).

Summary
To address concerns regarding noise and audio/visual equipment in the Santa Monica Institute Training Room (“SMI Training Room”), the Audit Subcommittee of the City Council, has recommended moving the quarterly regular meetings to the City Council Chambers. To ensure consistency in the scheduling of these meetings, staff proposes amending and restating the Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to clearly establish the date, time, and location of regular meetings. The proposed changes include formalizing the practice of holding quarterly regular meetings at 6:00 P.M. on the third Tuesday of February, May, August, and November. By amending the existing resolution that establishes the Rules of Conduct for the Audit Subcommittee, the date, time, and location of these meetings will be explicitly clarified.

Discussion

4.H
Packet Pg. 616
2 of 4
On July 28, 2015, Council adopted a resolution establishing an Audit Subcommittee to assist the City Council in fulfilling their oversight responsibilities for the financial reporting process, the framework for internal control, and the audit process. The resolution, which details Audit Subcommittee responsibilities, has been amended several times to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the Subcommittee and to adopt and amend Rules of Conduct. On January 10, 2023, the City Council adopted the Resolution Number 11495 (CCS), which is currently the operative rules of conduct for the Audit Subcommittee.

Resolution 11495 provides that regular meetings of the Audit Subcommittee shall be held at least quarterly on such dates, at such locations, and at such times as may be fixed by the Audit Subcommittee. Historically, the Audit Subcommittee has set the meeting schedule for the following year at the last meeting of the calendar year, typically in November and has held meetings in February, May, August, and November of each year. To promote consistency in establishing the meeting date, time and location of regular meetings, staff propose to amend and restate the audit subcommittee rules of conduct to clarify the date, time and location of regular meetings.

The proposed changes include memorializing the practice of holding quarterly regular meetings at 6:00 P.M. on the third Tuesday of the following months: February, May, August and November. The May 20, 2025 regular meeting of the Audit Subcommittee will be held at the SMI Training Room at 6:00 P.M. Following the May 20th regular meeting in the SMI Training Room, the proposed resolution establishes that the City Council Chamber in City Hall will be the regular location for holding the Audit Subcommittee’s regular meetings thereafter. The resolution allows the Audit Subcommittee to amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular meeting (provided that the committee meets at least four times a year).

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description

4.H
Packet Pg. 617
3 of 4
July 28, 2015 Establishment of an Audit Subcommittee
May 9, 2017 Adoption of Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct and Recommendation to Create an Ad Hoc Committee
June 27, 2017 Amendment to the Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct – Regarding Quorum March 27, 2018 Amendment to the Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct – Regarding Quorum October 22, 2019 Resolution Amending the Audit Subcommittee’s Roles to Support the City’s Confidential Ethics Hotline
January 10, 2023 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to Clarify the Timing of the Election of the Audit Subcommittee Chair and Vice-Chair
March 14, 2023 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Establishing Policies for City Boards, Commissions, Committees, Task Forces, and Regional Advisory Boards, and Repealing Resolution Number 11396
July 09, 2024 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Adopting Administrative Instruction Nos. iii-2-3 Discrimination, Harassment, Abusive Conduct, and Retaliation Prevention Policy and Complaint Procedure; iii-2-4, Violence In The Workplace; iii-2-6, Code of Ethics, Council Rules, and Certain Other Laws, to be Applicable to Appointed Officials and Providing for Processes for Investigating and Resolving Alleged Violations
Environmental Review
The resolution is not a “project” subject to CEQA. The resolution is administrative in nature for the establishment of rules, policies, and procedures. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the resolution does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the resolution is not subject to CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no projected financial impact associated with this report's recommended action.

4.H
Packet Pg. 618
4 of 4
Prepared By: Adriana Franco, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to Clarify the Date, Time and Location of Meetings.

4.H
Packet Pg. 619
1 City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER ______(CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING AND RESTATING AUDIT

SUBCOMMITTEE RULES OF CONDUCT TO CLARIFY THE DATE, TIME AND

LOCATION OF REGULAR MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (the “City Council”) recognizes the importance of transparency and accountability in the administration of public resources, and the City Council is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) is meeting its internal controls and financial reporting responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 10897 (CCS), which established an Audit Subcommittee of the City Council (the “Audit Subcommittee”) to ensure regular and direct communication between the City’s independent auditors and the City Council and further the City Council’s goals of transparency and accountability in the administration of public resources; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 10901 (CCS), which reflected the City Council’s intent that the Audit Subcommittee consist of three Council members and two City residents with relevant expertise to be selected through a public process; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 10901 also defined the duties and responsibilities of the Audit Subcommittee; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 2 WHEREAS, on April 20, 2017, the Audit Subcommittee recommended that the City Council adopt Rules of Conduct for the Audit Subcommittee in order for the Subcommittee to efficiently conduct its meetings in compliance with applicable State and local laws; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11042 (CCS) adopting Rules of Conduct for the Audit Subcommittee; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11046 (CCS) revisiting the Rules of Conduct for the Audit Subcommittee in order to recognize scheduling challenges resulting from restrictive attendance requirements and ensure that Audit Subcommittee business moves forward in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11103 (CCS) revising the Rules of Conduct for the Audit Subcommittee to provide additional flexibility in the management of the Audit Subcommittee; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11212 (CCS) adding as a responsibility of the Audit Subcommittee the monitoring of the City’s implementation and ongoing management of a confidential ethics hotline; and WHEREAS, Resolution 11212 repealed Resolutions 10897, 10901, 11042, 11046, and 11103; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 11212 provides that a Chair and Vice-Chair will be elected at the first meeting of the year; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11495 (CCS) providing members of the Audit Subcommittee clarification on whether the term “year” refers to the calendar year (beginning January 1) or the fiscal year (beginning

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 3 July 1); and
WHEREAS, Resolution 11495 restates that the Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the City Council, with three of the five members required to be members of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 11495 provides that City Council members begin and end their staggered four-year terms on the City Council in December, which may result in a vacancy on the Audit Subcommittee, including the Chair or Vice-Chair, that must be filled expediently; and
WHEREAS, previously the Audit Subcommittee has met at 6:00 P.M. in the Santa Monica Institute Training Room (“SMI Training Room”) located on the 2nd Floor of the structure at 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, California 90401 on the third Tuesday of the months of February, May, August, and November; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to confirm that the next regular Audit Subcommittee meeting on May 20, 2025, will take place at the SMI Training Room at 6:00 P.M.; and
WHEREAS, after the May 20, 2025 regular meeting of the Audit Subcommittee at the SMI Training Room, the City Council desires to designate the City Council Chamber in Santa Monica City Hall as the location for all regular Audit Subcommittee meetings thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish the third Tuesday in the months of February, May, August, and November as the default regular meeting dates subject to the terms of this resolution; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 4 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify the meeting date, time and location of the Audit Subcommittee regular meetings going forward as provided below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica has established and hereby sets forth the composition, rules of conduct, and duties and responsibilities of an Audit Subcommittee, which shall assist the City Council in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities for the financial reporting process, the framework for internal control, and the audit process.

SECTION 2. Composition. The Audit Subcommittee shall consist of three members of the City Council and two City residents who shall be appointed by the City Council through a public process and shall be qualified to serve by virtue of their experience and expertise with accounting and internal financial controls. The five members of the Audit Subcommittee shall be appointed by the City Council to staggered four-year terms. To establish staggered terms, the initial members of the Audit Subcommittee shall be appointed so that two Council members and one public member serve four-year terms and one Council member and one public member serve two-year terms. Thereafter all members shall be appointed to serve four-year terms.

SECTION 3. Open Meeting Laws. Audit Subcommittee meetings shall be held in compliance with the State’s Open Meeting Laws. Notice of meetings, including adjournment, shall also be given in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code section 54950 et seq. (the “Brown Act”). In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Brown Act or any other law and any provision of

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 5 these Rules of Conduct, the Brown Act, or other law, shall prevail. The noticing provisions shall further be subject to any amendments of the Brown Act.

SECTION 4. Quorum. A majority of Audit Subcommittee members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except to adjourn. One City Council member who is a member of the Audit Subcommittee must be present for an Audit Subcommittee meeting to occur. The Finance Director, or designee, and the City Attorney, or designee, shall attend all Audit Subcommittee meetings. The Finance Director, or designee, or the City Attorney, or designee, shall implement Audit Subcommittee directives as appropriate and report back on recommendations made in audit reports as directed by the Audit Subcommittee.

SECTION 5. Officers Powers and Duties. At the first regular meeting of each calendar year, the members of the Audit Subcommittee shall elect a Chair and a ViceChair for a one-year term. Until new officers are elected, the outgoing officers shall continue to serve, when a quorum is needed and no officers are available. The Chair shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall preside. In the absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair, the City Clerk or designee shall call the Audit Subcommittee members present to serve until the arrival of the Chair or Vice Chair or until adjournment. Meeting agendas shall be prepared by the Chair in consultation with the Finance Director.

SECTION 6. Conduct of Meetings. Except as otherwise provided, the Audit Subcommittee shall follow the City Council Rules of Order and Procedures, Resolution Number 11427 (CCS), as applicable, and as may be amended from time to time, in the conduct of its meetings. A copy of Resolution 11427 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 6 incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Audit Subcommittee shall be held at least quarterly on the third Tuesday of the following months: February, May, August and November. Regular meetings shall commence at 6:00PM. With the exception of the May 20, 2025, regular Audit Subcommittee meeting, which will be held at the SMI Training Room, the Audit Subcommittee’s regular meetings thereafter shall be held in the City Council Chamber in City Hall. In addition, the Audit Subcommittee may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular meeting, including specifying the date, time, and location of any such regular meeting (provided that the Audit Subcommittee meets at least 4 times a year).

SECTION 8. Ad Hoc Committees. The City Council may approve the creation of an ad hoc committee to take part in Audit Subcommittee discussions. Any such ad hoc committee shall serve for a limited time and scope of work, as approved by the City Council. Any ad hoc committee formed shall be subject to the Open Meeting Laws and shall only convene during public meetings of the Audit Subcommittee. Any ad hoc committee formed may not:
(a) take any final action on matters which also require Audit Subcommittee members’ approval;
(b) fill vacancies on the Audit Subcommittee; or
(c) make any appointments to the ad hoc committee.

Members of any ad hoc committee formed may not meet except as allowed in accordance in the Brown Act.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 7 SECTION 9. Duties and Responsibilities. The duties and responsibilities of the Audit Subcommittee include but are not limited to:
(a) Reviewing, upon completion, all City audit reports, analyzing all findings in audit reports, and consulting with external and internal auditors regarding any irregularities and deficiencies disclosed in their reports; (b) Determining what corrective action, if any, should be recommended to the City Council;
(c) Reporting to the City Council on the outcome of all audits, on any audit findings, and on any other pertinent communications, and making appropriate recommendations;
(d) Ensuring that timely and appropriate action has been taken in response to City Council directions arising from audit reports;
(e) Considering the effectiveness of the framework for internal control, reviewing the effectiveness of the systems for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations, and reviewing the processes for communicating the City’s compliance policies to City personnel and monitoring compliance therewith; (f) Monitoring the City’s implementation and ongoing management of a confidential ethics hotline as a method through which employees, taxpayers, or other concerned stakeholders may confidentially report suspected illegal, improper, wasteful or fraudulent activity; and
(g) Provide oversight of the periodic review and selection of external and internal auditors including, but not limited to, reviewing proposals and making

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to 8 recommendations.

SECTION 10. Resolution 11495 is hereby repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and Restating Audit Subcommittee Rules of Conduct to City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.I
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, Interim City Manager, City Manager's Office Subject: Approval of Proposed Modified Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol Ads Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Approve an update to the City’s internal advertising guidelines to permit alcohol advertisements on eligible City-owned assets, including the digital kiosk network and the interior of parking structures, with specific location-based restrictions.

Summary
Staff recommends updating the City’s internal advertising guidelines to permit alcohol advertising on select City-owned assets, specifically parking structures and the digital kiosk network. This change is projected to generate up to $1 million in annual revenue and aligns with the City’s strategy to increase revenues through public-private partnerships. To ensure responsible implementation, alcohol advertisements would be prohibited within 500 feet of schools, parks, libraries, medical facilities, and other sensitive sites. Based on these restrictions, 12 of the City’s 25 kiosks, including six on the 3rd Street Promenade, would be eligible for alcohol ads.

Discussion
To continue to help diversify Santa Monica’s revenue sources without increasing taxes or fees, staff has identified an opportunity to responsibly expand the scope of permitted advertising on select City assets to allow for alcohol advertisements. Based on industry

4.I
Packet Pg. 628
2 of 4
research and preliminary conversations with media partners, this change has the potential to generate up to $1 million annually in new revenue.

In alignment with industry best practices, the proposed guidelines would prohibit alcohol advertising within 500 feet of sensitive land uses, including schools, colleges, universities, libraries, museums, houses of worship, the cemetery, youth centers and organizations, day care centers, charitable institutions, public parks, playgrounds, amusement parks, hospitals, medical clinics, senior or assisted living homes, and substance abuse treatment facilities. These buffer zones aim to minimize exposure in locations frequented by minors, vulnerable populations, and community-serving institutions.

After applying these distance restrictions, staff estimates that 12 of the 25 digital kiosks citywide would be eligible for alcohol advertising (Attachment A). Notably, this includes all six kiosks located on the 3rd Street Promenade, where the recently approved entertainment zone is expected to draw increased visitor traffic and advertiser interest.

The City’s parking structures would also offer valuable inventory for alcohol advertising placements.

If the Council approves this recommendation, staff would proceed with updating the internal advertising guidelines (Attachment B) and working with our current media partners to identify and activate eligible inventory. Locations would be reviewed for compliance with the 500-foot exclusion zones, and ongoing monitoring will ensure adherence to the guidelines.

This proposal represents a strategic and responsible way to tap into a new advertising category while safeguarding the values and character of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods. The anticipated revenue from alcohol advertising, estimated to be up to $1 million annually, would support City programs and services and help reduce reliance on traditional funding sources.

4.I
Packet Pg. 629
3 of 4
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
12/12/23 (Attachment
C)
Award of parking structure advertising contract
01/10/23 (Attachment
D)
Award of digital wayfinding and out-of-home advertising kiosk franchise agreement
Environmental Impacts
The revision in the advertising guidelines is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The revision to the guidelines is covered by the commonsense exemption which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The revision will affect the operations of the kiosks only to provide the opportunity for the City for increased advertising opportunities - no physical changes to the kiosks are proposed. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed contract would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
It is anticipated that the City could generate up to $1 million in annual General Fund revenue by updating the internal advertising guidelines to allow alcohol advertising on select City-owned assets, including parking structures and the digital kiosk network.

Staff will monitor revenue generated in FY 2025-26 and provide an updated projection during the midyear budget review, adjusting the budget as needed to account for this new revenue stream.

4.I
Packet Pg. 630
4 of 4
Prepared By: Melissa Spagnuolo, Community Partnerships Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Preliminary Map of Kiosks Eligible for Alcohol Advertising B. Proposed Modified Advertising Guidelines
C. City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023
D. City Council Staff Report - January 10, 2023
E. Written Comments

4.I
Packet Pg. 631

4.I.a
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Preliminary Map of Kiosks Eligible for Alcohol Advertising (7068 : Modifying Political campaign speech. Ads that promote or oppose the election of any candidate or group of candidates for federal, state, or local government office, or any legislation, initiative, referendum, or ballot measure.

Firearms, tobacco, smoking, and smoking materials, including electronic smoking or “vaping.”
Sexual or excretory subject matter, and/or harmful matter as defined by the California Penal Code Sections 311 or 313.

False, misleading, or deceptive material. Any material that is, or the sponsor reasonably should have known is, false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, or would constitute a tort of defamation or invasion of privacy.

Material that infringes on any copyright, trade or service mark, title, or slogan.

Illegal Activity. Material that promotes or encourages unlawful or illegal behavior or activities under local, state, or federal laws.

Profanity or violence. Advertising that contains any profane language, or portrays images or descriptions of graphic violence, including dead, mutilated, or disfigured human beings or animals, or intentional infliction of pain or violent action towards or upon a person or animal, or that depicts weapons or devices that appear to be aimed or pointed at the viewer or observer in a menacing manner.

Material so objectionable under contemporary community standards as to be reasonably foreseeable to result in harm to, disruption of, or interference with the parking structure or digital kiosk operation.

Material that conflicts with any applicable federal, state, or local law, statute, or ordinance.

1. 2

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. The City of Santa Monica’s advertising policy is intended to maintain governmental neutrality, avoid actual or perceived discrimination in advertising, respect First Amendment rights, maximize advertising revenues, and preserve marketability of advertising space.

To achieve these purposes, the City allows all types of advertising, without regard to content and viewpoint, except advertising that contains material falling within one or more of the following categories:

Advertising Guidelines

4.I.b
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Proposed Modified Advertising Guidelines (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 12, 2023
Agenda Item: 5.I
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Parking Operations (DOT) Subject: Award Contract for Managing Advertising Program in City Owned Parking Structures
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP# 375 to BIG Outdoor, for sales, administration, and installation and maintenance of advertising in City-owned parking structures for the Department of Transportation; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with BIG Outdoor for sales, administration, and installation and maintenance of advertising in City-owned parking structures over a five-year period, with two one-year renewal options, with guaranteed minimum revenue of $90,000 dollars in year one, and an increase of 2% per year thereafter.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica owns and operates 12 parking structures consisting of roughly 6,900 parking spaces in and around the downtown area. Approximately 3.9 million people park in these downtown structures per year, making the interior surfaces of these structures attractive spaces for advertising. In 2012, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) managed an advertising program through Van Wagner Communications, LLC, but that program expired several years ago. The Santa Monica Department of Transportation (DOT) Parking Division plans to reinstate an advertising program in these structures and create a new revenue source for the City. Staff advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a turnkey advertising program including not only

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 2 of 7
posting services but also sales and program coordination provided to generate advertising revenue. A turnkey parking structure advertising program would be efficient, cost-effective, and generate significant revenue for the City. After reviewing the proposal, the evaluation team recommends BIG Outdoor to administer this parking structure advertising program.

Discussion
For more than 20 years, DOT’s Big Blue Bus (BBB) has overseen a revenue-generating advertising program selling commercial advertising space on the exterior and interior of Big Blue Bus fixed route vehicles. BBB is currently using a turnkey advertising program whereby the vendor Vector Media manages the program and the City takes a percentage of advertising revenue. This has proven to be a reliable and significant source of income for the City’s Big Blue Bus Fund. The proposed parking structure advertising program is being modeled after this program.

The parking structure advertising program would generate a guaranteed minimum revenue to the City of $90,000 for the first year (with an increase of 2% per year for the following five years). It is estimated to bring in $450,000 for the first year (with an increase of 2% per year for the following 5 years). The first-year revenues would be reduced on a one-time basis by $50,625 to fund the capital costs to install the initial advertisements, resulting in a net estimated first-year revenue of $241,875 (Attachment A). Each year’s revenue would go to a newly created general revenue account.

In addition to generating revenue for the City, the advertising program would enhance the appearance of the parking structures by having several interior advertising spaces maintained by an outside vendor. This vendor would be responsible for posting advertisements and maintaining them, including graffiti removal and repairs due to vandalism. This would assist the Parking Division’s effort to maintain the appearance of the parking structures and make repairs and enhancements as needed.

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 3 of 7
All advertisements displayed in the parking structure will comply with the City’s advertisement policy (Attachment B). These guidelines restrict advertisements containing political, adult-related products, sexual subject matter, subject matter infringing on copyright data, profanity, violence, and other subject matters deemed inappropriate by the City per the policy.

In July 2023, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to sell and display advertising at 57 designated locations in Parking Structures 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The RFP contained two options: Option 1 – Guaranteed Fixed Revenue, and Option 2 – Revenue Share with Minimum Guarantee. The City received one proposal from BIG Outdoor with cost proposals for Options 1 and 2 which are as follows:
• Option 1 -Minimum of $200,000 in year 1 (with a 2% increase for the next 5 years).
• Option 2 -Minimum guarantee of $150,000 in year 1 (with a 2% increase for the next 5 years).
-65% of gross revenue minus initial capital expenses with an estimated yearly revenue of $487,500 (minus initial capital expenses) in year 1 (with a 2% increase for the next 5 years).

Parking Structures 7 and 8, adjacent to Santa Monica Place mall, are owned by the City but operated by Macerich. Macerich and the City have a contract that establishes a partnership between the City and Macerich wherein Macerich shares in the operating expenses of these structures and also shares in the revenue for these structures. In the previous advertising program (administered by DTSM), Macerich received a percentage of the revenues received for advertisements in structures 7 and 8. Following the receipt of BIG Outdoor’s proposal, City staff inquired with Macerich regarding their interest in participating in this advertising program, and Macerich staff indicated that they would not like to participate initially but would support possible inclusion of structures 7 and 8 at a future date.

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 4 of 7
After informing BIG Outdoor of this change (removing structures 7 and 8 and reducing the number of advertising locations from 57 to 44), Parking staff received an updated proposal from BIG Outdoor. BIG Outdoor indicated that the change would reduce projected gross revenues by 40% given that structures 7 and 8 were the largest in their original proposal, resulting in the following updated figures for Options 1 and 2:
• Option 1 -Minimum of $120,000 in year 1 (with a 2% increase for the next 5 years).
• Option 2 -Minimum guarantee of $90,000 in year 1 (with a 2% increase for the next 5 years).
-65% of revenue share (minus initial capital costs) with an estimated yearly revenue of $241,875 ($292,500-$50,625) in year 1, $302,737.50 in year 2, then a 2% increase for each year afterwards.
• Capital expenses required to complete the initial install of advertisements to be subtracted from the City’s revenues reducing the City’s first year revenues by an estimated $50,625.

The contract (per the proposal) gives the City 65% of gross revenue after the initial capital expenses are deducted. This gives the City the ability to add structures 7 and 8 in the future without needing a contract modification. It also gives the City the option to add other City-owned parking structures beyond those currently contemplated if the City and BIG Outdoor agree.

The BIG Outdoor proposal was evaluated by a cross-functional team of DOT staff based on criteria established in the RFP. Additionally, BIG Outdoor was interviewed by the evaluation team during the evaluation process, performing well and receiving an acceptable score.

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 5 of 7
Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to BIG Outdoor as the best bidder. Staff recommends Approach 2 (Including Structures 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) with all revenues (including the $90,000 minimum guarantee and estimated $241,875 in year one) to be deposited to the general fund revenue budget. These revenues would be directed towards the City’s top priority needs, which include deferred maintenance and improvements at City-owned parking facilities.

Best and Only
Proposer
BIG Outdoor
Submittals Received Selection Criteria
Bidder BIG
Outdoor Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.190
Evaluation Criteria Price and revenue generated by sales; the quality of the material or services offered;
the ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to
perform or provide the materials or services;
the capacity of the bidder to perform the
contract or provide the service promptly,
within the time specified, and without delay
or interference; the sufficiency of the
bidder’s financial resources; the character,
and integrity, reputation, judgment, training,
experience and efficiency of the bidder.

Bid Data
Date Posted Posted On Advertise In
(City Charter &
SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
August 31,
2023
City’s Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica
Daily Press
19 October 12, 2023

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 6 of 7
Additional Vendor Outreach & Justification to Award
Procurement conducted additional outreach to vendors who downloaded the bid to see why they did not submit a bid but did not receive a response.

Based on the evaluation criteria and criteria in SMMC 2.24.190, staff recommends BIG Outdoor (the only bidder) as the best bidder for the selling and posting of advertising for City owned parking structures. The recommendation is based on the firm’s guaranteed revenue proposal of 65% of gross revenues minus initial capital expenses, their previous experience working with other agencies creating similar advertisements in public spaces, positive references from numerous BIG Outdoor clients including Macerich, Asana Group, and Atlanta Downtown Improvement District, and its relevant staff experience.

Additionally, the Big Outdoor team is technically skilled, which is highlighted by their proven track record growing advertising revenue in their partnerships with numerous other agencies. In addition, BIG Outdoor is the City selected vendor moving forward with the digital out-of-home kiosk program, so they are already a vetted City partner for a major advertising initiative.

Environmental Review
The advertising program is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 (Class 1 Existing Facilities), and Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines provides exemption for the minor alteration of existing public or private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use. Section 15311 provides for the construction of minor accessory structures that are accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities including on-premise signs. The project will include advertising signage and postings on the interior surfaces of various locations in existing City owned parking structures. Therefore, the project qualifies for exemption under Sections 15301 and 15311. In addition, none of the exceptions specified in Section 15300.2 of CEQA Guidelines would apply that preclude the use of this CEQA exemption. The project site is not located in a sensitive environment, would not have a significant effect on the environment, would not damage scenic resources, would not be located on a hazardous waste site, and would not cause a change to historic resources. Therefore, this project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 7 of 7
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
If approved, a new revenue account will be created to capture all parking advertising revenue, including the minimum guarantee of $90,000 per year. The revenues will be deposited in the General Fund in account 01600004.4XXXXX. Budget adjustments would be incorporated in the year-end budget and/or FY 2024-25 exception-based budget, as needed.

Prepared By: Zach Pollard, Parking Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment B -City Parking Structure Ad Policy -Updated B. Attachment A - Cost and Pro Forma Data -Updated
C. 23-1012_Oaks_Initiative -Signed

4.I.c
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - December 12, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second reading and adoption of an Ordinance to award a franchise to BIG Outdoor for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a digital wayfinding and out-of-home advertising kiosk network for a 20-year term, per the terms and conditions stated in the ordinance
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on December 13, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance to award a franchise to BIG Outdoor for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a digital wayfinding and out-of-home advertising kiosk network for a 20- year term, per the terms and conditions stated in the ordinance. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Principal Legal Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. PW-Ord-Franchise-2d

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: City Council Staff Report - January 10, 2023 (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 5:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DIGITAL BILLBOARD AT 1202 3rd STREET PROMENADE

EXTERNAL
May , 2025
Santa Monica Planning Commission City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DIGITAL BILLBOARD AT 1202 3rd STREET PROMENADE Dear Members of the Santa Monica Planning Commission:

We are writing to express STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed installation of an approximately 800 square foot LED digital display/electronic billboard at the city-designated landmark located at 1202 3rd Street Promenade.

While we understand the proposal includes plans for displaying artwork, civic announcements, and content promoting Santa Monica's history alongside paid advertising, the belief is this project would be detrimental to our community for the following reasons:

1. Preservation of Historic Character: The building at 1202 3rd Street Promenade is a designated city landmark. Installing a large, modern digital display would fundamentally alter the historic character and architectural integrity of this protected structure.

2. Light Pollution: An 800 square foot LED display wrapping around the corner of the building would create significant light pollution that could aƯect nearby residents, businesses, and the overall ambiance of the Third Street Promenade.

3. Visual Blight and Commercialization: The Third Street Promenade is valued for its pedestrian-friendly, human-scale environment. A large digital billboard would introduce an unnecessarily commercialized element that detracts from the area's charm.

4. Energy Consumption: Large LED displays consume substantial electricity, contradicting Santa Monica's commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility.

5. Precedent Setting: Approving this project could set a troubling precedent, potentially leading to additional digital billboards throughout our historic districts and commercial areas.

6. Distraction to Drivers and Pedestrians: The full-motion display at this busy intersection could pose safety concerns by distracting drivers and pedestrians.

The Third Street Promenade is a treasured public space in our community. While we support eƯorts to promote local arts and culture, we think there are more appropriate ways to achieve these goals without compromising the historic character of our landmarks or introducing large-scale commercial advertising into our public realm.

We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to reject this proposal and to consider alternative approaches that would better serve our community's interests while respecting Santa Monica's unique character and historic resources.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Name___Jodi Summers_______________________
Address__428 Hill St. #17 SM 90405________________
Item 4-I
May 13, 2025
Item 4-I
May 13, 2025

4.I.e
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written Comments (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 4-I and cannabis

EXTERNAL
ITEM 4-I — PLEASE PULL FROM CONSENT AND MODIFY
Many of us worked for decades to get cannabis legalized.

Your own Council has struggled with social justice for cannabis retailers.

If you allow alcohol advertising on City property, please allow cannabis advertising as well.

Thanks,
Kevin
————————————
K e v I n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!q1bA8v60oVuwXLC2lbZYtqPKDc ce1GUuEYrdBfX5g6dxa4Im6mL-SGzwtdnE2LZB9lAJKECEINVxqgA17Q3ItKJ6U_U$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 4-I
May 13, 2025
Item 4-I
May 13, 2025

4.I.e
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written Comments (7068 : Modifying Advertising Guidelines to Allow Alcohol) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.J
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, Interim City Manager, City Manager's Office Subject: Authorization to Submit Letter of Support for Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development and update on SB 677 (Wiener)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the staff analysis of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning:
housing development: transit-oriented development; and

2. Direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 to be delivered to the bill author, Senator Ben Allen, and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur.

Summary
At the April 8, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council tabled motions to Support SB 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development and SB 677 (Wiener) Housing development: streamlined approvals until a committee analysis had been completed and City staff had time to review the bill for its impacts on the City of Santa Monica.

On April 22, 2025, SB 677 (Wiener) Housing Development: streamlined approvals failed to receive the necessary number of votes to pass the bill out of the Senate Housing Committee (4 Ayes, 3 Noes, 4 Not Voting). SB 677 was granted reconsideration but will not be moving forward at this time so staff have not analyzed this bill.

Staff has completed its analysis of SB 79 and concluded the effect of this bill would be most impactful to the City’s residential zoning districts, which currently has density

4.J
Packet Pg. 644
2 of 7
limitations that are significantly lower than that proposed in SB 79 (e.g., R2 zone - 1 unit per 1,500 sf of parcel area or approximately 29 units/acre). The City’s commercial districts would not be significantly affected with this bill. With the City’s recent rezoning efforts as part of required by the 6th Cycle Housing Element and State Density Bonus (SDB) law, housing development projects in the commercial zoning districts are already permitted to request heights, densities, and FAR above the limits specified in SB 79.

The benefit SB 79 adds to a housing development in our commercially zoned areas is the increase in number of incentives allowed pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.

While SB 79 does not recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over land-use decisions and excluding those cities from onerous new regulations which we have advocated for in the past, SB 79 is consistent with the City’s adopted Legislative Platform in that it has the potential to increase housing production, at a faster pace, and for less cost.

Discussion
Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transit-oriented development aims to:

1. Amend current statute that regulates the disposal of “surplus” land owned by a public agency, once the agency determines it is not necessary for public use. SB

Page 4 of 8 ends

leased to support public transit operations in the definition. By doing so, a public transit operator like Metro could have ample discretion to develop a project within the properties’ limits and without a local government’s discretionary review.

2. SB 79 would require that a housing development project proposed within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be considered an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed-use, commercial, or light industrial development, provided the project meets applicable requirements. The bill establishes minimum standards for height, density, and floor area ratio based on proximity to high-frequency or high-capacity transit stops, which are categorized into three tiers of TOD: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. By classifying these projects as allowed

4.J
Packet Pg. 645
3 of 7
uses, cities would be required to process and grant entitlements ministerially according to a development’s proximity to the designated TOD tiers.

3. SB 79 would exempt from CEQA a public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned by a public transit agency, or fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency and meets specified requirements.

According to the bill analysis completed by the Senate Committee on Local Government, all SB 79 projects must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner). Projects that meet these requirements are presumed to comply with local zoning and the Housing Accountability Act, limiting local governments' ability to deny or downsize them. In high-resource areas, cities that deny qualifying projects are automatically presumed to be in violation of state housing law and face immediate penalties.

To ensure enforcement, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is given oversight authority, including reviewing local ordinances for compliance and referring noncompliant jurisdictions to the Attorney General.

SB 79 has passed both the Senate Committee on Housing (6-2-3) and the Senate Committee on Loca Government (4-3-0) despite the Chairs of each of the two committees recommending the committee members vote against the bill. It is not common for a bill to pass against the recommendation of the chair, extremely rare for a bill to do so twice back to back. This is a clear sign the Majority Caucus is divided on the issue and there could be significant changes to the bill in the coming months as it proceeds to the Assembly and must garner votes from Assemblymembers who face elections every two years rather than their Senate counterparts who are elected to fouryear terms. For complete list of individual/organizational support/opposition registered as of 4/23/25 see Attachment B.

4.J
Packet Pg. 646
4 of 7
SB 79 Impacts to Santa Monica
According to the language of the proposed bill, the City of Santa Monica is served by Tier 2 TOD stops which are defined as - a major transit stop served by light rail transit or by bus service with 20 minute peak period headways. The City is served by the Exposition Light Rail line (LA Metro’s E Line), which has headways of every 8 minutes during peak periods. Additionally, the City has a number of transit stops, served by Big Blue Bus and LA Metro with 20 minute peak period headways. Affected areas are illustrated in the map below covering a majority of the City between Montana Ave and Ocean Park Blvd..

4.J
Packet Pg. 647
5 of 7
Blue Shaded Ares Show Tier 2 TOD Stop Areas In/Near City of Santa Monica If SB 79 were to become law as currently written, then the regulations in proposed Section 65912.157(a)(3) would apply and housing development projects near a major transit stop would be ministerially approved with the following guarantees.

Distance to
Major Transit
Stop
Height Guarantee
Minimum
Density
Guarantee
Minimum
Residential
Floor Area
Ratio
Additional
Concessions
(beyond SDB)
Within ¼ mile
of Tier 2 TOD
stop
65 feet, or local limit, whichever
greater. If higher than local limit,
not required to grant height
increase under SDB
100
units/acre
(excludes
SDB)

3.0 2 additional
Outside of ¼
mile but within
½ Mile of Tier
2 TOD stop
55 feet, or local limit, whichever
greater. If higher than local limit,
not required to grant height
increase under SDB
80 units/acre
(excludes
SDB)

2.4 1 additional
Immediately
adjacent to
Tier 2 TOD
stop
85 feet, or local limit, whichever
greater. If higher than local limit,
not required to grant height
increase under SDB
140
units/acre
(excludes
SDB)

4.0 2 additional

4.J
Packet Pg. 648
6 of 7
2025-26 State Legislative Platform
The City’s adopted Legislative Platform includes the following relevant statements:
• Support legislation that lowers the cost, speeds the permitting, and promotes the production of infill residential housing and requires all localities to build their fair share.
• Support legislation that facilitates increased housing production in the City without undermining the City’s adopted affordability and inclusionary requirements.
• Support legislation, and seek amendments to proposed legislation, that recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over land-use decision and excluding these cities from onerous new regulations, provided they remain in compliance with their HCD-approved housing plans.

Environmental Review
No environmental review pursuant to CEQA is required at this time. No actions are being undertaken that will result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

4.J
Packet Pg. 649
7 of 7
Prepared By: Josh Kurpies, Council Office and Legislative Affairs Liaison Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 B. Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) C. Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) D. ADD-TO: 2025-05-13 Analysis of SB79 and SB677- SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM E. Written Comments
F. Presentation Item

4.J
Packet Pg. 650
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 23, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 5, 2025
SENATE BILL No. 79
Introduced by Senator Wiener
January 15, 2025
An act to amend Section 54221 of, and to add Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) to Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, and to add Section 21080.26.5 to the Public Resources Code, relating to land use.
legislative counsel
’s digest
SB 79, as amended, Wiener. Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transit-oriented development. (1) Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Existing law defines “surplus land” for these purposes to mean land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Existing law defines “agency’s use” for these purposes to include land that is being used for agency work or operations, as provided. Existing law exempts from this definition of “agency’s use” certain commercial or industrial uses, except that in the case of a local agency that is a district, except a local agency whose primary purpose or mission is to supply the public with a transportation system, “agency’s use” may include commercial or industrial uses or activities, as specified.

This bill would additionally include land leased to support public transit operations in the definition of “agency’s use,” as described above.

96 4.J.a
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) The bill would also revise the definition of “agency’s use” with respect to commercial or industrial uses to instead provide that a district or a public transit operator may use land for commercial or industrial uses or activities, as described above.
(2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as provided. Existing law, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and requires the appropriate council of local governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region.

Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project, as defined, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The act authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the act’s provisions, as provided, and provides for penalties if the court finds that the local agency is in violation of specified provisions of the act.

This bill would require that a housing development project, as defined, proposed within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development, if the development complies with applicable requirements, as specified. The bill would establish requirements concerning height limits, density, and floor area ratio in accordance with a development’s proximity to 96 SB 79 —
2 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) specified tiers of
TOD stops, as provided. The bill would provide that,
for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed development consistent with the applicable standards of these provisions shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with prescribed requirements. The bill would provide that a local government that denies a project meeting the requirements of these provisions located in a high-resource area, as defined, would be presumed in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, as specified, and immediately liable for penalties, as provided. The bill would specify that a development proposed pursuant to these provisions is eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to specified law, except that the bill would exempt a project under these provisions from specified requirements, and would specify that the project is required to comply with certain affordability requirements, under that law.

This bill would require a proposed development to comply with specified requirements under existing law relating to the demolition of existing residential units. The bill would also authorize a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial development proposed pursuant to these provisions if the development would be constructed on land owned by the transit agency or on which the transit agency has a permanent operating easement, provided that the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity as allowed by local standards or applicable state law.

This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to oversee compliance with the bill’s provisions, including, but not limited to, promulgating specified standards relating to the inventory of land included within a county’s or city’s housing element.

The bill would permit a local government to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the local government to submit a copy of this ordinance to the department within 60 days of adoption and require the department to review the ordinance for compliance, as specified. If the department finds an ordinance is out of compliance, and the local government does not take specified steps to address compliance, the bill would require the department to notify the local government in writing and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, as provided.

This bill would define various terms for its purposes and make related findings and declarations.
96 — 3 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (3) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA, until January 1, 2030, exempts from its requirements certain transportation-related projects if specified requirements are met, as provided. CEQA includes within these exempt transportation-related projects a public project for the institution or increase of bus rapid transit, bus, or light rail service, or other passenger rail service, that will be exclusively used by low-emission or zero-emission vehicles, on existing public rights-of-way or existing highway rights-of-way.

This bill would exempt from CEQA a public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned by a public transit agency, or fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency, and meets specified requirements. The bill would provide that, for a project that requires the construction of new passenger rail storage and maintenance facilities at a publicly or privately owned offsite location distinct from the principal project site, that project would be considered a wholly separate project from the project described in these provisions and shall not be exempt from CEQA.
(4) By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
96 SB 79 —
4 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 54221 of the Government Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 54221. As used in this article, the following definitions shall line 4 apply:
line 5 (a) (1) “Local agency” means every city, whether organized line 6 under general law or by charter, county, city and county, district, line 7 including school, sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park line 8 districts of any kind or class, joint powers authority, successor line 9 agency to a former redevelopment agency, housing authority, or line 10 other political subdivision of this state and any instrumentality line 11 thereof that is empowered to acquire and hold real property. line 12 (2) The Legislature finds and declares that the term “district” line 13 as used in this article includes all districts within the state, line 14 including, but not limited to, all special districts, sewer, water, line 15 utility, and local and regional park districts, and any other political line 16 subdivision of this state that is a district, and therefore the changes line 17 in paragraph (1) made by the act adding this paragraph that specify line 18 that the provisions of this article apply to all districts, including line 19 school, sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts line 20 of any kind or class, are declaratory of, and not a change in, line 21 existing law.
line 22 (b) (1) “Surplus land” means land owned in fee simple by any line 23 local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes line 24 formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land line 25 is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be line 26 declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as line 27 supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any line 28 action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or line 29 procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare line 30 multiple parcels as “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” line 31 (2) “Surplus land” includes land held in the Community line 32 Redevelopment Property Trust Fund pursuant to Section 34191.4 line 33 of the Health and Safety Code and land that has been designated line 34 in the long-range property management plan approved by the line 35 Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34191.5 of the Health 96 — 5 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 and Safety Code, either for sale or for future de velopment, but
line 2 does not include any specific disposal of land to an identified entity line 3 described in the plan.
line 4 (3)  Nothing in this article prevents a local agency from obtaining line 5 fair market value for the disposition of surplus land consistent with line 6 Section 54226.
line 7 (4)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency is not required line 8 to make a declaration at a public meeting for land that is “exempt line 9 surplus land” pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), (E), (K), (L), or line 10 (Q) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) if the local agency identifies line 11 the land in a notice that is published and available for public line 12 comment, including notice to the entities identified in subdivision line 13 (a) of Section 54222, at least 30 days before the exemption takes line 14 effect.
line 15 (c)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraph (2), “agency’s use” line 16 shall include, but not be limited to, land that is being used, or is line 17 planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local line 18 agency’s governing board, for agency work or operations, line 19 including, but not limited to, utility sites, property owned by a port line 20 that is used to support logistics uses, watershed property, land line 21 being used for conservation purposes, land for demonstration, line 22 exhibition, or educational purposes related to greenhouse gas line 23 emissions, sites for broadband equipment or wireless facilities, line 24 land leased to support public transit operations, and buffer sites line 25 near sensitive governmental uses, including, but not limited to, line 26 waste disposal sites, and wastewater treatment plants. “Agency’s line 27 use” by a local agency that is a district shall also include land line 28 disposed for uses described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). line 29 (2)  (A)  “Agency’s use” shall not include commercial or line 30 industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, line 31 entertainment, or office development. Property disposed of for the line 32 sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue shall not be line 33 considered necessary for the agency’s use.
line 34 (B)  In the case of a local agency that is a district or a public line 35 transit operator, “agency’s use” may include commercial or line 36 industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, line 37 entertainment, or office development or be for the sole purpose of line 38 investment or generation of revenue if the agency’s governing line 39 body takes action in a public meeting declaring that the use of the line 40 site will do one of the following:
96 SB 79 —
6 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (i)  Directly further the express purpose of agency work or line 2 operations.
line 3 (ii)  Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local line 4 agency, provided the district complies with Section 54233.5 if line 5 applicable.
line 6 (d)  (1)  “Dispose” means either of the following:
line 7 (A)  The sale of the surplus land.
line 8 (B)  The entering of a lease for surplus land, which is for a term line 9 longer than 15 years, inclusive of any extension or renewal options line 10 included in the terms of the initial lease, entered into on or after line 11 January 1, 2024.
line 12 (2)  “Dispose” shall not mean either of the following:
line 13 (A)  The entering of a lease for surplus land, which is for a term line 14 of 15 years or less, inclusive of any extension or renewal options line 15 included in the terms of the initial lease.
line 16 (B)  The entering of a lease for surplus land on which no line 17 development or demolition will occur, regardless of the term of line 18 the lease.
line 19 (e)  “Open-space purposes” means the use of land for public line 20 recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, or conservation or use of line 21 natural resources.
line 22 (f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraph (2), “exempt surplus line 23 land” means any of the following:
line 24 (A)  Surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Section 25539.4 line 25 or 37364.
line 26 (B)  Surplus land that is less than one-half acre in area and is line 27 not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is line 28 used for open-space or low- and moderate-income housing line 29 purposes.
line 30 (C)  Surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another line 31 property necessary for the agency’s use. “Property” may include line 32 easements necessary for the agency’s use.
line 33 (D)  Surplus land that a local agency is transferring to another line 34 local, state, or federal agency, or to a third-party intermediary for line 35 future dedication for the receiving agency’s use, or to a federally line 36 recognized California Indian tribe. If the surplus land is transferred line 37 to a third-party intermediary, the receiving agency’s use must be line 38 contained in a legally binding agreement at the time of transfer to line 39 the third-party intermediary.
96 — 7 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (E) Surplus land that is a former street, right-of-way, or line 2 easement, and is conveyed to an owner of an adjacent property. line 3 (F) (i) Surplus land that is to be developed for a housing line 4 development, which may have ancillary commercial ground floor line 5 uses, that restricts 100 percent of the residential units to persons line 6 and families of low or moderate income, with at least 75 percent line 7 of the residential units restricted to lower income households, as line 8 defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with line 9 an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Section line 10 50052.5 or 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for line 11 rental housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for line 12 rental or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a line 13 local ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other line 14 project financing requires a longer period of affordability, and in line 15 no event shall the maximum affordable sales price or rent level be line 16 higher than 20 percent below the median market rents or sales line 17 prices for the neighborhood in which the site is located. line 18 (ii) The requirements of clause (i) shall be contained in a line 19 covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time line 20 of sale that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any line 21 owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor line 22 in interest who continues the violation.
line 23 (G) (i) Surplus land that is subject to a local agency’s open, line 24 competitive solicitation or that is put to open, competitive bid by line 25 a local agency, provided that all entities identified in subdivision line 26 (a) of Section 54222 will be invited to participate in the process, line 27 for a housing or a mixed-use development that is more than one line 28 acre and less than 10 acres in area, consisting of either a single line 29 parcel, or two or more adjacent or non-adjacent parcels combined, line 30 that includes not less than 300 residential units, and that restricts line 31 at least 25 percent of the residential units to lower income line 32 households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety line 33 Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as line 34 defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety line 35 Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership line 36 housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on line 37 tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or line 38 local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer line 39 period of affordability.
96 SB 79 —
8 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (ii)  The requirements of clause (i) shall be contained in a line 2 covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus land at the time line 3 of sale that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any line 4 owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor line 5 in interest who continues the violation.
line 6 (H)  (i)  Surplus land totaling 10 or more acres, consisting of line 7 either a single parcel, or two or more adjacent or non-adjacent line 8 parcels combined for disposition to one or more buyers pursuant line 9 to a plan or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of the local line 10 agency, or a state statute. That surplus land shall be subject to a line 11 local agency’s open, competitive solicitation process or put out to line 12 open, competitive bid by a local agency, provided that all entities line 13 identified in subdivision (a) of Section 54222 will be invited to line 14 participate in the process for a housing or mixed-use development. line 15 (ii)  The aggregate development shall include the greater of the line 16 following:
line 17 (I)  Not less than 300 residential units.
line 18 (II)  A number of residential units equal to 10 times the number line 19 of acres of the surplus land or 10,000 residential units, whichever line 20 is less.
line 21 (iii)  At least 25 percent of the residential units shall be restricted line 22 to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the line 23 Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an line 24 affordable rent pursuant to Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the line 25 Health and Safety Code, for a minimum of 55 years for rental line 26 housing, 45 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental line 27 or ownership housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local line 28 ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other line 29 project financing requires a longer period of affordability. line 30 (iv)  If nonresidential development is included in the line 31 development pursuant to this subparagraph, at least 25 percent of line 32 the total planned units affordable to lower income households shall line 33 be made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and line 34 occupancy before or at the same time with every 25 percent of line 35 nonresidential development made available for lease or sale and line 36 permitted for use and occupancy.
line 37 (v)  A violation of this subparagraph is subject to the penalties line 38 described in Section 54230.5. Those penalties are in addition to line 39 any remedy a court may order for violation of this subparagraph. line 40 A local agency shall only dispose of land pursuant to this 96 — 9 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 subparagraph through a disposition and de
velopment agreement
line 2 that includes an indemnification clause that provides that if an line 3 action occurs after disposition violates this subparagraph, the line 4 person or entity that acquired the property shall be liable for the line 5 penalties.
line 6 (vi)  The requirements of clauses (i) to (v), inclusive, shall be line 7 contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against the surplus line 8 land at the time of sale that shall run with the land and be line 9 enforceable against any owner who violates the covenant or line 10 restriction and each successor in interest who continues the line 11 violation.
line 12 (I)  A mixed-use development, which may include more than line 13 one publicly owned parcel, that meets all of the following line 14 conditions:
line 15 (i)  The development restricts at least 25 percent of the residential line 16 units to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 line 17 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or line 18 an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of line 19 the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 line 20 years for ownership housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership line 21 housing located on tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a line 22 federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project financing line 23 requires a longer period of affordability.
line 24 (ii)  At least 50 percent of the square footage of the new line 25 construction associated with the development is designated for line 26 residential use.
line 27 (iii)  The development is not located in an urbanized area, as line 28 defined in Section 21094.5 of the Public Resources Code. line 29 (J)  (i)  Surplus land that is subject to a valid legal restriction line 30 that is not imposed by the local agency and that makes housing line 31 prohibited, unless there is a feasible method to satisfactorily line 32 mitigate or avoid the prohibition on the site. A declaration of line 33 exemption pursuant to this subparagraph shall be supported by line 34 documentary evidence establishing the valid legal restriction. For line 35 the purposes of this section, “documentary evidence” includes, line 36 but is not limited to, a contract, agreement, deed restriction, statute, line 37 regulation, or other writing that documents the valid legal line 38 restriction.
line 39 (ii)  Valid legal restrictions include, but are not limited to, all of line 40 the following:
96 SB 79 — 10 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (I)  Existing constraints under ownership rights or contractual line 2 rights or obligations that prevent the use of the property for line 3 housing, if the rights or obligations were agreed to prior to line 4 September 30, 2019.
line 5 (II)  Conservation or other easements or encumbrances that line 6 prevent housing development.
line 7 (III)  Existing leases, or other contractual obligations or line 8 restrictions, if the terms were agreed to prior to September 30, line 9 2019.
line 10 (IV)  Restrictions imposed by the source of funding that a local line 11 agency used to purchase a property, provided that both of the line 12 following requirements are met:
line 13 (ia)  The restrictions limit the use of those funds to purposes line 14 other than housing.
line 15 (ib)  The proposed disposal of surplus land meets a use consistent line 16 with that purpose.
line 17 (iii)  Valid legal restrictions that would make housing prohibited line 18 do not include either of the following:
line 19 (I)  An existing nonresidential land use designation on the surplus line 20 land.
line 21 (II)  Covenants, restrictions, or other conditions on the property line 22 rendered void and unenforceable by any other law, including, but line 23 not limited to, Section 714.6 of the Civil Code. line 24 (iv)  Feasible methods to mitigate or avoid a valid legal line 25 restriction on the site do not include a requirement that the local line 26 agency acquire additional property rights or property interests line 27 belonging to third parties.
line 28 (K)  Surplus land that was granted by the state in trust to a local line 29 agency or that was acquired by the local agency for trust purposes line 30 by purchase or exchange, and for which disposal of the land is line 31 authorized or required subject to conditions established by statute. line 32 (L)  Land that is subject to either of the following, unless line 33 compliance with this article is expressly required:
line 34 (i)  Section 17388, 17515, 17536, 81192, 81397, 81399, 81420, line 35 or 81422 of the Education Code.
line 36 (ii)  Part 14 (commencing with Section 53570) of Division 31 line 37 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 38 (M)  Surplus land that is a former military base that was line 39 conveyed by the federal government to a local agency, and is line 40 subject to Article 8 (commencing with Section 33492.125) of 96 — 11 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 Chapter 4.5 of Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, line 2 provided that all of the following conditions are met:
line 3 (i)  The former military base has an aggregate area greater than line 4 five acres, is expected to include a mix of residential and line 5 nonresidential uses, and is expected to include no fewer than 1,400 line 6 residential units upon completion of development or redevelopment line 7 of the former military base.
line 8 (ii)  The affordability requirements for residential units shall be line 9 governed by a settlement agreement entered into prior to September line 10 1, 2020. Furthermore, at least 25 percent of the initial 1,400 line 11 residential units developed shall be restricted to lower income line 12 households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety line 13 Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as line 14 defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and Safety line 15 Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership line 16 housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on line 17 tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or line 18 local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer line 19 period of affordability.
line 20 (iii)  Before disposition of the surplus land, the agency adopts line 21 written findings that the land is exempt surplus land pursuant to line 22 this subparagraph.
line 23 (iv)  Before disposition of the surplus land, the recipient has line 24 negotiated a project labor agreement consistent with the local line 25 agency’s project stabilization agreement resolution, as adopted on line 26 February 2, 2021, and any succeeding ordinance, resolution, or line 27 policy, regardless of the length of the agreement between the local line 28 agency and the recipient.
line 29 (v)  The agency includes in the annual report required by line 30 paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 the status of line 31 development of residential units on the former military base, line 32 including the total number of residential units that have been line 33 permitted and what percentage of those residential units are line 34 restricted for persons and families of low or moderate income, or line 35 lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the line 36 Health and Safety Code.
line 37 A violation of this subparagraph is subject to the penalties line 38 described in Section 54230.5. Those penalties are in addition to line 39 any remedy a court may order for violation of this subparagraph line 40 or the settlement agreement.
96 SB 79 — 12 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (N)  Real property that is used by a district for an agency’s use line 2 expressly authorized in subdivision (c).
line 3 (O)  Land that has been transferred before June 30, 2019, by the line 4 state to a local agency pursuant to Section 32667 of the Streets line 5 and Highways Code and has a minimum planned residential density line 6 of at least 100 dwelling units per acre, and includes 100 or more line 7 residential units that are restricted to persons and families of low line 8 or moderate income, with an affordable sales price or an affordable line 9 rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the Health and line 10 Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing, 45 years for ownership line 11 housing, and 50 years for rental or ownership housing located on line 12 tribal trust lands, unless a local ordinance or a federal, state, or line 13 local grant, tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer line 14 period of affordability. For purposes of this subparagraph, not line 15 more than 20 percent of the affordable units may be restricted to line 16 persons and families of moderate income and at least 80 percent line 17 of the affordable units must be restricted to lower income line 18 households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety line 19 Code.
line 20 (P)  (i)  Land that meets the following conditions:
line 21 (I)  Land that is subject to a sectional planning area document line 22 that meets both of the following:
line 23 (ia)  The sectional planning area was adopted prior to January line 24 1, 2019.
line 25 (ib)  The sectional planning area document is consistent with line 26 county and city general plans applicable to the land. line 27 (II)  The land identified in the adopted sectional planning area line 28 document was dedicated prior to January 1, 2019. line 29 (III)  On January 1, 2019, the parcels on the land met at least line 30 one of the following conditions:
line 31 (ia)  The land was subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication line 32 of fee interest requiring the land to be used for a specified purpose. line 33 (ib)  The land was acquired through a land exchange subject to line 34 a land offer agreement that grants the land’s original owner the line 35 right to repurchase the land acquired by the local agency pursuant line 36 to the agreement if the land will not be developed in a manner line 37 consistent with the agreement.
line 38 (ic)  The land was subject to a grant deed specifying that the line 39 property shall be used for educational uses and limiting other types line 40 of uses allowed on the property.
96 — 13 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (IV)  At least 25 percent of the units are dedicated to lower line 2 income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health line 3 and Safety Code, at an affordable rent, as defined by Section 50053 line 4 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable housing cost, as line 5 defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and line 6 subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for line 7 rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units, unless a local line 8 ordinance or a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other line 9 project financing requires a longer period of affordability. line 10 (V)  The land is developed at an average density of at least 10 line 11 units per acre, calculated with respect to the entire sectional line 12 planning area.
line 13 (VI)  No more than 25 percent of the nonresidential square line 14 footage identified in the sectional planning area document receives line 15 its first certificate of occupancy before at least 25 percent of the line 16 residential square footage identified in the sectional planning area line 17 document has received its first certificate of occupancy. line 18 (VII)  No more than 50 percent of the nonresidential square line 19 footage identified in the sectional planning area document receives line 20 its first certificate of occupancy before at least 50 percent of the line 21 residential square footage identified in the sectional planning area line 22 document has received its first certificate of occupancy. line 23 (VIII)  No more than 75 percent of the nonresidential square line 24 footage identified in the sectional planning area document shall line 25 receive its first certificate of occupancy before at least 75 percent line 26 of the residential square footage identified in the sectional planning line 27 area document has received its first certificate of occupancy. line 28 (ii)  The local agency includes in the annual report required by line 29 paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 the status of line 30 development, including the total square footage of the residential line 31 and nonresidential development, the number of residential units line 32 that have been permitted, and what percentage of those residential line 33 units are restricted for persons and families of low or moderate line 34 income, or lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 line 35 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 36 (iii)  The Department of Housing and Community Development line 37 may request additional information from the agency regarding line 38 land disposed of pursuant to this subparagraph. line 39 (iv)  At least 30 days prior to disposing of land declared “exempt line 40 surplus land,” a local agency shall provide the Department of 96 SB 79 — 14 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 Housing and Community De
velopment a written notification of
line 2 its declaration and findings in a form prescribed by the Department line 3 of Housing and Community Development. Within 30 days of line 4 receipt of the written notification and findings, the department line 5 shall notify the local agency if the department has determined that line 6 the local agency is in violation of this article. A local agency that line 7 fails to submit the written notification and findings shall be liable line 8 for a civil penalty pursuant to this subparagraph. A local agency line 9 shall not be liable for the civil penalty if the Department of Housing line 10 and Community Development does not notify the agency that the line 11 agency is in violation of this article within 30 days of receiving line 12 the written notification and findings. Once the department line 13 determines that the declarations and findings comply with line 14 subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, of clause (i), the local agency line 15 may proceed with disposal of land pursuant to this subparagraph. line 16 This clause is declaratory of, and not a change in, existing law. line 17 (v)  If the local agency disposes of land in violation of this line 18 subparagraph, the local agency shall be liable for a civil penalty line 19 calculated as follows:
line 20 (I)  For a first violation, 30 percent of the greater of the final line 21 sale price or the fair market value of the land at the time of line 22 disposition.
line 23 (II)  For a second or subsequent violation, 50 percent of the line 24 greater of the final sale price or the fair market value of the land line 25 at the time of disposition.
line 26 (III)  For purposes of this subparagraph, fair market value shall line 27 be determined by an independent appraisal of the land. line 28 (IV)  An action to enforce this subparagraph may be brought by line 29 any of the following:
line 30 (ia)  An entity identified in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of line 31 Section 54222.
line 32 (ib)  A person who would have been eligible to apply for line 33 residency in affordable housing had the agency not violated this line 34 section.
line 35 (ic)  A housing organization, as that term is defined in Section line 36 65589.5.
line 37 (id)  A beneficially interested person or entity. line 38 (ie)  The Department of Housing and Community Development. line 39 (V)  A penalty assessed pursuant to this subparagraph shall, line 40 except as otherwise provided, be deposited into a local housing 96 — 15 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the penalty line 2 moneys into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or the line 3 Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. Penalties shall not be paid out line 4 of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but line 5 not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, line 6 funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and line 7 moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment line 8 Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant line 9 Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the line 10 penalty moneys deposited into the local housing trust fund within line 11 five years of deposit for the sole purpose of financing newly line 12 constructed housing units that are affordable to extremely low, line 13 very low, or low-income households.
line 14 (VI)  Five years after deposit of the penalty moneys into the line 15 local housing trust fund, if the funds have not been expended, the line 16 funds shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building line 17 Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or the Housing Rehabilitation Loan line 18 Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing line 19 units located in the same jurisdiction as the surplus land and that line 20 are affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income line 21 households. Expenditure of any penalty moneys deposited into the line 22 Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund or the Housing Rehabilitation line 23 Loan Fund pursuant to this subdivision shall be subject to line 24 appropriation by the Legislature.
line 25 (vi)  For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions line 26 apply:
line 27 (I)  “Sectional planning area” means an area composed of line 28 identifiable planning units, within which common services and line 29 facilities, a strong internal unity, and an integrated pattern of land line 30 use, circulation, and townscape planning are readily achievable. line 31 (II)  “Sectional planning area document” means a document or line 32 plan that sets forth, at minimum, a site utilization plan of the line 33 sectional planning area and development standards for each land line 34 use area and designation.
line 35 (vii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, line 36 2034.
line 37 (Q)  Land that is owned by a California public-use airport on line 38 which residential uses are prohibited pursuant to Federal Aviation line 39 Administration Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Program, line 40 Chapter 20 – Compatible Land Use and Airspace Protection. 96 SB 79 — 16 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (R)  Land that is transferred to a community land trust, and all line 2 of the following conditions are met:
line 3 (i)  The property is being or will be developed or rehabilitated line 4 as any of the following:
line 5 (I)  An owner-occupied single-family dwelling.
line 6 (II)  An owner-occupied unit in a multifamily dwelling. line 7 (III)  A member-occupied unit in a limited equity housing line 8 cooperative.
line 9 (IV)  A rental housing development.
line 10 (ii)  Improvements on the property are or will be available for line 11 use and ownership or for rent by qualified persons, as defined in line 12 paragraph (6) of subdivision (c) of Section 214.18 of the Revenue line 13 and Taxation Code.
line 14 (iii)  (I)  A deed restriction or other instrument, requiring a line 15 contract or contracts serving as an enforceable restriction on the line 16 sale or resale value of owner-occupied units or on the affordability line 17 of rental units is recorded on or before the lien date following the line 18 acquisition of the property by the community land trust. line 19 (II)  For the purpose of this clause, the following definitions line 20 apply:
line 21 (ia)  “A contract or contracts serving as an enforceable restriction line 22 on the sale or resale value of owner-occupied units” means a line 23 contract described in paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section line 24 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
line 25 (ib)  “A contract or contracts serving as an enforceable restriction line 26 on the affordability of rental units” means an enforceable and line 27 verifiable agreement with a public agency, a recorded deed line 28 restriction, or other legal document described in subparagraph (A) line 29 of paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue line 30 and Taxation Code.
line 31 (iv)  A copy of the deed restriction or other instrument shall be line 32 provided to the assessor.
line 33 (S)  (i)  For local agencies whose primary mission or purpose is line 34 to supply the public with a transportation system, surplus land that line 35 is developed for commercial or industrial uses or activities, line 36 including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office line 37 development or for the sole purpose of investment or generation line 38 of revenue, if the agency meets all of the following conditions:
line 39 (I)  The agency has an adopted land use plan or policy that line 40 designates at least 50 percent of the gross acreage covered by the 96 — 17 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 adopted land use plan or policy for residential purposes. The line 2 adopted land use plan or policy shall also require the development line 3 of at least 300 residential units, or at least 10 residential units per line 4 gross acre, averaged across all land covered by the land use plan line 5 or policy, whichever is greater.
line 6 (II)  The agency has an adopted land use plan or policy that line 7 requires at least 25 percent of all residential units to be developed line 8 on the parcels covered by the adopted land use plan or policy made line 9 available to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079 line 10 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable sales price or rented line 11 at an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of line 12 the Health and Safety Code, for 55 years for rental housing and line 13 45 years for ownership housing, unless a local ordinance or the line 14 terms of a federal, state, or local grant, tax credit, or other project line 15 financing requires a longer period of affordability. These terms line 16 shall be included in the land use plan or policy and dictate that line 17 they will be contained in a covenant or restriction recorded against line 18 the surplus land at the time of disposition that shall run with the line 19 land and be enforceable against any owner or lessee who violates line 20 the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who line 21 continues the violation.
line 22 (III)  Land disposed of for residential purposes shall issue a line 23 competitive request for proposals subject to the local agency’s line 24 open, competitive solicitation process or put out to open, line 25 competitive bid by the local agency, provided that all entities line 26 identified in subdivision (a) of Section 54222 are invited to line 27 participate.
line 28 (IV)  Prior to entering into an agreement to dispose of a parcel line 29 for nonresidential development on land designated for the purposes line 30 authorized pursuant to this subparagraph in an agency’s adopted line 31 land use plan or policy, the agency, since January 1, 2020, must line 32 have entered into an agreement to dispose of a minimum of 25 line 33 percent of the land designated for affordable housing pursuant to line 34 subclause (II).
line 35 (ii)  The agency may exempt at one time all parcels covered by line 36 the adopted land use plan or policy pursuant to this subparagraph. line 37 (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a written notice of the line 38 availability of surplus land for open-space purposes shall be sent line 39 to the entities described in subdivision (b) of Section 54222 before line 40 disposing of the surplus land, provided the land does not meet the 96 SB 79 — 18 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 criteria in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (1), if the land is any of line 2 the following:
line 3 (A)  Within a coastal zone.
line 4 (B)  Adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System. line 5 (C)  Listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic line 6 Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic line 7 Places.
line 8 (D)  Within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Section 66905.5. line 9 (g)  “Persons and families of low or moderate income” has the line 10 same meaning as provided in Section 50093 of the Health and line 11 Safety Code.
line 12 SEC. 2. Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) line 13 is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:
line 14
line 15 Chap
ter 4.1.5. Transit-Oriented Development
line 16
line 17 65912.155. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 18 following:
line 19 (a)  California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, line 20 particularly in areas with access to robust public transit line 21 infrastructure.
line 22 (b)  Building more homes near transit access reduces housing line 23 and transportation costs for California families, and promotes line 24 environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic line 25 congestion.
line 26 (c)  Public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide line 27 reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density line 28 and ridership. The state does not invest in public transit service to line 29 the same degree as it does in roads, and the state funds a smaller line 30 proportion of the state’s major transit agencies’ operations costs line 31 than other states with comparable systems. Transit systems in other line 32 countries derive significant revenue from transit-oriented line 33 development at and near their stations.
line 34 65912.156.For purposes of this chapter, the following line 35 definitions apply:
line 36 (a)  “Adjacent” means sharing a property line with a transit stop, line 37 including any parcels that serve a parking or circulation purpose line 38 related to the stop.
96 — 19 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (b)  “Commuter rail” means a rail transit service not meeting line 2 the standards for heavy rail or light rail, excluding California line 3 High-Speed Rail and Amtrak Long Distance Service. line 4 (c)  “Department” means the Department of Housing and line 5 Community Development.
line 6 (d)  “Frequent commuter rail” means a commuter rail service line 7 with a total of at least 24 daily trains per weekday across both line 8 directions and not meeting the standard for very high or line 9 high-frequency commuter rail at any point in the past three years. line 10 (e)  “Heavy rail transit” means an electric railway with the line 11 capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high-speed and rapid line 12 acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar line 13 trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other line 14 vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. line 15 (f)  “High-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail line 16 service operating a total of at least 48 trains per day across both line 17 directions at any point in the past three years. line 18 (g)  “High-resource area” means a highest resource or line 19 high-resource neighborhood opportunity area, as used in the line 20 opportunity area maps published annually by the California Tax line 21 Credit Allocation Committee and the department. line 22 (h)  “Housing development project” has the same meaning as line 23 defined in Section 65589.5.
line 24 (i)  “Light rail transit” includes streetcar, trolley, and tramway line 25 service.
line 26 (j)  “Net habitable square footage” means the finished and heated line 27 floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, line 28 doors, and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and line 29 one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, line 30 stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, line 31 carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics line 32 and basements.
line 33 (k)  “Rail transit” has the same meaning as defined in Section line 34 99602 of the Public Utilities Code.
line 35 (l)  “Residential floor area ratio” means the ratio of net habitable line 36 square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. line 37 (m)  “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a major line 38 transit stop, as defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources line 39 Code, served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter line 40 rail.
96 SB 79 — 20 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (n)  “Tier 2 transit-oriented de
velopment stop” means a major
line 2 transit stop, as defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources line 3 Code, excluding a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, served line 4 by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus line 5 service meeting the standards of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) line 6 of Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources Code. line 7 (o)  “Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop” means a major line 8 transit stop, as defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources line 9 Code, excluding a Tier 1 or Tier 2 transit-oriented development line 10 stop, served by frequent commuter rail service or by ferry service. line 11 (p)  “Transit-oriented development stop” means a major transit line 12 stop, as defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, line 13 excluding any stop served by rail transit with a frequency of fewer line 14 than 10 total trains per weekday.
line 15 (q)  “Very high frequency commuter rail” means a commuter line 16 rail service with a total of at least 72 trains per day across both line 17 directions at any point in the past three years. line 18 65912.157. (a)  A housing development project within one-half line 19 or one-quarter mile of a transit-oriented development stop shall line 20 be an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, line 21 commercial, or light industrial development, if the development line 22 complies with the applicable of all of the following requirements:
line 23 (1)  For a residential development within one-quarter mile of a line 24 Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
line 25 (A)  A development may be built up to 75 feet high, or up to the line 26 local height limit, whichever is greater. If a development proposes line 27 a height under this subparagraph in excess of the local height line 28 limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a line 29 waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for line 30 additional height beyond that specified under this subparagraph, line 31 except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of line 32 subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 33 (B)  A local government shall not impose any maximum density line 34 of less than 120 dwelling units per acre. The development line 35 proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with line 36 applicable density bonus law.
line 37 (C)  A local government shall not enforce any other local line 38 development standard or combination of standards that would line 39 prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3.5. 96 — 21 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (D)  A de
velopment that otherwise meets the eligibility
line 2 requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, line 3 affordability requirements, shall be eligible for three additional line 4 concessions pursuant to Section 65915.
line 5 (2)  For a residential development further than one-quarter mile line 6 but within one-half mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development line 7 stop, all of the following apply:
line 8 (A)  A development may be built up to 65 feet high, or up to the line 9 local height limit, whichever is greater. If a development proposes line 10 a height under this subparagraph in excess of the local height line 11 limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a line 12 waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for line 13 additional height beyond that specified under this subparagraph, line 14 except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of line 15 subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 16 (B)  A local government shall not impose any maximum density line 17 standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre. The development line 18 proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with line 19 applicable density bonus law.
line 20 (C)  A local government shall not enforce any other local line 21 development standard or combination of standards that would line 22 prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3. line 23 (D)  A development that otherwise meets the eligibility line 24 requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, line 25 affordability requirements, shall be eligible for two additional line 26 concessions pursuant to Section 65915.
line 27 (3)  For a residential development within one-quarter mile of a line 28 Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
line 29 (A)  A development may be built up to 65 feet high, or up to the line 30 local height limit, whichever is greater. If a development proposes line 31 a height under this subparagraph in excess of the local height line 32 limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a line 33 waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for line 34 additional height beyond that specified under this subparagraph, line 35 except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of line 36 subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 37 (B)  A local government shall not impose any maximum density line 38 standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre. The development line 39 proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with line 40 applicable density bonus law.
96 SB 79 — 22 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (C)  A local go
vernment shall not enforce any other local
line 2 development standard or combination of standards that would line 3 prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3. line 4 (D)  A development that otherwise meets the eligibility line 5 requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, line 6 affordability requirements, shall be eligible for two additional line 7 concessions pursuant to Section 65915.
line 8 (4)  For a residential development further than one-quarter mile line 9 but within one-half mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development line 10 stop, all of the following apply:
line 11 (A)  A development may be built up to 55 feet high, or up to the line 12 local height limit, whichever is greater. If a development proposes line 13 a height under this subparagraph in excess of the local height line 14 limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a line 15 waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for line 16 additional height beyond that specified under this subparagraph, line 17 except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of line 18 subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 19 (B)  A local government shall not impose any maximum density line 20 standard of less than 80 dwelling units per acre. The development line 21 proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with line 22 applicable density bonus law.
line 23 (C)  A local government shall not enforce any other local line 24 development standard or combination of standards that would line 25 prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 2.5. line 26 (D)  A development that otherwise meets the eligibility line 27 requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, line 28 affordability requirements, shall be eligible for one additional line 29 concession pursuant to Section 65915.
line 30 (5)  For a residential development within one-quarter mile of a line 31 Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
line 32 (A)  A development may be built up to 55 feet high, or up to the line 33 local height limit, whichever is greater. If a development proposes line 34 a height under this subparagraph in excess of the local height line 35 limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a line 36 waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for line 37 additional height beyond that specified under this subparagraph, line 38 except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of line 39 subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
96 — 23 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (B)  A local go
vernment shall not impose any maximum density
line 2 standard of less than 80 dwelling units per acre. The development line 3 proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with line 4 applicable density bonus law.
line 5 (C)  A local government shall not enforce any other local line 6 development standard or combination of standards that would line 7 prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 2.5. line 8 (D)  A development that otherwise meets the eligibility line 9 requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, line 10 affordability requirements, shall be eligible for one additional line 11 concession pursuant to Section 65915.
line 12 (6)  For a residential development further than one-quarter mile line 13 but within one-half mile of a Tier 3 transit-oriented development line 14 stop, all of the following apply:
line 15 (A)  A development may be built up to 45 feet high, or up to the line 16 local height limit, whichever is greater. If a development proposes line 17 a height under this subparagraph in excess of the local height line 18 limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a line 19 waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for line 20 additional height beyond that specified under this subparagraph, line 21 except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of line 22 subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 23 (B)  A local government shall not impose any maximum density line 24 standard of less than 60 dwelling units per acre. The development line 25 proponent may seek a further increased density in accordance with line 26 applicable density bonus law.
line 27 (C)  A local government shall not enforce any other local line 28 development standard or combination of standards that would line 29 prevent achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 2. line 30 (b)  Notwithstanding any other law, a housing development line 31 project that meets any of the eligibility criteria under subdivision line 32 (a) and is immediately adjacent to a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 line 33 transit-oriented development stop shall be eligible for an adjacency line 34 intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the line 35 maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per line 36 acre, and the residential floor area ratio by 1. line 37 (c)  A development proposed pursuant to this section shall line 38 comply with the antidisplacement requirements of Section 66300.6. line 39 This subdivision shall apply to any city or county. 96 SB 79 — 24 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 (d)
For purposes of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, a
line 2 proposed housing development project that is consistent with the line 3 applicable standards from this chapter shall be deemed consistent, line 4 compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, line 5 policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. line 6 (e)  A local government that denies a housing development line 7 project meeting the requirements of this section that is located in line 8 a high-resource area shall be presumed to be in violation of the line 9 Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) and immediately line 10 liable for penalties pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) line 11 of subdivision (k) of Section 65589.5, unless the local government line 12 demonstrates, pursuant to the standards in subdivisions (j) and (o) line 13 of Section 65589.5, that it has a health, life, or safety reason for line 14 denying the project.
line 15 65912.158. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, line 16 a transit agency may adopt objective standards for both residential line 17 and commercial developments proposed to be constructed on land line 18 owned by the transit agency or on which the transit agency has a line 19 permanent operating easement, if the objective standards allow line 20 for the same or greater development intensity as that allowed by line 21 local standards or applicable state law.
line 22 65912.159. A housing development project proposed pursuant line 23 to Section 65912.157 shall be eligible for streamlined ministerial line 24 approval pursuant to Section 65913.4 in accordance with all of the line 25 following:
line 26 (a)  The proposed project shall be exempt from subparagraph line 27 (A) of paragraph (4) of, paragraph (5) of, and clause (iv) of line 28 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of, subdivision (a) of Section line 29 65913.4.
line 30 (b)  The proposed project shall comply with the affordability line 31 requirements in subclauses (I) through (III), inclusive, of clause line 32 (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of line 33 Section 65913.4.
line 34 (c)  The proposed project shall comply with all other line 35 requirements of Section 65913.4, including, but not limited to, the line 36 prohibition against a site that is within a very high fire hazard line 37 severity zone, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (6) of line 38 subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
line 39 65912.160. (a)  The department shall oversee compliance with line 40 this chapter, including, but not limited to, promulgating standards 96 — 25 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 on how to account for capacity pursuant to this chapter in a city line 2 or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development, line 3 pursuant to Section 65583.2.
line 4 (b)  (1)  A local government may adopt an ordinance to line 5 implement the provisions of this chapter, which may include line 6 revisions to applicable zoning requirements on individual sites line 7 within a transit-oriented development zone, provided that those line 8 revisions maintain the average density allowed for the applicable line 9 tier, or up to a 100-percent increase, subject to review by the line 10 department pursuant to paragraph (3).
line 11 (2)  An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not line 12 be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with line 13 Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
line 14 (3)  (A)  A local government shall submit a copy of any line 15 ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to the department within line 16 60 days of adoption.
line 17 (B)  Upon receipt of an ordinance pursuant to this paragraph, line 18 the department shall review that ordinance and determine whether line 19 it complies with this section. If the department determines that the line 20 ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall line 21 notify the local government in writing and provide the local line 22 government a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond line 23 before taking further action as authorized by this section. line 24 (C)  The local government shall consider any findings made by line 25 the department pursuant to subparagraph (B) and shall do one of line 26 the following:
line 27 (i)  Amend the ordinance to comply with this section. line 28 (ii)  Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local government line 29 shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that line 30 explain the reasons the local government believes that the line 31 ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the line 32 department.
line 33 (D)  If the local government does not amend its ordinance in line 34 response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution line 35 with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with line 36 this chapter and addressing the department’s findings, the line 37 department shall notify the local government and may notify the line 38 Attorney General that the local government is in violation of this line 39 section.
96 SB 79 — 26 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 65912.161. The Legislature finds and declares that the state line 2 faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part line 3 due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis line 4 therefore requires a multifaceted, statewide approach, including, line 5 but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply line 6 of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is line 7 affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers line 8 to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, line 9 and expanding the availability of rental housing, and is a matter line 10 of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is line 11 used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. line 12 Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities. line 13 SEC. 3. Section 21080.26.5 is added to the Public Resources line 14 Code, to read:
line 15 21080.26.5. (a)  For the purposes of this section, “public line 16 project” means a project constructed by either a public agency or line 17 private entity, that, upon the completion of the construction, will line 18 be operated by a public agency.
line 19 (b)  This division shall not apply to a public or private residential, line 20 commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project line 21 application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned line 22 by a public transit agency, or fully or partially encumbered by an line 23 existing operating easement in favor of a public transit agency, line 24 and that includes at least one of the following:
line 25 (1)  A project component identified in paragraphs (1) to (5), line 26 inclusive, or paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 21080.25. line 27 (2)  A public project for passenger rail service facilities, other line 28 than light rail service eligible under paragraph (5) of subdivision line 29 (b) of Section 21080.25, including the construction, line 30 reconfiguration, or rehabilitation of stations, terminals, rails, line 31 platforms, or existing operations facilities, which will be line 32 exclusively used by zero-emission or electric trains. The project line 33 shall be located on land owned by a public transit agency, or land line 34 fully or partially encumbered by an existing operating easement line 35 in favor of a public transit agency, at the time the project line 36 application is filed.
line 37 (3)  An agreement between the project applicant and public line 38 transit agency that owns the land or has the permanent operating line 39 easement to finance transit capital infrastructure, transit line 40 maintenance, or transit operations, including through a proposed 96 — 27 — SB 79

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) line 1 public financing district, community financing district, or tax line 2 increment generated by the project.
line 3 (c) If a project described in subdivision (b) requires the line 4 construction of new passenger rail storage and maintenance line 5 facilities at a publicly or privately owned offsite location distinct line 6 from the principal project site, then that project shall be considered line 7 a wholly separate project from the project described in subdivision line 8 (b) and shall not be exempt from this division. Any required line 9 environmental review shall not affect or render invalid the line 10 exemption provided in subdivision (b), regardless of whether the line 11 project described in subdivision (b) cannot proceed unless the line 12 offsite facilities are constructed.
line 13 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 14 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 15 a local government or school district has the authority to levy line 16 service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the line 17 program or level of service mandated by this act, within the line 18 meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

O
96 SB 79 — 28 —

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment A - Text of SB 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 79 Hearing Date: 4/30/25
Author: Wiener Fiscal: Yes
Version: 4/23/25 Consultant: Peterson
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND: PUBLIC TRANSIT USE: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT:

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Makes transit-oriented development an allowable use on specified sites, gives transit agencies more flexibility under the Surplus Land Act, and exempts specified projects from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Background
Land use. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

Cities and counties use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific consideration. Zoning ordinances and other development decisions must be consistent with the city or county’s general plan.

Housing streamlining laws. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local planning commission and public notice and may require additional approvals. In 2017, the Legislature enacted a substantial package of legislation aimed at addressing the state’s housing crisis. Among others, the Legislature enacted SB 35 (Wiener) to provide for a streamlined, ministerial process for approving housing developments that are in compliance with the applicable objective local planning standards—including the general plan, zoning ordinances, and objective design review standards. SB 35 was intended to enable developments that face local opposition, but are consistent with local objective development standards, to be constructed. To be eligible for streamlining under SB 35, a specified percentage of the total housing units in the development must be affordable to lower-income households.

SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) extended the sunset for SB 35 until January 1, 2036, and made many changes to SB 35’s provisions. Some of the most significant changes, included:

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 2 of 16
 Authorizing SB 35 to apply within the coastal zone, beginning January 1, 2025, consistent with the applicable local coastal plan or land use plan, except in areas that are environmentally sensitive or hazardous;
 Requiring that, in jurisdictions not meeting their housing targets for above moderatehouseholds, projects eligible for SB 35 streamlining must contain at least 10% of the units affordable to very low-income households (i.e., 50% of the area median income (AMI) or below); and
 Amended labor standards that apply to projects over 85 feet in height above grade.

Density bonus law. The state’s density bonus law grants certain benefits to developers who build affordable units in order to encourage greater affordable housing production. Density bonus law requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at least one of the following:
 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households;  5 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households;  A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park;  10 percent of the units in a common interest development for moderate-income households;
 10 percent of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons; or
 20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.

If a project meets one of these conditions, the city or county must allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from 20 percent to 50 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, depending on the percentage of affordable units.

Incentives, concessions, waivers, and other benefits. Density bonus law (DBL) also grants “incentives or concessions” that can be used to modify development policies that add costs or reduce the number of units that a developer can build on a site. Incentives and concessions can vary widely based on the individual projects, but examples can include reduced fees, waivers of zoning codes, or reduced parking requirements. The number of incentives or concessions a project may be eligible for is based on the percentage of affordable units contained in the project, up to a maximum of four. DBL also allows “waivers” of any development standards that physically prevent the developer from constructing a project at the density allowed to the project, along with the incentives or concessions, under density bonus law. Finally, density bonus law reduces or eliminates the parking that can be required in connection with a project.

Surplus Land Act. Public agencies are major landlords in some communities, owning significant pieces of real estate. When properties become surplus to an agency’s needs, public officials want to sell the land to recoup their investments. The Surplus Land Act (SLA) spells out the steps local agencies must follow when they want to dispose of land. It requires local governments to give a “first right of refusal” to other governments and nonprofit housing developers, and to negotiate in good faith with them to try to come to agreement. This means that local agencies must open their properties up to affordable housing developers first, even if they have a different purpose in mind for the property.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 3 of 16
Before local officials can dispose of property, they must declare that the land is no longer needed for the agency’s use in a public meeting and declare the land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” Land that is being used for an agency’s use is not subject to the SLA. “Agency’s use” includes land that is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the local agency or will be disposed of to support agency work or operations.

As a general rule, agency’s use cannot include commercial or industrial uses or activities, and land disposed of for the purpose of investment or generating revenue cannot be considered necessary for the agency’s use. As a result, cities and counties are limited in their ability to dispose of properties for economic development or revenue generation purposes. However, most special districts are not subject to those restrictions on agency’s use as long as they can demonstrate that use of the site will do one of the following:
 Directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations.  Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local agency.

Transit districts can only dispose of property for commercial or revenue generation purposes if they meet specific requirements for developing affordable housing across their portfolio of properties, and have made a certain amount of progress towards building that housing.

The SLA designates certain types of land as “exempt surplus land.” Statute provides that the entirety of the SLA does not apply to disposals of exempt surplus land. All other surplus land must follow the procedures laid out in the SLA before a local agency can sell it.

California’s housing crisis. California has the largest concentration of severely unaffordable housing markets in the nation, with the average home value in California at $773,363. To keep up with demand, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates that California must plan for the development of more than 2.5 million homes over the next eight years, and no less than one million of those homes must meet the needs of lower-income households (more than 640,000 very-low income and 385,000 low-income units are needed).

For decades, not enough housing was constructed to meet need, resulting in a severe undersupply of housing.

According to HCD, completed residential construction is up 13.1% (99,130 units in 2022 to 112,076 units in 2023). Construction has been up every year since 2018. Additionally, the share of lower-income units in new development has nearly doubled since 2018, now representing 19% of permitted units and 16% of completed units in 2023. VLI unit completions increased by

44.2% from 2022-2023, while low-income unit completions rose by 75.7%, a 61.5% overall increase in affordable housing production.

Housing production advocates want to expand housing opportunities near transit stations.

Proposed Law
Senate Bill 79 includes three major components:
 Makes transit-oriented development an allowable use on any site zoned residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development;
 Makes changes to the SLA; and

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 4 of 16
 Exempts certain projects on land owned by a public transit agency from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Transit oriented development. SB 79 makes housing development projects (projects) near transit-oriented development stops (TODS) an allowable use on any site zoned residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development. Under the measure, a TOD is a major transit stop, excluding any stop served by rail transit with a frequency of fewer than 10 total trains per weekday. Under the measure, there are three tiers of TODS:
 Tier 1: TODS served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail;  Tier 2: TODS, excluding Tier 1, served by light rail transit, high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus rapid transit service; and
 Tier 3: TODS, excluding Tier 1 and Tier 2, served by frequent commuter rail service or by ferry service.

The standards for a project depend on the tier, the distance from TODS, and whether the project is adjacent to TODS, as described in the table below.

Development proponents may seek a further increased density in accordance with applicable density bonus law. However, if a project proposes a height in excess of the local height limit, the local government does not have to grant additional height under density bonus law, unless the project is 100% affordable housing.

SB 79 allows a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed on land owned the transit agency owns, or on which it has a permanent operating easement, if the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity as that allowed by local standards or applicable state law.

TODS Type Distance
from TODS
Standards for Project
Tier 1 ¼ mile from
stop
 Max Height: 75 ft. or 95 ft. if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 120 units per acre (u/a) plus any density bonus or 160 u/a if adjacent to stop
 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 3.5 or 4.5 if adjacent to stop  + 3 concessions or incentives under DBL
¼ - ½ mile
from stop
 Max Height: 65 ft. or 85 ft. if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
 + 2 concessions or incentives under DBL
Tier 2 ¼ mile from
stop
 Max Height: 65 ft. or 85 ft. if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
 + 2 concessions or incentives under DBL
¼ - ½ mile
from stop
 Max Height: 55 ft. or 75 ft. if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 80 u/a plus any density bonus or 120 u/a if adjacent to stop

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 5 of 16
 FAR: 2.5 or 3.5 if adjacent to stop
 + 1 concessions or incentives under DBL
Tier 3: ¼ mile from
stop
 Max Height: 55 ft. or 75 ft. if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 80 u/a plus any density bonus or 120 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 2.5 or 3.5 if adjacent to stop
 + 1 concession or incentive under DBL
¼ - ½ mile
from stop
 Max Height: 45 ft. or 65 ft. if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 60 u/a plus any density bonus or 100 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 2 or 3 if adjacent to stop
 No additional concessions or incentives
Regardless of the tier, all SB 79 projects must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner). Additionally, SB 79 projects are considered consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements or other similar provision for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act.

Streamlining for SB 79 projects. SB 79 projects can opt to use SB 35/423 streamlining provisions, but with some differences. Unlike SB 35/423 projects, SB 79 projects:
 Can be on a parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily housing;  Do not have to be in a jurisdiction subject to SB 35/423 streamlining; and  Do not have to be consistent with consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government.

To be eligible for streamlining, SB 79 projects must generally meet the same SB 35/423 affordability requirements.

Local government accountability. If a local government denies an SB 79 project in a highresource area, as determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, then it is presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), and is immediately liable for penalties under that law, unless it can demonstrate that it has a health, life, or safety reason for denying the project.

Allowed local ordinances. SB 79 allows local governments to adopt ordinances that revise applicable zoning requirements on individual sites within a TOD zone, provided that the revisions maintain an average density allowed for the applicable tier, or up to a 100% increase.

Local governments must submit a copy or any ordinance to HCD for review within 60 days of adoption. When HCD receives an ordinance, it must review the ordinance and determine whether it complies with SB 79. If it determines the ordinance does not comply, then HCD must notify the local government in writing and give them a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond. The local government must consider any findings HCD makes, and either amend the ordinance to comply with these findings, or adopt the ordinance without changes. If the local government adopts the ordinance without changes, it must explain the reasons why it believes the ordinance complies with SB 79 despite HCD’s findings. If the local government adopts the

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 6 of 16
ordinance without making these findings, HCD can notify the Attorney General that the local government is violating SB 79.

SLA changes. SB 79 expands the definition of “agency’s use,” to include any land leased to support public transit operations, which means these provisions do not go through the SLA process.

Also, SB 79 provides that in the case of a public transit operator, “agency use” can include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development or be for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue if the agency’s governing body takes action in a public meeting declaring that the use of the site will do one of the following:
 Directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations; or  Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local agency, as specified.

CEQA exemption. This bill also provides that CEQA does not apply to any public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the development proponent files the project application, is located entirely or principally on land a public transit agency owns, if it includes specified transit infrastructure or an agreement to finance transit infrastructure, maintenance, or operations.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 79 tackles the root causes of California’s affordability crisis by allowing more homes to be built near major public transportation stops and on land owned by transit agencies – bolstering transit use, slashing climate emissions, and supporting public transportation in the process.
“SB 79 allows more homes near transit in two major ways. First, SB 79 allows for upzoning land for multi-family homes up to 75 feet within a half mile of specified major train stations and bus rapid transit stops. This change will ensure that transit oriented developments (TODs) are feasible and enhance access to transit. Second, SB 79 authorizes local transit agencies to develop at the same or greater density on land they own. All TODs under SB 79 are eligible for the streamlined ministerial approvals process under SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) if they meet the law’s environmental, labor, and affordability standards. “California needs to build millions of new homes in sustainable locations to meet state housing goals, slash climate emissions, and reduce the cost of living, but overly restrictive zoning codes make building such homes illegal. SB 79 allows building more homes near transit to lower costs for families while bolstering public transit use and supporting cash-strapped transit agencies.”

2. Downtown train. TOD projects host a multitude of benefits. They offer residents a place to live without needing a car to get around, and if that resident uses transit, could help address climate change. For higher-income households, TOD projects may reduce the number of vehicles they have or reduce the number of vehicle trips they take. For lower-income residents, they can offer even greater benefits. Rather than forcing these households to purchase a vehicle to travel to jobs, they can find a home that allows them to travel via transit. The state’s housing crisis is also most acute at lower income levels.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 7 of 16
SB 79 allows more homebuilding on parcels near transit. While SB 79 requires certain levels of affordability on projects that opt to use SB 35/423 streamlining, developers can decide whether they want to avoid affordability requirements and associated costs in exchange for the traditional, discretionary housing approval process. Deed-restricted affordable housing units limit developers return on investment because they cannot charge rents or sell units for as high as they otherwise could. Additionally, SB 79 requires projects that do not use streamlining provisions to meet local inclusionary requirements, but not all local governments have such a policy. As a result, SB 79 does not guarantee that every SB 79 project will include some level of affordability.

Providing truly affordable housing opportunities is pivotal to ensuring that individuals experiencing homelessness, or at risk of homelessness, have a roof over their heads. While the state needs homes at all income levels, if projects do not have to include deed-restricted affordable units, the state may miss an opportunity to address its greatest housing needs on the parcels where housing for lower-income individuals may further multiple state goals, including both housing and improvements in transit ridership. Accordingly, while requiring an affordable housing component to all SB 79 projects may mean SB 79 generates fewer market-rate units, the overall public benefits may be greater. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to expand SB 79’s affordable housing requirements.

3. Thank you, next. Local governments are subject to many planning requirements, especially when it comes to housing. The housing element process requires local agencies to consider many different factors, including how economic, environmental, fiscal, and community factors influence their ability to address regional housing needs. Among the many factors local agencies must include is a statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing, and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. After balancing factors such as these, local governments have to identify and implement programs and policies to make sites available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs at all income levels, which, crucially, which must include any necessary rezonings. Existing law defines affirmatively furthering fair housing to require, “…taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”
1 HCD must approve local housing elements as meeting the requirements of state law, and in recent years, the Legislature has strengthened requirements contained in, and consequences of violating, housing element law. If a local government does not rezone to allow development at the levels required in its approved housing element, or does not adopt a compliant housing element, it may be subject to various penalties, including enhanced fines and restrictions on land use authority. As a result, housing elements are more meaningful, and more local governments are faithfully implementing the law to allow for more dense development in a way that suits their communities.

Despite local governments’ efforts to work through this process to meet their housing needs in a way that balances all these factors, SB 79 applies. Even for a well-meaning local government, such as a city HCD has designated as pro-housing and has a compliant housing element, a developer could build a project on a parcel near a TODS that conflicts with the planning and zoning decisions the local has made, potentially as part of adopting a compliant housing element,

1 Government Code §8899.50.

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 8 of 16
to balance these competing factors. Projects could be built in a manner that does not sufficiently account for housing needs at all income levels, or in a manner that goes against their efforts to affirmatively further fair housing and ensuring all communities have access to new housing opportunities. SB 79 allows local government enacts an ordinance to implement SB 79 that might provide some flexibility, but the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to allow additional flexibility for local agencies that comply with state housing planning requirements.

4. Don’t go chasing windfalls. Valuation of real estate is complicated, but a fundamental principle is that property is as valuable as its highest and best use allows. Land that can only accommodate construction of a few new units of housing is less valuable than land that can accommodate more, all else being equal, and same goes for larger developments versus smaller ones. When zoning rules change to allow more building, property values go up—an effect that was demonstrated in a recent study of upzoning in Chicago.2 SB 79 allows more units to be built and reduces costs associated with developments by granting additional waivers and concessions of development policies. SB 79 also allows developers to choose the density, height, and FAR, up to the limits for the particular tier, potentially allowing them to maximize profits by building larger luxury units instead of smaller, lower priced ones. Many previous pieces of housing legislation have included provisions that help balance these private benefits with public benefits.

For example, AB 2011 (Wicks, 2022) and the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 (SB 6, Caballero) both made certain types of housing developments an allowable use on land zoned for commercial uses. AB 2011 required specific levels of affordable housing. Both measures included labor standards for all their projects, although the specific standards differ. Similarly, previous efforts at TOD upzoning, including SB 827 (Wiener, 2017) and SB 50 (Wiener, 2020), included provisions that provided explicit public benefits for projects, including certain affordability requirements. SB 79 includes some provisions in the same areas, but generally more limited requirements than previous housing production legislation. For example, SB 79 only requires specific affordability levels and labor standards if the developer opts to use SB 35/423 streamlining. If a developer opts not to use SB 35/423 streamlining, then the measure only requires the developer to meet a local inclusionary standard, if one exists. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to better balance private developer benefits with public benefits.

5. Changes. Studies are split on whether new housing development in a community significantly increases or decreases the net displacement of low-income households from an area. Some studies argue that new housing frees up less expensive units that would otherwise be occupied by high-income households,3 while others argue that the effect is dependent on the specifics of the housing market in an area that determine whether the number of lower-income households moving into an area exceed the number moving out.
4 Previous legislation similar to SB 79
attempted to strike a balance by delaying implementation for sensitive communities, meaning low-income communities and communities of color at risk of gentrification, and permitted them to come up with a community plan and other policies to encourage multifamily development at varying income levels and protect vulnerable residents from displacement. SB 79, however,

2 Yonah Freemark. (2020) “Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction.” Urban Affairs Review 56(3), 758-789. 3 Phillips, S., Manville, M., & Lens, M. (2021). “Research roundup: The effect of market-rate development on neighborhood rents.” UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. 4 Karen Chapple & Taesoo Song (29 Mar 2024): Can New Housing Supply Mitigate Displacement and Exclusion?, Journal of the American Planning Association, DOI:

10.1080/01944363.2024.2319293

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 9 of 16
does not identify or change its operation in any communities that might be more vulnerable to displacement. Instead, the bill cross-references the demolition protections in existing law that would apply to an SB 79 project in any case under the Housing Crisis Act. The Committee may wish to consider whether SB 79 should include more protections against displacement consistent with previous efforts.

6. I still haven’t found what I’m looking for. SB 79’s tiers of TODS would be a new concept in state law, so figuring out exactly where each tier is, and what projects would look like can be challenging to imagine. According to the author and sponsors, Tier 1 is intended to apply to the following stations: BART, LA Metro B and D lines, and 25 commuter rail stations. Tier 2 is intended to apply to SacRT Light Rail, SF Muni Metro, SF Muni streetcars, SF Van Ness BRT, VTA Light Rail, LA Metro A, C, E, G, J, and K Lines, San Diego MTS Trolley, Santa Ana Streetcar, 15 commuter rail stations, and 13 additional light rail or BRT stations. Tier 3 is intended to apply to 60 commuter rail stations and 10 ferry stations.

7. Imagine. California is a geographically and demographically diverse state, and that is reflected in its 483 cities and 58 counties. Local elected officials for each of those municipalities are charged by the California Constitution with protecting their citizens’ welfare. One chief way local governments do this is by exercising control over what gets built in their community.

Local officials weigh the need for additional housing against the concerns and desires of their constituents. Where appropriate, those officials enact ordinances to shape their communities based on local conditions and desires. SB 79 applies regardless of these efforts and the unique features of California’s communities by requiring all communities near TODS to allow projects that meet SB 79’s development requirements.

What existing housing exists near this vast range of transit stops varies greatly. For example, all BART stations are supposed to be tier 1 TODS. Some BART stations in places like San Francisco and Oakland already have large, tall structures surrounding them. However, in other places like Castro Valley, the neighborhoods surrounding the BART station are mostly singlefamily homes. Regardless of these differences, SB 79 treats these stops the same. In a suburban neighborhood like Castro Valley, this would represent a drastic change.

SB 79 includes some provisions that nod to local flexibility to tailor the bill’s impacts to different communities. It allows local governments to enact ordinances to implement its provisions, and those ordinances can revise applicable zoning requirements on individual sites within a TOD zone, provided that revisions maintain the average density allowed for that tier, or up to a 100% increase. However, the bill is missing several details regarding “TOD zones,” including a definition of TOD zone, that could raise questions for local governments that want to use this provision. To help ensure that SB 79 provides clear flexibility for local governments, the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to clarify how local governments can make zoning decisions that deviate from SB 79 requirements, and require minimum densities for projects to ensure units are widely available and suitable for habitation at a range of income levels.

7. Don’t you forget about me. Not only does SB 79 attempt to address the housing crisis, it also tries to address the fiscal challenges confronting the state’s transit agencies. It does this in a couple ways.
 First, it allows transit agencies to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed on land owned the transit agency owns, or on which

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 10 of 16
it has a permanent operating easement. This allows transit agencies to make land use decisions that could conflict with those established by the city or county. However, the bill does not make clear whether this applies just to SB 79 projects or any residential or commercial development. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 79 to clarify what projects a transit agency’s zoning applies to.  Second, it expands the definition of “agency’s use” in the SLA to include any land leased to support public transit operations. This means transit agencies could decide to lease their land for more market-rate housing, or other commercial or industrial uses, without first offering the parcel to affordable housing developers. Transit agencies already have this authority under the SLA if they adopt a program that commits to certain requirements for residential development, including a 25% inclusionary requirement, across their portfolio of properties. While SB 79’s SLA exemption could expand transit agencies’ revenue generating possibilities, it runs contrary to the purpose of the SLA, which is to prioritize affordable housing development over other competing priorities. As a result, this provision may reduce the availability of affordable housing in the state. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 79 to remove the bill’s provisions amending the SLA.

8. Bring the noise. Unlike other recent housing streamlining bills, SB 79 expands the zones where housing can be built from residential and commercial to light industrial. Light industrial zoning varies across jurisdictions, but can include light manufacturing, warehouses, and other uses. Some light industrial zones may be adequate places to build housing, like next to a brewery. However, other light industrial zones might not be if there are potentially hazardous materials or involve pollution emissions like a warehouse. This sets a precedent for other legislation to follow, and could place housing opportunities in places that could present public health and safety risks. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to remove the authority to build SB 79 projects in light industrial zones.

9. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.

Because the Constitution does not define municipal affairs, the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it is an issue of statewide concern. SB 79 says that its statutory provisions regarding TODS apply to charter cities because addressing the state’s housing crisis of availability and affordability is a matter of statewide concern.

10. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 79 adds to the duties of local officials, Legislative Counsel says the bill imposes a new state mandate. SB 79 disclaims the state’s responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill’s provisions.

11. Incoming! The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of SB 79: first to the Committee on Housing, which approved the bill at its April 22nd hearing on a vote of 6-2, and second to the Committee on Local Government.

Support and Opposition (4/25/2025)
Support: California Yimby (Co-Sponsor)
Greenbelt Alliance (Co-Sponsor)
Spur (Co-Sponsor)

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 11 of 16
Streets for All (Co-Sponsor)
Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
Casey Glaubman - Councilmember, Mount Shasta
Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
James Coleman - Councilmember, South San Francisco
Jed Leano, Councilmember, Claremont
Jesse Zwick - Councilmember, Santa Monica
Laura Nakamura - Vice Mayor, Concord
Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
Mark Dinan - Vice Mayor, East Palo Alto
Matthew Solomon - Councilmember, Emeryville
Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
Rashi Kesarwani - Councilmember, Berkeley
Rebecca Saltzman - Councilmember, El Cerrito
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
Zach Hilton - Councilmember, Gilroy
21st Century Alliance
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
Active San Gabriel Valley
All Voting Members of the North Westwood Neighborhood Council Bay Area Council
Bike Culver City
Bike East Bay
Bike Long Beach
Bikesd
Business for Good San Diego
Calbike
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Nightlife Association (CALNIGHT)
Car-lite Long Beach
Chamber of Progress
Circulate San Diego
City West Hollywood
Climate Action Campaign
Climate Hawks Vote
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay Leadership Council
East Bay Yimby
Eastside Housing for All
Environmental Protection Information Center
Everybody's Long Beach
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Fieldstead and Company, INC.

Fremont for Everyone
Generation Housing

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 12 of 16
Glendale Yimby
Grow the Richmond
Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation
House Sacramento
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Inclusive Lafayette
Indivisible Sacramento
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Leadingage California
Lisc San Diego
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
National Independent Venue Association of California
New Way Homes
Northern Neighbors
Our Time to ACT
Pathway to Tomorrow
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
People for Housing Oc
People for Housing Orange County
Prosperity California
Redlands Yimby
Remake Irvine Streets for Everyone (RISE)
Ridesd
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Fernando Valley for All
San Francisco Yimby
San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sierra Business Council
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sloco Yimby
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE)
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE) (ORG)
Strong Towns Poway & Rb
Strong Towns San Diego
Strong Towns Santa Barbara
Student Homes Coalition
UC San Diego Housing Commission
University of California Student Association
Ventura County Yimby
Walk Bike Berkeley
Walk San Francisco

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 13 of 16
Westside for Everyone
Wildlands Network
Yimby Action
Yimby Democrats of San Diego County
Yimby LA
Yimby Los Angeles
Yimby Slo
Opposition: Allied Neighborhoods Association (of Santa Barbara) Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
Brentwood Homeowners Association
Burton Valley Neighborhoods Group
California Cities for Local Control
California Contract Cities Association
California Preservation Foundation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Catalysts for Local Control
Cheviot Hills (Los Angeles) Neighborhood Association
Chinatown Community Development Center
Citizen Marin
Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara
Citizens Preserving Venice
City of Agoura Hills
City of Anderson
City of Artesia
City of Azusa
City of Belvedere
City of Brentwood
City of Calimesa
City of Camarillo
City of Carlsbad
City of Chino
City of Chino Hills
City of Cloverdale
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Downey
City of Encinitas
City of Exeter
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
City of Glendora
City of Grand Terrace
City of Hawthorne
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hesperia

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79
(Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 14 of 16
City of Highland
City of Huntington Beach
City of LA Mirada
City of LA Quinta
City of Lafayette
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood CA
City of Larkspur
City of Lathrop
City of Lawndale
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Manteca
City of Marina
City of Mission Viejo
City of Modesto
City of Moorpark
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Napa
City of Newport Beach
City of Norwalk
City of Oakley
City of Oceanside
City of Ontario
City of Orange City of Orinda
City of Palm Desert
City of Palmdale
City of Paramount
City of Perris
City of Pico Rivera
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redding
City of Redlands
City of Ripon
City of Riverbank
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Rosemead
City of San Fernando
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Marcos
City of San Rafael
City of Sausalito
City of Scotts Valley

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 15 of 16
City of Simi Valley
City of Solana Beach
City of Stanton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Torrance
City of Tustin
City of Upland
City of Vista
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
City of Yucaipa
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN)
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Communities for a Better Environment
Comstock Hills Homeowners Association
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association 2025
Crescenta Valley Community Association 2025
Del Rey Residents Association
Disability Rights California
Eastside Voice Long Beach CA
Equitable Land Use Alliance (ELUA)
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Foothill Communities Association
Friends of Historic Miracle Mile
Grayburn Avenue Block Club
Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
Hills2000_friends of the Hills
Hollywoodland Homeowners Association, United Neighborhoods Homey
Kennedy Commission
Lafayette Homeowners Council
Larchmont United Neighborhood Association
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
League of California Cities
Little Tokyo Service Center
Livable California
Livable Mountain View
Long Beach Forward
Marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members; City of Mental Health Advocacy Services
Mission Street Neighbors
Neighborhoods United SF
Neighbors for a Better California
Neighbors for a Better San Diego
New Livable California Dba Livable California
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California
Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation
Our Neighborhood Voices
Our Neighborhood Voices -- Education Corporation

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79 (Wiener) 4/23/25 Page 16 of 16
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Poder SF
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
Public Law Center
Race & Equity in All Planning Coalition (REP-SF)
Rise Economy
Save Lafayette
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
Shift-Bay Area
Spaulding Square Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
Sunnyvale United Neighbors
Sunset Square Neighborhood Organization
Town of Apple Valley
United Neighbors
Urban Habitat
West Torrance Homeowners Association
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Westwood Hills Property Owners Association
Westwood Homeowners Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Young Community Developers
-- END --

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment B - Sen Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 677 Hearing Date: 4/22/2025
Author: Wiener
Version: 4/9/2025 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Hank Brady
SUBJECT: Housing development: streamlined approvals.

DIGEST: This bill makes a series of substantive and technical changes to (SB 9, Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) and SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statues of 2017) which streamlined ministerial approval for specific types of housing developments and parcel subdivisions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, pursuant to SB 9 (Atkins, 2021):
1) Requires a city or county to ministerially approve either or both of the following, as specified:
a) A housing development of no more than two units (duplex) in a singlefamily zone; and/or, b) The subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use, into two approximately equal parcels (urban-lot split), as specified.
2) Authorizes a city or county to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards that do not conflict with state standards, except:
a) A city or county shall not impose objective standards that would physically preclude the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. A city or county may, however, require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines; and,
b) A city or county shall not require a setback for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as the existing structure.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 2 of 21
3) Prohibits a city or county from requiring more than one parking space per unit for either a proposed duplex or a proposed lot split. Prohibits a city or county from imposing any parking requirements if the parcel is located within onehalf mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.
4) Authorizes a local agency to deny a housing project otherwise authorized by SB 9 if the building official makes a written finding based upon the preponderance of the evidence that the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon health and safety or the physical environment and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact
5) Requires a city or county to include the number of units constructed and the number of applications for lot splits under this bill, in its Annual Progress Report (APR) to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
6) Requires a city or county to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban-lot split only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban-lot split meets specified requirements.
7) Authorizes a city or county to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with the provisions of SB 9. A city or county may, however, require easements or that the parcel have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
8) Provides that a local government shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel.
9) Requires the HCD to notify a local government if it has taken an action in violation of SB 9, and authorizes HCD to notify the Attorney General (AG) if the local government is in violation of SB 9.

Existing law, under SB 35 (Wiener, 2017):
1) Allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process, and not subject to a conditional use permit (hereinafter referred to as “SB 35 streamlining”) if the development contains two or more residential units and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 3 of 21
a) The development is located on a site that satisfies all of the following:
i) A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel of parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau;
ii) A site in which at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses;
iii)A site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; and
iv)If the development contains units that are subsidized, the development proponent already has recorded, or is required by law to record, a land use restriction for 55 years for units that are rented or 45 years for units that are owned.
b) The development satisfies both of the following:
i) Is located in a jurisdiction that does not have a compliant housing element certified by HCD, or based on the last APR submitted by the jurisdiction to HCD, issued fewer building permits than the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), by income category, for that reporting period; and
ii) The development dedicates a minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one of the following:
(1)Make 10% of the units in the project affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This standard applies to projects that include more than 10 units in the following jurisdictions:
(a)Jurisdictions that failed to submit the APR; or,
(b)Jurisdictions that submitted an APR that reflects that the jurisdiction failed to achieve its prorated target for issuing permits to above moderate-income housing developments required for the current RHNA cycle;
(2)Make 50% of the units in the project affordable to households making below 80% AMI. This standard applies in jurisdictions that submitted an APR that reflects that the jurisdiction failed to achieve its prorated target for issuing permits to housing developments affordable to

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 4 of 21
households making 80% of the area median income than were required for the current RHNA cycle; or
(3)Developers may choose between the affordability levels specified in options (1) or (2) above for projects located in jurisdictions that do not meet either standard.

If a local ordinance requires a deeper dedication of affordability than the applicable standard noted above, the standard in the local ordinance applies.
c) The development, excluding any additional density or any other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law, is consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government;
d) The development is not located on environmentally sensitive site, as specified; and,
e) The development proponent certifies that the project will comply with prescribed labor and workforce standards, as specified. 2) Requires a local government that determines that a development submitted pursuant to SB 35 streamlining provisions is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards listed above, that it shall provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as specified. 3) Provides that the development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards listed in 2) above, if the local government fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to 2) above.
4) Provides that design review or public oversight shall be completed in a manner that does not inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval of a project, as specified.

This bill:
1) Makes a series of changes to the housing development and lot split provisions codified by SB 9. Specifically:
a) Deems any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in a deed, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 5 of 21
development, and any governing documents of a homeowners association (HOA) that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts an SB 9 housing development or an SB 9 lot split void and unenforceable; b) Allows SB 9 lot splits and housing developments to occur on parcels where units occupied by low-income tenants if those units were destroyed in a disaster, as specified, or if they units were rented out for the first time in the months following a declared disaster, as specified;
c) Increases the cap on unit size that local agencies may place on SB 9 duplexes from 800 square feet per unit to 1,750 square feet per unit; d) Prohibits local agencies, special districts and water corporations from imposing impact fees on SB 9 duplex units that are less than 1,750 square feet each, and requires SB 9 units that are larger than 1,750 to be charged proportionally;
e) Prohibits local agencies from imposing a deed restriction or covenant that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate income, on SB 9 housing developments and lot splits as specified; f) Specifies that local agencies may only impose front and side setbacks that are measured from the original lot line, and prohibits local agencies from imposing setbacks between two units that exceed the minimum standards established in the California Building Standards Code;
g) Requires local agencies to provide a single application for applicants seeking subdivide a parcel using SB 9 lot split provisions and develop housing on each parcel under the provisions of SB 9;
h) Removes the requirement that an applicant for an SB 9 lot split must sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units for a period of three years, as specified. Additionally this bill explicitly prohibits local agencies from imposing owner-occupancy requirements on SB 9 duplexes whether or not they are built on a parcel that requires a lot split;
i) Removes requirements that specified that new parcels created by lot splits are roughly proportional in size;
j) Removes a prohibition on using the lot split provisions of SB 9 to subdivide adjacent lots, as specified;
k) Prohibits local agencies from requiring an applicant for a lot split to form an HOA for the units developed on the split lots;
l) Requires local agencies to approve the formation of an HOA ministerially if an applicant elects to form an HOA as a part of a lot split application; m) Limits the ability of local agencies to establish certain driveway width and driveway length requirements, as specified;
n) Specifies that the ability of local agencies to require parcels created by a lot split to have access to or adjoin the public right of away, does not allow a

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 6 of 21
local agency to impose an access method that would physically preclude the lot split if another access method would facilitate the lot split; o) Expresses legislative intent to make SB 9 projects eligible in the coastal zone in a manner that is consistent with the coastal standards established in SB 35;
p) Prohibits local agencies from denying a permit for an SB 9 housing development due to the presence of preexisting nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or the presence of unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and that are not affected by the construction of the unit or units;
q) Requires local agencies that adopt local ordinances to implement the provisions of SB 9 to submit the ordinance to HCD within 60 days of adopting the local ordinance, and to respond to feedback from HCD within 30 days;
r) Requires local agencies that adopt an ordinance implementing the provisions of SB 9 to submit a copy of the ordinance to the HCD within 60 days of adoption, or within 60 days of the effective date of this section, and authorizes HCD to issue written findings regarding whether the ordinance complies with the law;
s) Requires local agencies to respond to a noncompliance finding from HCD regarding an SB 9 ordinance within 30 days. Specifically, local agencies must respond indicating that they will either:
i) Amend the ordinance to comply with the law; or,
ii) Adopt a resolution with written findings explaining why the agency believes the ordinance complies with the law.
t) Authorizes HCD to notify the AG that a local agency is in violation of SB 9; u) States that any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of a local agency concerning a lot split, or of any proceeding, act, or determination taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached to the decision, including, but not limited to, the approval of a lot split, shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced and service of summons effected in accordance with existing law. Declares that this provisions subparagraph is declaratory of existing law; and,
v) Makes other technical and clarifying changes.
2) Makes a series of changes to the streamlined ministerial approval process for affordable housing developments codified by SB 35 (Weiner 2017).

Specifically:

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 7 of 21
a) Lowers the affordability threshold that developments must meet from 50% to 20% in order to be eligible for streamlining if they are located in jurisdictions that are meeting their prorated targets for issuing above moderate-income housing permits required in the current RHNA cycle; b) Allows SB 35 developments to occur on parcels where units occupied by low-income tenants if those units were destroyed in a disaster, as specified; c) Requires local agencies to demonstrate with a preponderance of the evidence that a development does not comply with the applicable environmental criteria necessary to be eligible for streamlining, as specified; d) Limits the types of historic sites that preclude SB 35 developments from moving forward to sites that are identified in the state or national register, as specified; additionally, allows projects to occur on sites only identified in a local historic register;
e) Requires HCD to determine if local agencies are achieving their prorated RHNA permitting targets on a two-year, rather than four-year cycle; and, f) Makes other technical and clarifying changes.

Background
SB 9 (Atkins, 2021). In 2021, the Governor signed SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021), which allowed up to four homes on lots where currently only one exists. It did so by allowing existing single-family homes to be converted into duplexes; it also allowed single-family parcels to be subdivided into two lots, while allowing up to two units to be constructed on each newly formed lot.

According to the Terner Center, that bill had the potential to allow for the development of nearly 6 million new housing units. Assuming only five percent of the parcels impacted by this bill created new two-unit structures; this bill could result in nearly 600,000 new homes.1
The Terner Center evaluated the use of SB 9 through the end of 2022 (one year from its enacted date of January 1, 2022). Researchers collected data from 13 jurisdictions and found that SB 9 activity was relatively limited. For example, Los Angeles had the most activity, with 211 applications for new units under SB 9 in 2022. The state’s other large cities all reported very few applications for lot splits or new units. For example, the City of San Diego reported receiving just seven applications for new SB 9 units in 20222.

1 David Garcia, Single-Family Zoning Reform: An Analysis of SB 1120. (Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California, Berkeley, July 30, 2020) https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/sb-1120/ 2Muhammad Alameldin and David Garcia, "State Law, Local Interpretation: How Cities Are Implementing Senate Bill 9," Terner Center for Housing Innovation, June 8, 2022, accessed April 9, 2025, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/state-law-local-interpretation-senate-bill-9/.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 8 of 21
Despite these initial reports, it is too early to draw any conclusions about SB 9’s overall impact, as homeowners and local governments are still learning about the provisions in the bill. Similarly, it took a couple years for accessory dwelling unit application and construction to increase after reforms took effect on January 1, 2017.

SB 35 (Wiener, 2017). SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) created a streamlined approval process for infill projects with two or more residential units in localities that have failed to produce sufficient housing to meet their RHNA. The streamlined approval process requires some level of affordable housing to be included in the housing development. To receive the streamlined process for housing developments, the developer must demonstrate that the development meets a number of requirements including that the development is not on an environmentally sensitive site or would result in the demolition of housing that has been rented out in the last ten years. Localities must provide written documentation to the developer if there is a failure to meet the specifications for streamlined approval, within specified a period of time. If the locality does not meet those deadlines, the development shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for streamlined approval and must be approved by right.

Existing law requires HCD to determine when a locality is subject to the streamlining and ministerial approval process in SB 35 (Wiener) based on the number of units issued building permits as reported in the annual production report that local governments submit each year as part of housing elements. If a local government is not permitting enough units to meet its above moderate and its lower income RHNA, a development must dedicate 10% of the units in the development to lower income households to receive streamlined, ministerial approval. If the jurisdiction is permitting meeting its above moderate-income targets and not the lower-income RHNA, then developments must dedicate 50% of the units for lower income to have access to streamlining Comments
1) Author’s Statement. “Senate Bill 677 strengthens two of California’s landmark housing streamlining laws, SB 9 (Atkins, 2021) and SB 423 (2023, Wiener) to help communities across California meet their housing production goals and to help end the state’s severe housing shortage. SB 677 makes several changes to existing laws to streamline permitting and boost housing production in California. SB 9 sought to legalize duplexes across the state and functionally end single family zoning. Unfortunately, the law has at times proved difficult to utilize effectively, and as a result, too few applications have been submitted. SB 423 extended the sunset provision of SB 35 and has streamlined the production

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 9 of 21
of tens of thousands of homes across California, but overly restrictive inclusionary requirements have limited the number of affordable homes produced under the law. SB 677 will strengthen these landmark laws. We are making real progress on housing in California, but we need to go further, faster to meet our housing goals and tackle the affordability crisis crushing families across the state. By strengthening some of our tools with lessons learned from the past few years, we can build on our progress and deliver a more affordable future for all Californians.”
2) SB 9 changes: owner-occupancy. SB 9 requires that an individual seeking to exercise an urban-lot split agree to occupy one of the units on the resulting lot split for three years. The inclusion of an owner-occupancy requirement was debated as the policy of streamlining urban-lot splits initially went through the Legislature. Prior to SB 9’s passage, SB 1120 (Atkins 2020) would have authorized urban-lot splits in a very similar manner. SB 1120 passed in both the Senate and the Assembly without any owner-occupancy requirements, but ultimately failed passage due to legislative deadlines. Senator Atkins reintroduced the urban-lot split concept in SB 9, which moved through both houses of the Legislature with a permissive owner-occupancy requirement that mirrored the requirements of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law.

Specifically, early versions of SB 9 only temporarily authorized local agencies to impose owner-occupancy requirements on individuals executing urban-lot splits. Ultimately, the permissive authority was amended into a permanent requirement that local agencies impose 3-year owner-occupancy on individuals executing urban-lot splits. This bill will remove the obligation for an urban-lot split applicant to sign an affidavit committing to occupy a property for a period of three years, and it will prohibit local agencies from imposing owneroccupancy requirements on urban-lot splits and SB 9 housing developments. 3) SB 9 changes: expanding unit size & lot coverage. SB 9 prohibits local agencies from imposing objective standards that would physically preclude the construction of up to two units that are at least 800 square feet each, provided that the units meet a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear lot lines. These two provisions effectively narrow the ability of local agencies to impose “lot coverage standards” on smaller units built under SB 9. Lot coverage standards are development limitations imposed by local agencies that restrict or limit the portion of a property that can be built upon. For example, a 50% lot coverage limit on a 1,200 square foot parcel means that not more than 600 square feet of the parcel can be developed with a permanent structure.

Under SB 9, a developer could ignore some or all of the locally adopted lot coverage requirements that create the 50% limit in order to build an 800 square

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 10 of 21
foot unit, provided that the new development will be set back four feet from the property lines.

Setbacks are limitations on the ability of a property owner to develop on the perimeter of their property. For example, a four-foot side and rear lot setback means that structures cannot be developed on this portion of the lot. This effectively limits the total allowed “lot coverage” by shrinking the developable portion of a lot. In practice, on a single-family lot, a developer will locate a driveway or utilities (e.g. electric meter, air conditioning unit, refuse and recycling bins, etc.) in the side setback. A rear setback is typically a part of the back yard. A four-foot setback applied to adjacent lots ensures that neighboring buildings under SB 9 are at least eight feet apart. Existing SB 9 set back lot coverage standards are demonstrated below in a zoning diagram prepared by the City of Los Angeles Planning Department.

Figure 1: City of LA Planning. SB 9 Setback Diagram3
SB 677 proposes to increase the cap local agencies can impose on the size of SB 9 housing developments from 800 square feet to 1,750 square feet, a combined 3,500 square feet of living space per parcel if two units are built, and 7,000 square feet if four units are built across two parcels. Additionally, this bill will relax the setback requirements for SB 9 housing developments. The existing setbacks standard in SB 9 essentially voids any lot coverage standard that would physically preclude the development of an SB 9 development except for a minimum setback of four feet. SB 677 proposes to modify this requirement so that the ability of local agencies to impose four-foot setbacks is only allowed from the original lot-line. The only setbacks that could be

3 Los Angeles City Planning, Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), accessed April 9, 2025, https://planning.lacity.gov/projectreview/senate-bill-9.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 11 of 21
required between buildings on the same lot, or between buildings that are only separated by a new property line are the setbacks required in the California Building Code. The California Building Code allows for building-to-building setbacks of “0 feet” for exterior building walls that meet specified fire standards.4 For the “new property line” shown in Figure 1 above the buildingto-building setback between the two units could be reduced from a total combined setback of eight feet to an “air gap” of mere inches, this is typically seen in townhomes, where an air gap rather than a “shared wall” between units allows developers to avoid the obligation to form an HOA.

The sponsors, California YIMBY, argue that SB 9 is underutilized due to a variety of factors, including the existing development standards local agencies are authorized to impose on SB 9 developments. The unit size and lot coverage changes noted above are identical to standards that apply to streamlined housing developments and subdivisions under SB 684 (Caballero, Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023). SB 684, also sponsored by California YIMBY, was originally intended to facilitate small lot subdivisions on lots zoned for multifamily residential development. SB 684 created a streamlined ministerial approval process to allow a developer to convert an existing multifamily lot into as many as 10 small lots. SB 684 allows for substantially reduced setback requirements in order to ensure that converting multifamily lots into single-family developments would not drastically reduce the density that could have been built on the parcel. SB 684 was recently expanded by SB 1123 (Caballero, Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024) to allow SB 684 developments on vacant singlefamily lots, as specified. SB 1123’s expansion to include vacant single-family lots takes effect July 1, 2025.

SB 9 intended to facilitate gentle density increases in single-family neighborhoods by creating a streamlined ministerial approval process for urbanlot splits that facilitate increased housing on developed lots. SB 684 intended to allow for the creation of starter homes on multifamily lots through small-lot subdivisions; however included development waivers and other provisions designed to mitigate any loss in density potential. SB 684’s expansion to allow streamlined ministerial approval of applications to subdivide vacant singlefamily parcels into 10 individually developable parcels could allow for substantial increases in density in single-family zones.

4 International Code Council, 2022 California Residential Code, Part 2.5, Volume 2: Chapter 3 – Section R302.1 Exterior Walls, accessed April 9, 2025, https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CARC2022P2/part-iii-building-planning-andconstruction/CARC2022P2-Pt03-Ch03-SecR302.1.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 12 of 21
The committee may wish to consider whether it is premature to apply SB 684 development standards to SB 9 developments when SB 684’s expansion to cover single-family lots has yet to take effect.
4) SB 9 Changes: Impact fee waivers for larger developments. When approving development projects, counties and cities can require the developers to mitigate the project's effects by paying impact fees. Impact fees stem from a straightforward principle: new developments pay for the impacts that they have on the community and the burden they impose on public services. Local agencies reliance on impact fees has grown as a result of the constitutional limits placed on property and general taxes which have caused local government tax revenue to decline on a per-capita basis.

In order to facilitate development of certain types of housing, state law precludes local agencies from imposing impact fees on certain types of housing developments such as ADUs that are less than 750 square feet and limits the ability of local agencies to impose impact fees on JADUs. Limitations on local impact fees for ADUs and JADUs reflect that their limited size generates relatively little impact on services provided by a local agency and that these units are typically served by the same infrastructure that supports the primary dwelling unit.

This bill exempts SB 9 housing developments that are less than 1,750 square feet from local impact fees. It is unclear if this exemption applies to the total square footage contained in all of the units built as part of an SB 9 housing development project, or if this provision applies to each individual housing unit built as part of an SB 9 housing development project. Either interpretation would allow a developer to avoid impact fees when they use SB 9 to build a new 1,750 square foot single family home. However if the waiver is intended to apply to each individual unit built as a part of an SB 9 development, a developer could build the following configurations of SB 9 units without paying impact fees.
a) One unit built as a 1,750 square foot single family home; b) Two units built as a 3,500 square foot duplex;
c) Three units built across two parcels for a combined 5,250 square feet of living space
d) Four units built across two parcels for a combined 7,000 square feet of living space.

The Committee may wish to consider the potential effect broad impact fee waivers could have on the ability of local agencies to provide services.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 13 of 21
Several local agencies waive impact fees for affordable housing developments in order to spur affordable developments. For example, the cities of Sacramento, and Santa Rosa, and the Counties of Sonoma, and Sacramento implement programs that waive impact fees for affordable developments.5 Waiving these fees requires local agencies to consider trade-offs and access other sources of funds to balance accounts with forgone fee revenue. In a 2022 analysis of its fee waiver program for affordable housing developments, Sacramento city staff noted that over three and one-half years the total amount of fees not collected was $8.7 million. The city was able to backfill that with $1.3 million in grant funding, but had to address a shortfall of approximately $7.4 million in uncollected revenue. City staff noted that existing requirements for impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act oblige the city to make findings every 5-years specifying the funding source and date waived impact fees will be backfilled. In consideration of this balancing obligation, city staff noted that options for the city included 1) identifying revenue sources to backfill uncollected funds, 2) narrowing program eligibility or reducing the amount waived, 3) winding down the program.6
This bill will require local agencies to waive impact fees for SB 9 developments that do not include affordable units, and it will preclude local agencies from requiring any SB 9 units to be affordable. Local agencies that stretch to waive impact fees for affordable housing do so at great financial burden, and they must constantly reassess their ability to continue to afford these fee waivers.

The Committee may wish to consider how mandatory impact fee waivers for market rate developments will impact the ability of cities to continue implementing fee waivers for affordable developments.
5) SB 9 and SB 35 changes: affordability criteria. Several provisions of this bill affect the affordability criteria that apply, or that local agencies may apply, to SB and SB 35 developments.
a) Provisions relative to SB 9.
i) Prohibiting affordable deed restrictions. SB 677 prohibits local agencies from requiring an SB 9 developments to include an affordable deed

5 Paulina Pineda, “Santa Rosa Proposes Waiving Millions in Housing Fees to Spur Development,” The Press Democrat, March 12, 2024, accessed April 9, 2025;Emma Murphy, "Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Waives Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Projects for 2 Years," The Press Democrat, March 12, 2025, accessed April 9, 2025; Sacramento County, Development Fee Deferral Programs - Affordable Housing, accessed April 9, 2025; "Sacramento's 'Zero-Dollar Rate' Program Spurs Affordable Housing Development," Sacramento City Express, January 22, 2024, accessed April 9, 2025,
6 City of Sacramento. City Council Report: Evaluation of Reduced Residential Development Impact Fees for Affordable Dwelling Units. Discussion Item 31. 9 August 2022.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 14 of 21
restriction. Imposing a deed restriction on all SB 9 developments, which may only include a single new unit could function as a 100% inclusionary ordinance, arguably this would make most SB 9 projects financially infeasible (and likely present constitutional issues). The sponsors note a 2022 analysis by the Terner Center identifying four jurisdictions that required affordable deed restrictions for SB 9 developments in their ordinances implementing SB 9 as evidence of the need for this change.
ii) Solving the same problem again, and again? HCD prepared several technical assistance letters that reviewed several local agency’s SB 9 ordinances, including the presence of inclusionary requirements in their ordinances. In the case of each ordinance, HCD concluded, “the Ordinance’s inclusionary requirement raises concerns that it may render implementation of SB 9 economically infeasible. Therefore, the City should remove the requirement.”7 HCD’s review of these ordinances was conducted in the context of the HCA limitations on policies that reduce a site’s residential capacity and Housing Element Law’s limitations on government constraints as well as policies that conflict with a jurisdictions obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

HCD reached these conclusions prior to the enactment of SB 450 (Atkins, 2024) which further amended SB 9.

The ordinances noted in the Terner Center analysis were adopted prior to SB 450 (Atkins); that bill explicitly prohibits local agencies from imposing objective standards --- such as an inclusionary requirement --- on SB 9 projects that are not applied uniformly to developments within the underlying zone. This change in law effectively prohibits local agencies from imposing inclusionary requirements on SB 9 developments unless they impose identical inclusionary requirements on other housing developments. The changes in SB 450 effectively preempted local agencies from imposing deed restrictions that are unique to SB 9 projects.

Finally, under current law, an SB 9 development only allows a single project to create up to four units on an existing parcel. In order for an existing local inclusionary ordinance to apply to an SB 9 development, a

7 California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Temple City – Housing Crisis Act, Letter of Technical Assistance, April 29, 2022;
California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Temple City – Follow-Up Letter of Technical Assistance, December 15, 2022;
California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Dana Point – Letter of Technical Assistance, April 17, 2023;
California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Camarillo – Letter of Technical Assistance, June 19, 2023.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 15 of 21
local agency would need to adopt an ordinance that requires at least 25% of the units in any development to be affordable. 25% is much higher than local inclusionary ordinances implemented across the state, and many inclusionary ordinances are only applicable to projects that include 10 units or more. Finally, it is unclear that a 25% inclusionary requirement would be upheld as constitutional.

Prior to the enactment of SB 450 HCD advised local agencies that imposing inclusionary ordinances on SB 9 developments could violate various housing laws. SB 450 made it clear that existing law prohibits local agencies from imposing deed restrictions that are unique to SB 9 projects. It is also clear that a local inclusionary ordinance that applies across the jurisdiction, would not apply to an SB 9 project currently, as SB 9 projects are currently limited to four units, and would require an inclusionary threshold that is exceptionally high, raising constitutional questions.

Given the clarity in the law and HCD’s prior actions, the committee may wish to consider what problem is there to solve.
iii)Preempting affordability? While existing local inclusionary requirements are already not applicable to SB 9 developments, this bill also expands the scope of potential SB 9 projects. Specifically, this bill deletes a provision that prohibits urban-lot splits from occurring on adjacent parcels. This change, coupled with the removal of owneroccupancy requirements could be used by developers to supersede existing inclusionary ordinances that would normally apply to these projects. For example, under this bill, one developer could purchase five adjacent parcels and convert them into 10 parcels, with each of the new parcels eligible for an SB 9 duplex development (allowing for 20 total units). The bill additionally requires local agencies to create a single application for a developer using both the urban-lot split and the housing development provisions of SB 9. Logically, a local agency may consider this example of a 20-unit subdivision and the associated housing development to be one SB 9 housing development project. A local inclusionary ordinance that generally applies to all projects that include more than 10 units would normally apply to this project. However, by explicitly prohibiting local agencies from imposing affordable deed restrictions on SB 9 developments, the bill would preempt the application of even a modest 5% inclusionary ordinance.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 16 of 21
Additionally, SB 9’s duplex provisions allow ministerial streamlining to be used to streamline development of one single-family unit. A developer that already owns a small master planned 20-lot single-family subdivision in a jurisdiction with a 10 percent inclusionary ordinance would ordinarily be required to make two of the 20 homes affordable.

However, under this bill, the developer could opt to use SB 9 authority to streamline the approval of all 20 single-family homes. This bill’s changes to SB 9 mean that using this streamlining authority would allow the developer to ignore the local inclusionary ordinance entirely.

The committee may wish to consider whether SB 9 should be a tool that allows developers to supersede local inclusionary ordinances for singlefamily developments. b) Provisions relative to SB 35. Developers seeking to qualify for streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35 must deed-restrict a portion of the units in the development for affordable housing. The percent of units that must be deed-restricted depends on the number and type of housing development permits issued by the jurisdiction where the development will take place. In jurisdictions failing to meet their lower income RHNA targets, but successfully meeting their above-moderate RHNA targets, developers must dedicate 50% of the units to affordable housing. This bill would reduce this threshold from 50% to 20%.
6) SB 9 changes: allowing urban-lot splits on all residential parcels. The housing development provision in SB 9 (Gov Code 65852.21) and the urban-lot split provision of SB 9 (Gov Code 66411.7) may be utilized in concert or independently. A developer could use the urban-lot split provision and the housing development provision to obtain ministerial approval of an urban-lot split and housing development placing four units on newly subdivided land.

Additionally, a developer may use the urban-lot split provision on its own to subdivide an existing parcel without a predetermined use for the two newly created parcels. However, current law allows local agencies to place restrictions on the future uses of a parcel that is created using the urban-lot split provisions of SB 9. SB 9 provides that notwithstanding Density Bonus Law (DBL), ADU law, and JADU law, local agencies are not required to permit the creation of more than two units on a parcel created through an urban-lot split.

Under existing law, an urban-lot split will always increase the potential density of land that is subdivided because it only applies to single-family residential parcels and allows two units per parcel. This bill will expand the scope of urban-lot splits to include all residential parcels, including multifamily and

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 17 of 21
mixed-use parcels. Allowing urban-lot splits on higher-density multifamily parcels substantially expands the scope of SB 9.

The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) specifically prohibits local agencies from reducing the residential development capacity of land, unless the local agency concurrently upzones another area to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity in the jurisdiction. SB 9 allows local agencies to limit the development capacity of parcels created by an urban-lot split to no more than two units. However, the HCA prohibits local agencies from imposing this limitation unless the local agency concurrently upzones another area in the jurisdiction. Given that local agencies must approve lot-splits ministerially within 60 days, it is unlikely a local agency could concurrently upzone another area of the jurisdiction in that time. In practice, the HCA would prevent a local agency from reducing the development capacity of a parcel created by an urban-lot split in a multifamily zone.

The changes in this bill also prohibit local agencies from imposing deed restrictions on any parcel created using the urban-lot split provisions of SB 9.

This allows a developer to preempt the application of existing local inclusionary ordinances on multifamily developments. For example, under this bill, a oneacre multifamily parcel zoned for 60 units per acre could be subdivided into two parcels, and developed with 30 units on each parcel. This bill would render a locally adopted inclusionary ordinance inapplicable to this development.

The committee may wish to consider the impact of exempting urban-lot splits on multifamily parcels from local inclusionary requirements.

Finally, this bill could afford market-rate developers relief from certain development standards that might otherwise only apply to developments that include affordable housing. DBL allows a developer to waive development standards if they include affordable units in their development. Developers often use these waivers to reduce standards, such as the scale of commercial space they are required to include in their project. This encourages market-rate developers to add affordable units to their residential projects. Under SB 9, local agencies are required to only allow residential uses on parcels created by an urban-lot split. By expanding SB 9 to include any parcel that allows residential use, including mixed-use parcels, this bill allows developers to effectively rezone mixed-use parcels by using an urban-lot split to create parcels that are residential only. Because local agencies are required to only allow residential use on parcels creating using an urban-lot split, this bill would allow a market-rate developer to eliminate any obligation to include commercial space in an area zoned for mixed-use development without

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 18 of 21
including any affordable units. In addition to prohibiting the application of inclusionary requirements on multifamily parcels generally, this bill could undercut a key incentive that encourages developers on mixed-used parcels to include affordable units voluntarily.

The committee may wish to consider the impacts of allowing market-rate developers to access development incentives currently reserved for affordable developments.
7) Protected Units. In order for a project to qualify for streamlined ministerial approval under SB 9 or SB 35, the project site must comply with a series project specific and of site specific criteria. Both streamlining processes are excluded from occurring on sites that require the demolition or alteration of certain types of protected housing, including housing occupied by tenants, housing subject to a deed restriction or price control and housing where tenants were evicted, as specified. This bill would invalidate this protection for housing units on properties where the structures were destroyed in a disaster. 8) Double-referral. This bill was also referred to the Local Government Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation
SB 1123 (Caballero, Chapter 294 Statutes of 2024) — requires, starting July 1, 2025 local agencies to ministerially approve the subdivision of vacant, singlefamily lots to allow for up to 10 units as specified and makes other changes to SB 684 (Caballero), Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023.

SB 450 (Atkins, Chapter 286, Statutes of 2024) — amended the process established by SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021 for the ministerial approval by a local agency of a duplex in a single-family zone and the lot split of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels.

SB 684 (Caballero, Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023) — required local agencies to ministerially approve subdivision maps for specified projects in urban areas that include 10 or fewer housing units.

SB 423 (Weiner, Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023) — extended the sunset, amended the labor standards, and made other changes to SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017.

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 19 of 21
SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) — required ministerial approval of a housing development of no more than two units in a single-family zone (duplex), the subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels (lot split), or both.

SB 1120 (Atkins, 2020) — would have required ministerial approval of duplexes and specified subdivision maps. This bill died on the Senate Floor (Unfinished Business).

SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) — created a ministerial approval process for specified infill, multifamily housing development projects.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.)
SUPPORT:

California YIMBY (Sponsor)
Housing Action Coalition (Sponsor)
Lisc San Diego (Sponsor)
21st Century Alliance
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
Bay Area Council
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
Buildcasa
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
Chamber of Progress
Circulate San Diego
City of Berkeley Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay YIMBY
Eastside Housing for All
Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
Fremont for Everyone
Front Porch

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 20 of 21
Generation Housing
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity California
Home Match, a Front Porch Community Service
House Sacramento
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Leadingage California
Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
Mark Dinan - Councilmember, East Palo Alto
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Northern Neighbors Sf
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
Power CA Action
Redlands YIMBY
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
Sloco YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
Spur
Student Homes Coalition
Ventura County YIMBY
Westside for Everyone
YIMBY Action
YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County
YIMBY Los Angeles
YIMBY Slo
Zach Hilton - Councilmember, Gilroy
OPPOSITION:

Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC) California Association of Realtors
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Contract Cities Association

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 677 (Wiener) Page 21 of 21
California Special Districts Association
Catalysts for Local Control
City of Carlsbad
City of Corona
City of Hidden Hills
City of Lakewood CA
City of Norwalk
City of Rosemead
City of Whittier
Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee Communities for a Better Environment
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
League of California Cities
Murrieta; City of
Norwalk; City of
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
San Rafael/marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members; City of Simi Valley; City of
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Westside Regional Alliance of Councils
6 Individuals
-- END --

4.J.c
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment C - Sen Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25) (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: Consent
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, City Manager
Subject: SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener) Analysis
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the staff analysis of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development; and

2. Direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 to be delivered to the bill author, Senator Ben Allen, and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur.

Summary
This supplemental item replaces the previously submitted staff report which relied on an incorrect TODD Tier-2 definition when determining the areas of the City affected. This report uses the definition as currently described in the amended legislation.

At the April 8, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council tabled motions to Support SB 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development and SB 677 (Wiener) Housing development: streamlined approvals until a committee analysis had been completed and City staff had time to review the bill for its impacts on the City of Santa Monica.

Staff has completed its analysis of SB 79 and concluded the effect of this bill would be most impactful to the City’s residential zoning districts, which currently has density limitations that are significantly lower than that proposed in SB 79 (e.g., R2 zone - 1 unit per 1,500 sf of parcel area or approximately 29 units/acre). The City’s commercial districts would not be significantly Supplemental Item

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: ADD-TO: 2025-05-13 Analysis of SB79 and SB677- SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + affected with this bill. With the City’s recent rezoning efforts as part of required by the 6th Cycle Housing Element and State Density Bonus (SDB) law, housing development projects in the commercial zoning districts are already permitted to request heights, densities, and FAR above the limits specified in SB 79. The benefit SB 79 adds to a housing development in our commercially zoned areas is the increase in number of incentives allowed pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.

Discussion
Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transitoriented development aims to:

1. Amend current statute that regulates the disposal of “surplus” land owned by a public agency, once the agency determines it is not necessary for public use. SB Page 4 of 8 79 specifically changes the definition of agency use to include land leased to support public transit operations in the definition. By doing so, a public transit operator like Metro could have ample discretion to develop a project within the properties’ limits and without a local government’s discretionary review.

2. SB 79 would require that a housing development project proposed within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be considered an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed-use, commercial, or light industrial development, provided the project meets applicable requirements. The bill establishes minimum standards for height, density, and floor area ratio based on proximity to highfrequency or high-capacity transit stops, which are categorized into three tiers of TOD: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. By classifying these projects as allowed uses, cities would be required to process and grant entitlements ministerially according to a development’s proximity to the designated TOD tiers.

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: ADD-TO: 2025-05-13 Analysis of SB79 and SB677- SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + According to the bill analysis completed by the Senate Committee on Local Government, all SB 79 projects must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner). Projects that meet these requirements are presumed to comply with local zoning and the Housing Accountability Act, limiting local governments' ability to deny or downsize them. In high-resource areas, cities that deny qualifying projects are automatically presumed to be in violation of state housing law and face immediate penalties.

SB 79 has passed both the Senate Committee on Housing (6-2-3) and the Senate Committee on Loca Government (4-3-0) despite the Chairs of each of the two committees recommending the committee members vote against the bill. It is not common for a bill to pass against the recommendation of the chair, extremely rare for a bill to do so twice back to back. This is a clear sign the Majority Caucus is divided on the issue and there could be significant changes to the bill in the coming months as it proceeds to the Assembly and must garner votes from Assemblymembers who face elections every two years rather than their Senate counterparts who are elected to four-year terms. For complete list of individual/organizational support/opposition registered as of 4/23/25 see Exhibit B.

SB 79 Impacts to Santa Monica
According to the language of the proposed bill, the City of Santa Monica is served by Tier 2 TOD stops which are defined as - a major transit stop served by light rail transit, by highfrequency commuter rail, or by bus rapid transit service, which include full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute peaks.

The City is served by the Exposition Light Rail line (LA Metro’s E Line), which has headways of every 8 minutes during peak periods. The City has a number of transit stops, served by Big Blue Bus and LA Metro but none meet the definition of Bus Rapid Transit. Affected areas are illustrated in the map below

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: ADD-TO: 2025-05-13 Analysis of SB79 and SB677- SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Green Shaded Ares Show Tier 2 TOD Stop Areas In/Near City of Santa Monica If SB 79 were to become law as currently written, then the regulations in proposed Section 65912.157(a)(3) would apply and housing development projects near a major transit stop would be ministerially approved with the following guarantees.

Distance to
Major Transit
Stop
Height Guarantee
Minimum
Density
Guarantee
Minimum
Residential
Floor Area Ratio
Additional
Concessions
(beyond SDB)
Within ¼ mile
of Tier 2 TOD
stop
65 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
100 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

3.0 2 additional
Outside of ¼
mile but within
½ Mile of Tier 2
TOD stop
55 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
80 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

2.4 1 additional
Immediately
adjacent to Tier
2 TOD stop
85 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
140 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

4.0 2 additional

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: ADD-TO: 2025-05-13 Analysis of SB79 and SB677- SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 2025-26 State Legislative Platform
The City’s adopted Legislative Platform includes the following relevant statements:
• Support legislation that lowers the cost, speeds the permitting, and promotes the production of infill residential housing and requires all localities to build their fair share. • Support legislation that facilitates increased housing production in the City without undermining the City’s adopted affordability and inclusionary requirements. • Support legislation, and seek amendments to proposed legislation, that recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over landuse decision and excluding these cities from onerous new regulations, provided they remain in compliance with their HCD-approved housing plans.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Text of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), As Amended 4/23/25 Attachment B: Senate Committee on Local Government Bill Analysis (4/23/25) Attachment C: Senate Committee on Housing Bill Analysis (4/22/25)

4.J.d
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: ADD-TO: 2025-05-13 Analysis of SB79 and SB677- SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + City Council Meeting: May 13, 2025
Agenda Item: Consent
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, City Manager
Subject: SB 79 (Wiener) and SB 677 (Wiener) Analysis
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the staff analysis of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: transit-oriented development; and

2. Direct the City Manager to draft a letter expressing the City’s support for SB 79 to be delivered to the bill author, Senator Ben Allen, and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur.

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) affected with this bill. With the City’s recent rezoning efforts as part of required by the 6th Cycle Housing Element and State Density Bonus (SDB) law, housing development projects in the commercial zoning districts are already permitted to request heights, densities, and FAR above the limits specified in SB 79. The benefit SB 79 adds to a housing development in our commercially zoned areas is the increase in number of incentives allowed pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.

Discussion
Senate Bill 79 (Wiener) Local government land: public transit use: housing development: transitoriented development aims to:

2. SB 79 would require that a housing development project proposed within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be considered an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed-use, commercial, or light industrial development, provided the project meets applicable requirements. The bill establishes minimum standards for height, density, and floor area ratio based on proximity to highfrequency or high-capacity transit stops, which are categorized into three tiers of TOD: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. By classifying these projects as allowed uses, cities would be required to process and grant entitlements ministerially according to a development’s proximity to the designated TOD tiers.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) According to the bill analysis completed by the Senate Committee on Local Government, all SB 79 projects must comply with the anti-displacement provisions in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, Skinner). Projects that meet these requirements are presumed to comply with local zoning and the Housing Accountability Act, limiting local governments' ability to deny or downsize them. In high-resource areas, cities that deny qualifying projects are automatically presumed to be in violation of state housing law and face immediate penalties.

SB 79 has passed both the Senate Committee on Housing (6-2-3) and the Senate Committee on Loca Government (4-3-0) despite the Chairs of each of the two committees recommending the committee members vote against the bill. It is not common for a bill to pass against the recommendation of the chair, extremely rare for a bill to do so twice back to back. This is a clear sign the Majority Caucus is divided on the issue and there could be significant changes to the bill in the coming months as it proceeds to the Assembly and must garner votes from Assemblymembers who face elections every two years rather than their Senate counterparts who are elected to four-year terms. For complete list of individual/organizational support/opposition registered as of 4/23/25 see Exhibit B.

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) Green Shaded Ares Show Tier 2 TOD Stop Areas In/Near City of Santa Monica If SB 79 were to become law as currently written, then the regulations in proposed Section 65912.157(a)(3) would apply and housing development projects near a major transit stop would be ministerially approved with the following guarantees.

Distance to
Major Transit
Stop
Height Guarantee
Minimum
Density
Guarantee
Minimum
Residential
Floor Area Ratio
Additional
Concessions
(beyond SDB)
Within ¼ mile
of Tier 2 TOD
stop
65 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
100 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

3.0 2 additional
Outside of ¼
mile but within
½ Mile of Tier 2
TOD stop
55 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
80 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

2.4 1 additional
Immediately
adjacent to Tier
2 TOD stop
85 feet, or local limit,
whichever greater. If
higher than local limit, not
required to grant height
increase under SDB
140 units/acre
(excludes SDB)

4.0 2 additional
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2025-26 State Legislative Platform
The City’s adopted Legislative Platform includes the following relevant statements:
• Support legislation that lowers the cost, speeds the permitting, and promotes the production of infill residential housing and requires all localities to build their fair share. • Support legislation that facilitates increased housing production in the City without undermining the City’s adopted affordability and inclusionary requirements. • Support legislation, and seek amendments to proposed legislation, that recognize the achievements of Pro-Housing Designated cities by upholding local autonomy over landuse decision and excluding these cities from onerous new regulations, provided they remain in compliance with their HCD-approved housing plans.

Attachments:

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Michele Perrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:45 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please support local control! I am against SB79 all the way! Sincerely,
Michele Perrone
Ocean Park Resident since 1997
Wilmont resident 1992-1997
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Agenda items 10A, 12A & SB9, 5/13/2025 - oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I am a resident of the city of Santa Monica. I oppose the agenda items 10A, 12A, and SB9. I strongly request that all council members to vote NO on 10A, 12A, and SB9.

Thank you,
Mahvash Shafiey
835 Harvard St
Santa Monica. CA 90403
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kjbloore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Serious OPPOSITION to 5/13/25 Agenda Items

EXTERNAL
The following Agenda Items are scheduled for your meeting ofMay l3, 1015:

Item 4J - OPPOSE
Item 12A - OPPOSE
Item 10A - OPPOSE
Item 4K - OPPOSE
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Peter A Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE COUNCIL 5/13//25 AGENDA ITEMS 4J, 4K, 10A and 12A

EXTERNAL
Dear Council member,
I am opposing tonight’s agenda items 4J, 4K, 10A and 12A. They all seek to limit residents lives through onerous state control of our land use laws, opening up our public spaces for disruptive use and restricting our right to public interaction with our City Council.

There has to be more equitable solutions to the problems these topics represent.

Thank You,
-pad蚋蚌蚍蚎Peter A Donald
2618 32nd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 871-4862
[email protected]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Kim Drobny <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 5-13 Agenda

EXTERNAL
ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone. I think this ordinance is short sighted. Who needs to drink alcohol in public at 8am on a Tuesday? How will this do anything other than increase noise, public drunkenness, and mayhem, costing taxpayers more money for security and sanitation? Please vote no 2)ITEM 4J - Letter of Support on SB 79. SB 79 I do not support this free for all building give away. Santa Monica must hold on to its local control.
3)ITEM 4K - Change in Public Input Rules. This is a multi-pronged attempt to reduce our right to comment and provide input on Council actions. It limits comment to 2 minutes per public input section, rather than 2 minutes on each agenda item. It will automatically reduce public comment to 1 minute each if 25 or more people sign up to speak (which is nearly every meeting). In other words, the more upset we are with their actions, the more people who care enough to show up, the less time we will have to speak. Worst of all, it eliminates the ability to donate time to a single speaker.

This is a very useful tool when there is someone who best represents a group and has a more complicated presentation, or is a better speaker. It's hard to make a valid argument in 2 minutes (even worse if it's only 1 minute, which most meetings will now set) and donating time to a spokesperson for a group is an extremely valuable way to express community opinion to Council. Limiting our ability to speak out smacks of the kind of free speech crackdown we are seeing at the federal level. Santa Monica should be better than that.

Thank you
Kim Drobny
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Soledad Ramos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Soledad Ramos
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Annette Tatum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Annette Tatum
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: A Glennon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Angelique Glennon
Santa Monica Tenant and Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Meganzemke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 David Yakobson
From: ede leeuw <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
SB79 will cause an urban planning catastrophe for Santa Monica at so many levels.

SB 79 endangers the health, safety, livability and character of our City, and civil engineers, geologists, environmental and health professionals could write a book detailing the pitfalls of SB79.

But one reason that is very obvious, and that would be very raw in the memories of many in this community, is the January 7 fires that claimed so many lives - our neighbors, friends, companion animals and wildlife - and reduced to ash the homes and businesses of many thousands more.

Victims are asking, why was planning on the part of government so poor that this was allowed to happen, and who will be held accountable? There are common sense ways to prevent and mitigate mass casualties BEFORE they happen. Allowing high density building in our community flies in the face of common sense planning. It is reckless and dangerous given the risks unique to our environment.

We live adjacent to an extreme fire hazard risk zone, and in the January fires, parts of Santa Monica was engulfed in smoke and evacuated. ALL of Santa Monica at one point was under risk of succumbing to the fires due to the wind direction.

We also live in a high seismic hazard zone and are overdue for a major quake, not only from the San Andreas Fault but also our own Santa Monica fault with its liquefaction zone, which runs along Wilshire Boulevard.

The Palisades fire saw traffic gridlock during evacuation that was so severe people had to abandon their vehicles and run towards the ocean on foot, and this was not even a high density neighborhood. There was no fire fighting nor police presence in some areas, so that citizens got out of their cars to direct evacuation, risking their own lives.

Imagine the possible tragedy if we have multiple high density buildings throughout the city. We already have gridlock without a catastrophe. The developers have no stake in protecting our community. Why are we helping them ?
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 David Yakobson
From: Alicia Syres <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4J- Letter of Support on SB79 - Opposed

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I have been fortunate to have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1981. Moving here was a dream come true. However, over the years the experience of a lovely beachside City has been eroded. The outof-control building/development has taken that away and it is very sad to experience. It is even sadder to see how it continues.

A letter of support for SB79 now cedes your responsibility for and control of what happens to our CIty. Is that common sense for Santa Monica?
Respectfully submitted
Alicia Syres
Santa Monica, Ca
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 7 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Zinajosephs
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, We have a beautiful community in sunset park - diverse, working families, children play on the streets under sunshine and ocean breezes. That is something To be valued. In fact I would suggest our shopping district IS THE ONLY ONE thriving besides Montana Ave. Don’t ruin our way of life by building massive Apartments.

Mr. Zwick grew up in my favorite house in Rustic Canyon surrounded by nature. I believe Zwick has a second home in Colorado that has a view of pure nature as far as the eye can see. Zwick, try to imagine for a moment what it is like to live in a modest place full time where the sunshine and fresh ocean air is truly joyful for residents, residents who don’t have the luxury of escaping to wide open places. Why are you determined to take that away from Sunset Park residents? Our low rise neighborhood is OUR Colorado full time. We treasure the low rise community we live in. Clearly much more than you do. You were wrong about Fairview Library and you are wrong about this.

Please recognize this mistake you are making. Yes the city must solve its financial challenges, but this is not the way Yes, the city is circling the drain financially. You must find other ways to solve that problem. But you must get creative in other ways so you don’t constantly put developer concerns over residents. If you destroy Sunset Park, that will be your lifelong legacy. The city is already 70% apartments. The city is already Dense. Crushing this neighborhood with market rate housing is shameful especially after the gigantic Gelson’s development going in.

Do you really want to be known as the city council that ruined a treasured low rise community, the last beach neighborhood in SM? I can only imaging that someone must be personally getting benefits in order to support something so egregious. If so, tell us. Instead, be your better selves! Do you really want your children to see you as the people who destroyed our beautiful southside neighborhood? Find other solutions to our city’s financial woes.

Otherwise, soon there will be “no there there” in Santa Monica.

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Sunset Park, by allowing 5-7 story(!) multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood.

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our singlefamily homes on our quiet streets.

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through.

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 8 We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Karen Croner
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 9 David Yakobson
From: Dwight Flowers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4J - Senate Bill 79 (Wiener)

EXTERNAL
As a member of Santa Monica Forward and a long-time resident in the community, I am in generally in support of Item 4J at tonight’s meeting.

We should make every effort to increase available housing of all types in Santa Monica and reduce cost and future rents to the extent possible.
- Enabling duplexes and lot splits in single family neighborhoods will help - Encouraging ADU production throughout the city is most desirable - Extending the existing streamlined approval process would help to expedite housing in larger projects - Changing residential zoning to be based more on FAR
Thank you for consideration of these items in tonight’s meeting. Sincerely, Dwight Flowers Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Gregory Cole <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: RE: citizen comments on items before the city council 5/13/25

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members- As a long term Santa Monica resident and co-homeowner with my wife, I would like to register our opposition with comment in red to the following four items coming before the council:
1) Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 -
We oppose authorizing the City’s support for SB 79 (Wiener) because SB79 would allow 7-story market rate apartment towers and without offering any affordable housing. Like most residents and homeowners, we have all abided the existing regulations limiting our own property buildings and remodels with major investments. Santa Monica is already high density with ever increasing limitations on water and parking and ever increasing congestion. It is flooded with outside visitors beyond this density. It is unacceptable to further damage our lifetime investments in our homes and the quality of life in this city. 2) Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 We oppose ending this requirement to lose local control and enable developers further latitude to increase density without any of the intended benefits of supporting families trying to house their aging parents and the next generation with fewer and fewer job opportunities as they face the coming AI/ robotics onslaught on jobs. 3) Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone –
Aside from punishing residents with late night noise, this ordinance will inevitably lead to more visitors coming to party and leaving drunk and disorderly, often behind the wheel and capable of killing people. We see dead people and a council with responsibility.
4) Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules -
We oppose this change which limits the ability of any presentation of fact based reasoned arguments that would inform the council and public opinion. It inflates the impact of outsiders and insiders lobbying the council and city staff and diminish democratic governance that respects resident rights to voice their opinions in meaningful ways.

Thank you for considering our views,
Sincerely,
Greg M. Cole and Sally A. Frautschy
18 Seaview Terrace
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Support agenda Items 4J and 12A
Attachments: 2025-05 Support Agenda items 4J-12A SaMoSSA .pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

Please find our letter of support as residents, community leaders and on behalf of the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance (SaMoSSA) for agenda Item 4J (as supplemented) addressing Senate Bill 79, and Item 12A, amending Zoning Ordinance in sync with State Law.
--
Cynthia Rose
Co-Chair
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 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677)

May 13, 2025
RE: Item Items 4J and 12A Please Support
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Santa Monica City Council Members:

We are pleased to write to your today as climate-sensitive housing advocates to express our support as residents, community leaders and on behalf of the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance (SaMoSSA) for the two agenda Items you are considering this evening: Item 4J (as supplemented) addressing Senate Bill 79, and Item 12A, amending Zoning Ordinance in sync with State Law.

We support the revision of the City’s definition of “housing project” to be consistent with State Law and support the streamlining for all housing projects regardless of the project site’s land area.

Both of these important and timely items represent progress that our city desperately needs to maximize housing along major transit corridors. We welcome the opportunities to update the LUCE to address the housing crisis in concert with the measures set forth in our Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for new housing to be practical and available to welcome new Santa Monica residents to be a part of our community.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: chuck chuckhusting.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Agenda Items 4J - OPPOSE, Item 12A - OPPOSE, Item 10A - OPPOSE, Item4K - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the following measures before the City Council on Tuesday, May 13, 2024:
 Agenda Item 4J – Support letter from SM for SB 79 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 12A – End Owner Occupancy Requirement in SB9 - OPPOSE  Agenda Item 10A – Promenade Entertainment Zone – OPPOSE Make the parking more economical and more people will go to the promenade. I think the counter car culture that has developed is more of a detraction than the leadershop realizes. Even metered parking, dropped from 90 minutes to 60 minutes on Wilshire. It is very difficult to have a business lunch within 60 minutes. These are important nuances. (the Promenade parking structures were free of charge when initially built. They don’t have to be free, but it has gotten more expensive, and the rates seem to change often. People do not like to be surprised with suddenly high parking rates.  Agenda Item 4K – Public Input Rules - OPPOSE
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Tung <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 4J 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I oppose Agenda Item 4J, which I understand to express support for SB79 permitting seven-story towers across broad regions in Santa Monica.
--
Brian Tung <[email protected]>
Google Voice +1 310 243 6983
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Shannon Duerst <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?
We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
--
Best,
Shannon
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 David Yakobson
From: Bernd Stephan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: ITEM 4J , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB

79. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Bernd Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: Lori Akian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 4J , 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
As a long-time, tax-paying citizen of the City of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY OPPOSE Item 4J - Letter of Support on SB

79. I kindly request our City Council to oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Lori Stephan
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 David Yakobson
From: Jero Books & Templet Co. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:35 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: SB79 is a destructive housing bill

EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, I agree with the statement below:

This will open the door!! The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers.

As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? Who do you support??????? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Thank you for your time, Mary Rojeski 3rd St. Santa Monica

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 7 David Yakobson
From: J Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:33 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE! Importance: High

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 8 Sincerely,
Judy Rosenberg
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings could go up side-by-side with our single-family homes on our quiet streets. Sunset Park could become an urban jungle in a flash.

The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. It has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building).

The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city.

We cannot keep giving more of our local control away.

Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage this absurd zoning in our city.

Thank you,
Nancy Hall
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Michele Modglin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:23 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: city council meeting 5/13/25 item 4J SB79 OPPOSE!!!!

EXTERNAL
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city?We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Michele Modglin
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 5 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Many thanks,
Badria Elnaggar
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: gail gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gail Gordon
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items May13, 2025

EXTERNAL
My name is Gail Gordon I was born in Santa Monica in 1951. My grandfather moved to Santa Monica in 1930. Where he established a Real Estate office and a butcher shop on 18th and Broadway Since 1960’s, Our family has owned and currently owns residential and commercial buildings in Santa Monica. In 1985 I purchased my first home in Santa Monica where I currently Live. My son went though Santa Monica school system. In 1994 I began teaching at SMC and retired in 2017. My family and I have always prided ourselves in living and working in a community we love and respect. I give back as much as I can.

But now the community wishes to deprive me of basically my old age by building me out of my neighborhood. How many of you live in Sunset Park or have even spoken to its residents. How many of you care about the people who are 65 and older, who may not be able to share their homes with their children. Or have the strength to move. We will be forced to live in an uncomfortable congested area with high toxicity due to the increased traffic and exhaust fumes. Has infrastructure even been appraised as well as Water, Electricity?

THE AGENDA ITEMS
Generational Wealth has been one of the few things that allows families to be able to raise themselves out of lowerclass status to middle class. As there are fewer remedies which still allows families this option.

The items in specific Items opposed are:
#J 4. SB79 is a destructive housing bill that is still in committee in Sacramento. It would obliterate Sunset Park by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R1 and R2 neighborhood, by creating zoning according to– bus stop proximity-All local zoning would essentially be overridden, and these tall buildings will over shadow. #12 A2 Elimination of Owner- occupancy requirement-opens up Sunset Park to a developers heaven. #12 A6. Amend Districting -Changing the zoning (upzoning) of 30th Street/Ocean Park parcel will change a true residential neighborhood into a commercially zoned area with the potential of buildings at 86 ft high. Our kids will not be able to safely ride their bikes or play in their neighborhoods.
“Consistent designation.” A written way around degrading a residential neighborhood.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jake Simon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
I am very much in favor of this bill. We need to do our part to help the homeless by building more housing. This bill is a great start.
---------
Jake Simon | Santa Monica, CA | +1-310-701-8331 | [email protected] | @jacobsimon On May 13, 2025, at 8:01 AM, Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition <[email protected]> wrote:

To: <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: Anthony Mindlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:57 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multi-family story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 3 Many thanks,

Anthony Mindlin

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: beth burns <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: OPPOSE Item 4-J

EXTERNAL
Council Members,
Please vote NO on Item 4J! The 'unintended consequences' of 7 story Residential Buildings allowed just about EVERYWHERE in Santa Monica (ie, 1/2 mile from bus stops) are Serious! a. It disIncents developers from building affordable and low income housing. The financial benefits of building housing without such requirements are greater. In practicality, this proposal is a big Gift to Developers. It impedes solving the true housing crisis. b. How much does Item 4-J aid current Santa Monica residents, and support their quality of life? Ie, WHO are the true beneficiaries of this proposal? After asking Santa Monicans to vote for you, your responsibility and obligation is to serve us first. Certainly well ahead of special interests, like developers.
c. Sen. Ben Allen has already stated publicly that HE OPPOSES SB 79.

Please prioritize your constituents. . . Not your own 'guesses', re: a denser Santa Monica as guaranteed outcome, becoming more like Manhattan, NY. Please check yourselves, and recall the personal hubris that comes with power.

Thank you,
Beth Burns
2nd Street, Ocean Park
Long Time Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Bayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin
Subject: ITEM 4J 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE and ITEM 10A 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, Please see reasonings for "oppose" requests below. Thank you.

ITEM 4J - SB 79. OPPOSE.

SB 79 (Weiner) is a giveaway to developers which enables buildings up to 7 stories to be built without formal review or environmental impact study, anywhere within 1/2 mile of mass transit.

There is NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING requirement, which means developers can build 100% market rate apartment towers, anywhere in Santa Monica near a bus line - which is virtually all of the city except the northern and southernmost borders, and even these could be subject to 7 story buildings if a bus line were to be added to San Vicente, for instance. Ben Allen opposes as well.

ITEM 10A - Promenade Entertainment Zone -
5/13/2025 - OPPOSE.
- THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA SHOULD NOT SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE ALCOHOLISM ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND ALSO THEN GETTING INTO VEHICLES AND DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED. - THIS WOULD MAKE THE JOB HARDER FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO KEEP SANTA MONICA SAFE FOR ALL - RESIDENTS AND VACATIONERS ALIKE.

SANTA MONICA = HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.

LET'S CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE/FAMILY VACATION.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Brenda Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: ITEM 10A - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE; ITEM 4J - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE; ITEM 4K - 5/13/25 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
The items above are, in my opinion, proposals that should not be approved, nor even considered.

Open alcohol consumption is a terrible idea. Please do not approve this. Also, The development proposal is also not in alignment with good sense.

Brenda Anderson
475 24th Street
Santa Monica 90402
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Bayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin
Subject: ITEM 4J 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE and ITEM 10A 5/13/2025 - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, Please see reasonings for "oppose" requests below. Thank you.

ITEM 4J - SB 79. OPPOSE.

SB 79 (Weiner) is a giveaway to developers which enables buildings up to 7 stories to be built without formal review or environmental impact study, anywhere within 1/2 mile of mass transit.

SANTA MONICA = HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.

LET'S CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE/FAMILY VACATION.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/13/25 Item 4-J - SB79 - OPPOSE!

Many thanks,
Eman Elamin
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 2 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:38 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4 J on tuesday 5/13 agenda

EXTERNAL
5/13/2025 10:30:43 AM
Item 4J OPPOSE

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members,

SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multifamily story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a "state density bonus" which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too "one-size fits all." Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Jay P. Johnson
Rachel Sene
1134 Euclid

>
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 4 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:32 AM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4 J on tuesday 5/13 agenda

EXTERNAL
5/13/2025 10:30:43 AM
Item 4J
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor pro-tem Torosis, and Council Members, SB79 is a destructive housing bill. It will be extremely harmful to the character and identity of all of Santa Monica, and especially to Wilmont, by allowing 5-7 story multi-unit apartment buildings throughout our R2 and R3 neighborhood to replace our current 2-3 story multifamily story buildings. All because they are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop. This bill does not require any affordable housing and all of Wilmont is impacted by it because of the bus stops on Wilshire Blvd. being having 20 minute intervals. This demolition of current rent control apartment buildings will eliminate rent control in Wilmont and Santa Monica as we know it. All local zoning would essentially be overridden. The bill will raise land prices and be a boon to developers. As stated above, this bill has zero affordability requirement (Santa Monica itself has a paltry requirement that is separate from this bill, but it immediately triggers a “state density bonus” which allows for even higher building). The bill has been opposed by BOTH heads (Democrats) of the committees it has managed to squeak through. Senator Ben Allen recently expressed his opposition to it as well, saying it is too “one-size fits all.” Why would the City Council of Santa Monica write a letter of support for something that is so destructive to our whole city? We have already made major headway in addressing market-rate housing units in Santa Monica. This bill will do virtually nothing but create more market-rate housing, and it will do so at the expense of our residents, and the identity of our city. We cannot keep giving more of our local control away. Please OPPOSE Councilman Zwick's efforts to encourage the destruction of our R2 and R3 neighborhood and it will be the end of rent control in Santa Monica as new buildings replace current rent controlled buildings.

Many thanks,
Jay P. Johnson
Rachel Sene
1134 Euclid
>
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) 6 David Yakobson
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:22 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: 5.13.25 CC Agenda Item 4.J -- SMRR Opposition Unless Amended to SB 79 Attachments: CC 5.13.25 Agenda Item 4.j - SMRR Letter Opposing SB 79 Unless Amended.pdf; MoveLA Scenarios Presentation - 16 July 2020.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please find attached (1) SMRR’s letter regarding tonight’s Council Agenda Item 4.J that urges Council taking an opposed unless amended to exclude residential sites and to impose meaningful inclusionary housing requirement, and (2) the attachment to that letter.

Mike Soloff
Co-Chair
Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) May 12, 2025
To: Santa Monica City Council
Re: 5.13.25 Agenda Item 4.J—SMRR Urges Council To Adopt An “Oppose Unless Amended To Exclude Residential Sites And To Impose Meaningful Inclusionary Requirements” Position On SB 79
Dear Councilmembers:

Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (“SMRR”) urges you in the strongest possible terms to reject the request in Item 4-J on your May 13, 2025 Agenda that the City send a letter supporting SB

79. SMRR urges that Council instead adopt an “oppose unless amended to exclude residential sites and to impose meaningful inclusionary requirements” position.

As reflected in SMRR’s platform, (1) SMRR has long supported transit oriented development, and (2) SMRR has long supported protection of existing residents from displacement by such development. Accordingly, as again reflected in SMRR’s platform, SMRR has long advocated for mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial uses to occur along commercial boulevards, in industrial areas, and in the downtown. Santa Monica’s current zoning generally reflects this approach.

But SB 79 does not take this approach. Rather, it blindly upzones all parcels within a one-half mile radius of certain transit stops. As applied to Santa Monica, at present this means that all of Pico and Mid-Cities, as well as part Ocean Park, would be subject to substantial state-mandated upzoning due to their proximity to the Expo line stops. Such upzoning at best threatens the existing residents of those neighborhoods with serious hardship, and at worst with permanent displacement from Santa Monica. That residents of those neighborhoods would once again become subject to hardship and displacement in the name of “transportation progress”—just as they were when the 10 Freeway was created—is simply outrageous.

Moreover, SB 79 threatens to destroy without replacement Santa Monica’s existing housing stock that is affordable to moderate and “missing middle” households. Further, future public transit development (such as Metro D line subway stations, or permanently dedicated bus lanes)—which otherwise would be welcomed—instead would be dreaded and likely opposed if SB 79 is passed, as it could subject many other parts of the renter portion of the City to Statemandated upzoning, with similar negative consequences for existing residents.

Remarkably, the Staff Report does not make any effort to evaluate any of these negative impacts.

It is extremely disappointing that volunteers in a community organization like SMRR have had to put in many, many hours of work since this agenda item was revealed to the public on Friday afternoon to analyze and explain these consequences.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) SB 79’s blind upzoning is almost certain to have similar negative consequences throughout the State. And SB 79’s incomprehensibly vague provisions providing some power to local governments to make some form of adjustments if and only if approved by HCD is no answer, especially given the limited power in most parts of California or renters and other community members where the transit stops are located.

There is no reason to support SB 79’s approach either here in Santa Monica or elsewhere in the State. Rather, the right approach is to support mixed use development along commercial corridors and other areas on non-residential sites, especially near transit. The State already has taken this general approach for purposes of State-imposed streamlining with the passage of the 2022 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act (and the subsequent amendments thereto).

Imposition of increased density on similar sites near appropriate transit stops is a natural extension of that concept (although SMRR would urge more robust inclusionary housing requirements also be applied to such TOD development). Studies have shown that there is a great deal of available land meeting these criteria in L.A. County (including the Westside) and elsewhere in the State (and therefore no need to displace existing residents).

I. SMRR HAS LONG SUPPORTED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

THAT IS LOCATED SO AS TO AVOID DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING

RESIDENTS
As demonstrated by the following long-standing provisions of SMRR’s Platform, SMRR supports transit oriented development that avoids displacement of existing residents by placing it on commercial boulevards, in industrial/commercial zones, and in the Downtown:
[B.5] Most new multifamily building activity should be shifted to mixed-use projects in commercial and industrial areas, with only housing permitted above the first floor and where pedestrian access to retail and transit services can be provided. There should be allowances for first-floor housing for artists and people with special needs.
[D.5] Mixed-use with ground-floor, neighborhood-serving retail and multi-family housing above the first floor, should be prioritized on Santa Monica’s commercial corridors, and in the Downtown. Santa Monica should encourage and facilitate mixed-use transit oriented development (TOD) with maximal affordable housing including live/work housing -- at the deepest levels of affordability -- particularly in neighborhoods near high-service transit corridors and the Expo Light Rail stations. High-density commercial uses should be disallowed where they will worsen already severe traffic burdens. TOD and transit should be designed to work together to relieve existing congestion rather than worsen it.

SMRR has successfully advocated for this approach, and it is now generally reflected in the LUCE and in the current zoning code. Indeed, as the Staff Report on this item notes, in nonresidential areas near transit our existing zoning and State Density Bonus law already permit greater density than the density proposed in SB 79.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) II. SB 79 THREATENS HARDSHIP AND EVEN PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT

FOR EXISTING RESIDENTS IN PICO AND MID-CITIES, AND DESTRUCTION OF MUCH OF SANTA MONICA’S EXISTING MODERATE AND MISSINGMIDDLE HOUSING STOCK Based on the difficult to read map in the revised Staff Report, it appears that all of the Pico neighborhood, all of the Mid-City neighborhood, and a portion of the northern part of the Ocean Park neighborhood at present would be subject to substantial upzoning if SB 79 is adopted.

Additional renter portions of the City would be upzoned in the future if, for example, permanently dedicated bus lanes are created with 15 minute headways during peak commute times, or if the Metro D subway is extended to the sea with stations in Santa Monica.

The most common zoning in the affected areas is R-2.1 R-2 currently has a density limit equivalent to ~22 units per acre.2 While this could be doubled by a developer invoking State Density Bonus law as implemented in Santa Monica, SB 79 would allow it to be increased four / five times for sites located within one-half mile / one-quarter mile of the Expo stations.3 This would greatly increase the chances that existing housing in R-2 would be redeveloped, with the following negative consequences (among others):
(a) With or without relocation benefits, redevelopment of existing housing causes a major disruption of people’s lives. Such disruption would be particularly hard on the elderly, disabled, families with school age children, and anyone who has lived for a long time in our community (a group that, if concentrated in a building, would be particular targets for redevelopment, given that the existing rents would be lowest for buildings with such a concentration of residents). That residents in Pico and Mid-City are once again being targeted for their lives to be upended in the name of “transportation progress”—just as they were when the I-10 was constructed—is shameful.
(b) SB 79 does preserve the right of low income tenants to receive relocation benefits and a right of first refusal on any newly constructed comparable unit offered at an affordable rent, as set forth in SB 330. See Gov. Code §§ 66300.5 to .6. However, one suspects that some number of low income residents—once displaced—will never return either because (1) they will have made a new life elsewhere during the period of construction and not want to move again, or (2) the replacement deed-restricted low income units in the new building are not affordable to them (a particular risk for residents of the remaining ~5800 long-term rent-controlled units). This is a particular concern given that SB 79 targets Pico and Mid-City, our City’s most ethnically/racially diverse areas. 1 See the online Santa Monica zoning map available at https://propzone.gridics.com/city/us/ca/losangeles-county/santa-monica#14.48/34.02012/-118.48483. 2 See Table in Santa Monica Municipal Code § 9.08.030 (R-2 permits one unit per 2000 square feet).
3 See Chart in Staff Report (SB 79 guarantees minimum density of 100 units per acre within one quarter mile of the relevant transit stops, and a minimum density of 80 units per acre within onehalf mile of the relevant transit stops).

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) (c) Any existing residents who are not lower income get no relocation benefits and have no right of first refusal on any units, and could well be driven out of the City altogether. (d) Because all Santa Monica rent-controlled units would have to be replaced with deedrestricted low income affordable units, redevelopment might result in a net addition of units affordable to lower income households. BUT, the City most certainly will lose existing moderate and especially missing-middle housing units. This is because even when rent-control units turn over, the new initial rents are affordable to moderate and/or missing middle households.4 By contrast, no
newly constructed units will be affordable to either moderate or missing-middle households. (e) Encouraging redevelopment of these residential neighborhoods does less to increase the overall housing supply than does driving new development to places that do not currently have housing (commercial boulevards, industrial areas, Downtown). Redevelopment only adds to the overall housing supply by the net of the number of newly constructed units minus the number of demolished units. By contrast, every unit developed on sites that are not currently used for housing adds an additional unit to the overall housing supply. Moreover, driving new development to nonresidential sites exist on commercial boulevards disperses new development throughout the City, not just in Pico and Mid-City.
(f) Encouraging redevelopment of these residential neighborhoods will create increased opposition to siting future transit stations in Santa Monica (and throughout the State) for fear it will cause disruption to and displacement from surrounding neighborhoods due to SB 79 upzoning.

III. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT AN “OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED

TO EXCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SITES AND TO IMPOSE MEANINGFUL
INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS” POSITION
Given the foregoing downsides to Santa Monica should SB 79 be adopted (problems which likely would recur throughout the State), the City Council should the reject the proposed support position for SB 79. There is simply no reason to displace existing residents either here or throughout the State. Rather, City Council should adopt an “oppose unless amended to exclude residential sites and to impose meaningful inclusionary requirements” position.

The State already has taken this general approach for purposes of State-imposed streamlining with the passage of the AB 2011 (Wicks), the 2022 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act (and the subsequent amendments thereto). See Government Code §§ 65912.120 to .124. It would seem fairly simple to add a State-imposed TOD density requirement to this streamlining 4 Compare 2024 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report at p. 21, Fig. 19 (showing annual income required to afford at 30% of household income the median initial rents charged for rent-controlled units of various sizes), available at https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Rent_Control/About_the_Rent_Control_Boa rd/Staff_Reports/2025/RcB041025_Item_12A_RCB_2024_Annual_Report.pdf, with HCD’s 2024 State Income Limits at 8 (identifying median income for Los Angeles County for housholds ranging in size from one person to eight persons). For example, a four person household with 145% of the Los Angeles County median income can afford the initial rents charged on half of the rent controlled units that came on the market in 2024 without paying more than 30% of household income.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + SB677) for eligible sites that also are located within the distances specified under SB 79. The addition of other types of non-residential sites and/or well-defined local flexibility to use other nonresidential sites might also be appropriate (although more analysis would be required first).5 Studies show that a great deal of under-utilized non-residential land along commercial corridors is available not only in Santa Monica, but throughout Los Angeles County and the State. For example, SMRR Co-Chair Denny Zane—in his day job at MoveLA—arranged in 2020 for one such study and its presentation at MoveLA Conference (and later to a Statewide Housing Advocacy group). A copy is attached as an exhibit to this letter. That study concluded that there was sufficient such land in Los Angeles County alone for 1.6 million dwelling units (at relatively gentle densities), including some 840,000 such units within one-half mile of either TOD locations or high-quality transit corridors (see pages 51-52).

In short, there is no need to displace existing residents here or elsewhere in California in order to achieve TOD. The City Council should oppose SB 79 unless it is amended to avoid this displacement risk (and to impose meaningful inclusionary zoning requirements).

Thank you for considering our views on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Denny Zane Mike Soloff
Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights 5 In the brief time SMRR has had to consider this item—and to try to do the work that should have been done by the Staff Report—it has not had a chance to determine whether these or other additional provisions are appropriate if State-mandated TOD density is to be added along commercial boulevards or on other non-residential sites. SMRR reserves its right to suggest further changes.

Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

SCENARIO CONCEPTS AND ANALYSIS
Proprietary & Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Move LA: Boulevards of
Equity & Opportunity
16 July 2020
Joe DiStefano
CEO,UrbanFootprint
Peter Calthorpe
HDR-Calthorpe
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

BACKGROUND
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

1.5 million
new housing demand
1 million
current projected production
50%
of population cannot
afford housing

STATEWIDE
2019-2025
California’s
Housing Crisis
Sources: McKinsey (2016)
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + The Housing Challenge:

Costs
Land Supply
Entitlement Costs
Construction Costs
City Fiscal Impacts and Fees
Affordable Housing Subsidies
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + The Housing Challenge:

Politics
Traffic and Transportation
Neighborhood Character
Community Services
Open Space
Schools
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Solutions:

Grand Boulevards
Low Density Commercial Land Conversion Only
Capacity: Bay Area 1,200,000 Du Potential
LA County
Issues: Residential Adjacencies, City Cost Of Services, Phasing Corridor Improvements
Advantages: Clusters Along Potential Transit Corridors, Infill Throughout Region, No Residential Displacement
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 +

STANDARD SUBURBAN
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 +

COMPACT WALKABLE
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + El Camino 120’ Six Lane
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 43 miles of strip Commercial
El Camino Case Study
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 15 + 250,000 Homes
Water Use
Energy Use
Driving
GHG
Compared to average Alameda County household
-$3,100
-45%
-33%
-13%
-40%
Transportation
Costs
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + High capacity
Small parcels (less than 1 acre) Large parcels
4 lane
boulevards
Live/Work townhomes3-5 story wrap
6+ lane
boulevards
4-story tuck under4-story + 1 podium
TOD areas
on
boulevards
4-story + 1 podium5-story + 2 podium
80 units/acre
100
units/acre
60 units/acre
32 units/acre
150
units/acre
100
units/acre
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Townhouse
- 32 Du/ac
Small Lot - 4 Lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 3 Story Walk Up
- 60 Du/ac
Small Lot - 6 lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 5 story Podium
- 100 Du/ac
Small Lot - TOD
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 4 Story
- 80 Du/ac
Large Lot - 4 lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + 7 Story Podium
- 150 Du/ac
Large Lot – TOD
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Next Generation Transit
BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
ART (Autonomous Rapid Transit)
Light Rail
Metro Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Boulevards of
Opportunity and Equity
LA County Infill Opportunities
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Southern California
Business As Usual
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Southern California
Growing Smart
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Statewide Action/
State Benefits
‘As of Right’ Zoning
Inclusionary Requirements
Tax Increment Financing
Transit Investments
Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + LA County Corridors

BACKGROUND
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Ventura County
San Bernardino
County
Riverside
County
Imperial
County
Orange County
Los Angeles
County
Sources: SCAG local profiles (2019), HCD SCAG RHNA (2019) California’s
Housing Crisis
2010-2017
+ 1.2M
jobs
+ 162K
housing units
REGIONAL NEED 2021-2029*
+ 1.3M
housing units
58% moderate income or lower
42% low and very-low income
* 6th cycle RHNA allocation
SCAG 6 COUNTIES
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

1.2M
more jobs than homes
$660K
median home price
Sources: SCAG local profiles (2019), Zillow (2020), SCAG Draft RHNA Estimated Allocations (2019) REGIONAL NEED 2021-2029*
+ 813K
housing units
58% moderate income or lower
42% low and very-low income
* SCAG draft 6th cycle RHNA allocation

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved Sources: SCAG local profiles (2019), Zillow (2020), SCAG Draft RHNA Estimated Allocations (2019) California’s
Housing Crisis

4.1 jobs per home (since 2010)
$750K
median home price
$2,500
median rent
REGIONAL NEED 2021-2029*
+ 455K
housing units
(40% low and very-low income)
* SCAG draft 6th cycle RHNA allocation

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary, All Rights Reserved
38 The UrbanFootprint
Software Platform
Powering Scenarios and Analytics
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
40 Transit- vs. auto-oriented
areas in the county today

CONTEXT SETTING
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Lancaster/Palmdale area
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Lancaster/Palmdale area
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Lancaster/Palmdale area
Transit-oriented
areas (TPAs 2016)
Auto-oriented areas
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Per household performance compared to countywide
averages
100%
Transit-oriented
Auto-oriented

COUNTYWIDE

AVERAGE
15M BTUs
savings
32K gal
savings
9K miles
savings
4 MT
savings
$ 7K
savings
$12,000
$19,00
0 12,00
0 21,000
13 9
67,00
0 99,000
67M
72M
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary, All Rights Reserved
45 Countywide Corridor
Concepts
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Lancaster/Palmdale area
2,100+
miles of
boulevards
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
4 lanes
6+ lanes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Qualifying
parcels ● On qualifying
corridors
● Land use is
commercial, office
or vacant
● 0.5 FAR or less ● 0.2 acres or greater 19,700 acres
of low intensity commercial land
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

COUNTYWIDE
Up to

1.6 M
new housing units
19,700 acres
of commercial land upzoned countywide
All corridors
½ mile
TOD areas

CITY OF LA
Up to
550 K
new housing units
Mixed use
Residential
Land use
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
½ mile
TOD areas
½ mile high-
quality transit
areas
Transit
corridors

COUNTYWIDE
Up to
840 K
new housing units

CITY OF LA
Up to
360 K
new housing units
9,200 acres
of commercial land upzoned countywide
Mixed use
Residential
Land use
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Development on transit corridors as proportion of current annual countywide household averages
364K
cars off the
road for 1 year
516K
homes water
use for 1 year
765K
cars off the
road for 1 year
263K
homes costs
for 1 year
Savings
equivalent to...
$12,000
savings
savings
savings
8 13,000
31,000
40M
328K
homes
powered for 1
year
savings
savings
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Fire risk
Sea level rise
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary, All Rights Reserved
55 Atlantic • Venice • Slauson
A closer look at
three corridors
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Venice
Atlantic
Slauson
Light rail + BRT stations
Light rail + Metrolink stations
Light rail
+ Metrolink stations
36 miles
22 miles
26 miles
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Venice
Atlantic
Slauson
Light rail extension
Westwood to LAX
BRT connector
Santa Monica to
LAX
BRT/Rail
Vermont Transit
Corridor
Light rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Expo Line
light rail
Metrolink
Metrolink
Green Line
light rail
Blue Line
light rail
Light rail
Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor
Existing
Proposed
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
N
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Atlantic
36 miles long
Green Line
Light Rail
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Metrolink
Light Rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Green Line
Light Rail
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
N
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing land use
Metrolink
N
Green Line
Light Rail
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Metrolink
Qualifying parcels
350 acres
of commercial land
upzoned
Up to
24K
new housing units
Next slide
Green Line
Light Rail
Blue Line
Light Rail
Gold Line
Light Rail
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Light rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Metrolink
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
High capacity
Small parcels (less than 1 acre) Large parcels
4 lane
boulevards
Live/Work townhomes3-5 story wrap
6+ lane
boulevards
4-story tuck under4-story + 1 podium
TOD areas
on
boulevards
4-story + 1 podium5-story + 2 podium
80 units/acre
100
units/acre
60 units/acre
32 units/acre
150
units/acre
100
units/acre
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
4-Lane/Large 3-5 story
wrap
80 units/acre 6-Lane/Small
4 story
tuck under
60 units/acre
TOD/Small
4 story
+ 1 podium
100 units/acre
4-Lane/Small
Live/Work
townhome
32 units/acre
TOD/Large
5 story
+ 2 podium
150 units/acre 6-Lane/Large
4 story
+ 1 podium
100 units/acre
710
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Venice
22 miles long
Expo Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Light Rail
Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor
Expo Line
Light Rail
BRT/Rail
Vermont Transit
Corridor
Light rail extension
Westwood to LAX
BRT connector
Santa Monica to LAX
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing land use
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Qualifying parcels
120 acres
of commercial land
upzoned
Up to
14K
new housing units
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Subway
Light Rail
Metrolink
Slauson
26 miles long
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

4.J.e
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7072 : Accept and File Analysis of SB79 + Proprietary and Confidential, All Rights Reserved
Existing
Proposed
Metrolink
Blue Line
Light Rail
Light Rail
Crenshaw/LAX
Transit Corridor
BRT/Rail
Vermont Transit
Corridor
Light rail extension
Westwood to LAX
Light rail
West Santa Ana Branch
Transit Corridor
Proposed transit: Final alignments and stations to be
identified during LA Metro environmental processes
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025
Item 4-J
May 13, 2025

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 13, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
May 13, 2025