Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, June 10, 2025 (part 2 of 5)

Despite years of efforts to secure funding for these promised renovations, Community Corporation has been unable to move forward with the rehabilitation. Now, instead of investing in repairs, there is a real risk that their building will be demolished, displacing over 100 Santa Monica residents. This threatened demolition of the 2033-2101 Virginia Avenue property creates dangerous precedents including:
 Accelerating a trend of affordable housing being demolished for market rate housing. Besides losing affordable housing it sets a dangerous precedent for other rent-controlled properties  Families, seniors and low-income residents will be forced out and displaced. No accommodations have been made for return-to-site or temporary housing while the new project is built. Many of the residents cannot afford to relocate from this rent-controlled property Much is said about the need to support affordable housing. This situation requires City action to protect existing affordable homes for longtime residents of our city.

Many thanks,
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 Board of Directors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 3 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: June 10, 2025 City Council Item 5A - City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
We stand with the residents of the Pico Neighborhood. These are long-time Santa Monica families who have been part of Santa Monica for generations. The idea of forcing them out of their rent controlled homes is heartbreaking. It’s like what happened when the 10 Freeway was built and local families of color were displaced.

The City Council needs to reject the plan to demolish the building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. More than 100 low-income residents would be forced to leave for years, if not permanently.

The demolition plan highlights the hypocrisy of Santa Monica's policies regarding "affordable housing" because it hurts the very people they claim to want to help.  Residents being paid to leave isn't help, but rather developer-fueled payoffs.  A right of return means nothing if, in the meantime, families have to reestablish elsewhere by enrolling in schools, finding medical services, etc.
 Income requirements for CCSM projects are suspect, geared toward "penciling" projects for investors and causing more displacement.
 The use of federal funds means more displacement rather than stability for long-time residents because we cannot ensure residents get the spots.
 Giving money to "nonprofits" and allowing them to have the title to the property means that Santa Monica is helping transfer and consolidate property to private owners who won't be accountable once the deed restrictions roll off. Santa Monica should take title to the property it funds.  Demolition eliminates a rent-controlled building.
 Reviewing all of this in closed session using the "pricing terms" exception to the Brown Act is disingenuous, if not illegal. The policy discussion must be had in an open meeting.  CCSM is doing this all over and should have "swing space" housing to facilitate renovation over demolition and displacement.

We ask the Council to push for rehabilitation, not demolition. That way, the building can be improved without displacing these families. We need to preserve our neighborhoods! We need your help to protect affordable housing and keep this community intact!
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident and Voter
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Keep SM Local

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 low-income residents.

The situation at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. is a plight faced by many Pico residents. In a way, this situation is ground zero to see if the City lives up to its stated goals of preserving diverse neighborhoods and protecting low-income renters from displacement.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:
- Mold and termite infestations
- Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
- Non-functioning wall heaters
- Broken windows
- Outdated and corroded plumbing
- Faulty electrical systems
- Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage that the residents to humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming.
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
Thank you for your time,
Gail Gordon
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Tony Huizar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Closed Session Item 5A for June 10, 2025

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Council Members,
I want to thank you for your service to the community and want to ask that in this time of uncertainty across our nation, especially here at home, you all please take a moment to reflect on the impact your vote will have, not only on the residents of 2033-2101 Virginia Avenue but on the future of the City of Santa Monica as a whole, specifically in the Pico Neighborhood and the strong message it will send.

In a perfect world we would not be at this crucible, I hear your desire and advocacy for affordable housing, however there has been a historical and systematic pattern of displacing existing Santa Monica residents in housing that is affordable to them, with an unproportionate number in the 90404 zip code, the Pico Neighborhood- all in the name of progress. Now, while all the factors that led to this displacement could not have been prevented by city government, you all now stand at a crossroads where your names can be associated with the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Santa Moncia, where your decision today began a true and sincere advocacy for ALL renters, not just new renters coming in to the city, but the existing residents of Santa Monica, your voting constituents.

With gratitude,
Tony Huizar
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick; Daniel Galamba Subject: City Council Meeting 6-10-25 Item 5A

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
The Board of Mid-City Neighbors supports the Pico Neighborhood Association in their request for needed improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to avoid displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents. These are our neighbors and fellow residents and measures should be taken to keep them in their homes. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Board of Mid-City Neighbors
_______________________________
June 07, 2025
To: City Council Members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Re: 6/10/25 Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 lowincome residents. The situation at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. is a plight faced by many Pico residents. In a way, this situation is ground zero to see if the City lives up to its stated goals of preserving diverse neighborhoods and protecting low-income renters from displacement.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:

Mold and termite infestations
Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters Non-functioning wall heaters Broken windows Outdated and corroded plumbing Faulty electrical systems Exposure to asbestos and lead Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 3 Here is the webpage that the residents created so you can humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.keepsmlocal.org/__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!uFx7TwH6YNvYr_jY18WrGy KySYOKfW4vuk_D7y28Tx9DeF421x9WSpm1u9UdXRVuAak22HGof701JXi4F2I31pXhPZLlWvA$ The PNA Board urges the City Council to prioritize this issue, secure the funding needed for the full rehabilitation of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave., and ensure that the cross-generational tenants can remain in their homes.

Thank you for your considered attention to this issue.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 4 David Yakobson
From: ElizabethM <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 6/10/25 Agenda Item 5A – Reject Demolition and Support Rehabilitation of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Protect Low-Income Residents

EXTERNAL
To: City Council Members
AGENDA ITEM: 5A
Re: 6/10/25 Agenda Item 5A – Reject Demolition and Support Rehabilitation of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Protect Low-Income Residents
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned member of this community, deeply invested in preserving the fabric of our city, and to urge you to take immediate action to protect the over 100 low income residents at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. These families are at risk of displacement, and their future hangs in the balance. I stand in solidarity with the residents of the Pico Neighborhood, many of whom have lived in Santa Monica for generations. To force them out of their rent-controlled homes is not just a policy failure. It is heartbreaking and immoral.

This situation brings to mind the tragic history of displacement caused by the construction of the 10 Freeway, when families of color were forced to leave their homes in the name of "progress." Today, we are faced with a similar dilemma , the choice between demolishing a community and preserving it. The City Council must reject the plan to demolish 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. and instead support rehabilitation efforts that would improve the building without uprooting families who have called this neighborhood home for decades.

We cannot accept the hollow promises of those who claim these residents will be able to return to their homes once the new development is complete. Under current state and federal housing guidelines, most of them will never qualify to return. This is not about lowincome housing; it’s about creating more developments that line the pockets of the developers and contractors. It’s clear that powerful developer interests are at play here, and they are using the guise of "affordable housing" as a smokescreen to push their agenda. We know that the new City Council members received money from these interests and should recuse themselves from this vote. Follow the money!
Do not be misled by this bait and switch. We are talking about real people, real families, and a real community at risk of being permanently displaced. The residents of 2033-2101 Virginia Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 5 Ave. deserve better than broken promises and empty assurances. They deserve to stay in their homes. We will all be watching. This should be a national news story! Instead of demolition, I urge the City Council to prioritize rehabilitation, a solution that would not only address the building’s structural issues but also preserve the integrity of our community. We need to protect affordable housing, and we need to keep our neighborhoods intact. These families are an essential part of what makes Santa Monica unique, and we must do everything in our power to ensure they remain part of this city’s future.

I implore you to act with compassion and foresight. Please do not allow the displacement of these long time Santa Monica families. Stand with us in preserving our neighborhoods and supporting the people who have made Santa Monica their home for generations.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Marie
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 10:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Re: 6/10/25 Agenda Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents

EXTERNAL
To: City Council Members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Re: 6/10/25 Agenda Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 low-income residents.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:
- Mold and termite infestations
- Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
- Non-functioning wall heaters
- Broken windows
- Outdated and corroded plumbing
- Faulty electrical systems
- Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage that the residents to humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 David Yakobson
From: Kathy Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 6/10/25 Item 5-A 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. - Rehab NOT Demolition

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and Santa Monica City Council members From: Kathy Knight & Joe Faris, Sunset Park Residents
Re: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT Demolition Dear City Council Members:

We are asking the City Council and other appropriate City agencies to take action and protect the more than 100 low-income residents living at 2033 -2101 Virginia Ave. in the Pico Neighborhood.

We oppose any plans the Community Corps of Santa Monica has to demolish this apartment building on Virginia Ave. across from the park, as long time residents would have to move out for several years.

Instead please support this small community and direct CCSM to do rehabilitation, allowing the repair of one section of the building at a time, which avoids total demolition and the displacement of all residents.

One of the goals adopted by our City is to “preserve neighborhoods” so please help preserve this neighborhood of affordable homes for our longtime residents of Santa Monica.

Thank you,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
Sunset Park Residents for over 30 years
[email protected]
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 4 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 8:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Re: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT Demolition

EXTERNAL
I cannot type much due to my hands having problems. I offer these two pieces in support of keeping this housing intact..

I ask the City Council and relevant City agencies to take action and protect the residents of 2033- 2101 Virginia Ave to prevent the displacement of more than 100 low-income residents. We ask the Council to direct the Community Corps of Santa Monica to support the longstanding needed improvements at this building in the Pico neighborhood.

We oppose any plans CCSM has to demolish this apartment building on Virginia Avenue across from the park and construct a new building because this would require the longtime residents to be forced to move out for several years.

Instead, the Council should honor the request of this small community and direct CCSM to pursue rehabilitation, which would allow the repair of one section of the building at a time and avoid total demolition and the displacement of all residents.

The City has adopted as one of its goals in the Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) to "preserve neighborhoods."
Much is said about the need to support affordable housing. This is a neighborhood that requires City action to protect existing affordable homes for longtime residents of our city. #
June 7, 2025
To: City Council Members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Re: 6/10/25 Agenda Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 5 The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 low-income residents.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:
- Mold and termite infestations
- Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
- Non-functioning wall heaters
- Broken windows
- Outdated and corroded plumbing
- Faulty electrical systems
- Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage that the residents to humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
Danielle Charney
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 6 David Yakobson
From: roman paik <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 8:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 5A

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Roman Paik, a tax paying homeowner of Santa Monica and I’m writing to urge you to support the REHABILITATION—not demolition—of the apartments at 2033–2101 Virginia Avenue.

This is not just a building. It’s a home to families, workers, seniors, and long-time residents who make Santa Monica the vibrant, inclusive city it is. One of those residents is a dear friend of mine who simply will not be able to stay in Santa Monica if these apartments are torn down. The impact would be devastating.

Rehabilitation offers a path forward that honors Santa Monica’s commitment to preserving affordable housing under laws like the Tenant Protection Act and the City’s own Housing Element, which calls for protecting existing rent-stabilized units and preventing displacement.

Approving funding for rehab would keep residents in their homes, preserve community bonds, and reflect the compassionate values Santa Monica is known for. Please don’t force families out of the city they love and contribute to.

Thank you for standing with the people who call this place home. --
Roman D Paik
Web Slinger
213-434-0667
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 6:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 6/10/25 item 5-A - 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT Demolition

EXTERNAL
I echo the senƟments put forth by Northeast Neighbors, to wit:

We ask the City Council and relevant City agencies to take action and protect the residents of 2033- 2101 Virginia Ave to prevent the displacement of more than 100 low-income residents. We ask the Council to direct Community Corps of Santa Monica to support the longstanding needed improvements at this building in the Pico neighborhood.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Pamela Palmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Pamela S. Palmer
Subject: Vote on fate of 6/10/25 item 5-A - 233-2101 Virginia Ave - Rehab, not Demolition

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and Santa Monica City Council members From: Pamela Palmer, Resident and Member of Northeast Neighbors of Santa Monica Re: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT Demolition Dear City Council, please protect the residents of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to prevent the displacement of more than 100 low-income residents by directing the Community Corps of Santa Monica to support the longstanding needed improvements at this building in the Pico neighborhood.

I oppose plans to demolish this apartment building and construct a new building because this would require the longtime residents to be forced to move out for several years.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 low-income residents.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:
- Mold and termite infestations
- Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
- Non-functioning wall heaters
- Broken windows
- Outdated and corroded plumbing
- Faulty electrical systems
- Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage that the residents to humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
Regards, Pamela Palmer
[email protected]
310 403 7071
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Evelyn Lauchenauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab vs. demolition

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Community Corp (CCSM) is planning to demolish this apartment building on Virginia Avenue across from the park and construct a new building, rather than rehab, so all the longtime residents will have to move out for several years.

With rehab, one section of the building at a time could be rehabbed in a few months, total displacement could be avoided, and the community could be preserved.

It is a goal of the city, as stated in the Land Use & Circulation Element, to "preserve neighborhoods." This would be a good place to start.

In addition, the approach taken by CCSM with public funds, and the use and impact of those funds, does not seem to be a subject protected by the Brown Act, so it appears that this matter should be agendized as a public agenda item rather than in Closed Session prior to any further funding of CCSM.

I support PICO Neighborhood Association.

Evelyn Lauchenauer
Santa Monica hometown resident
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: SM Renters Rights <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:39 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: SMRR letter to Council re Item 5A
Attachments: 250609 SMRR ltr to Council re 2033-2109 Virgina Ave.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please see the attached from SMRR regarding Item 5A, 6/10/25, 2033-2109 Virginia Ave.

Thank you.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) June 9, 2025
Re: Item 5A, 6/10/25 Agenda 2033-2109 Virginia Ave.

Dear Councilmembers,
In January 2020 Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), at the request of the City of Santa Monica, acquired the 40-unit apartment building at 2033-2109 Virginia Ave. The prior owner had neglected the property and allowed it to fall into disrepair creating significant issues of habitability.

CCSM's and the City's intent was to repair and preserve the building as an affordable housing asset and to provide the nearly 100 residents, many of whom have been residents of the city for many years, with secure, habitable homes that they might enjoy for the foreseeable future.

The pandemic and resulting interruptions in supply chains and periods of inflation and high interest rates have made the necessary repairs increasingly expensive. In addition, like many California cities, Santa Monica now faces significant budget challenges.

We understand that CCSM and the City face a significant challenge identifying the resources needed to carry out their original mission of fully rehabilitating the building. Still, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights believes CCSM and the City should stick to their original mission of restoring these apartment buildings to a high level of habitability and ensuring continued and safe occupation to its nearly 100 residents.

Santa Monica has long held that the security of all of our residents in their homes, renters and homeowners alike, as one of our highest values. In addressing this challenge, we urge the City to show the level of creativity that has characterized its efforts in the past as we faced challenges to revitalize our downtown, to restore our pier, and to find resources to create one of the most successful affordable housing programs in the state.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of all Santa Monica residents.

Sincerely,
Denny Zane Mike Soloff
Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Co-Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 David Yakobson
From: Gary Freedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT Demolition

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and Santa Monica City Council members I write in support of the tenants at 2033-2020 Virginia Avenue to request the City Council and relevant City agencies to take action and protect the residents of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to prevent the displacement of these 100+ low-income residents.

I ask the Council to direct the Community Corps of Santa Monica to support the longstanding needed improvements at this building in the Pico neighborhood.

I oppose the plans CCSM has to demolish this apartment building. Instead, I hope tthe Council would honor the request of this small community and direct CCSM to pursue rehabilitation, which would allow the repair of one section of the building at a time and avoid total demolition and the displacement of all residents.

The City has adopted as one of its goals in the Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) to "preserve neighborhoods." Too much is said about the need to support affordable housing, but not act consistent with the talk. This is a neighborhood that requires City action to protect existing affordable homes for longtime residents of our city.

Sincerely
Gary Freedman
533 9th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 3 David Yakobson
From: Esther Hickman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: *Agenda Item 5A: In Support of Rehabilitation of the Virginia Ave Apartments*

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
Please support the rehabilitation of the Virginia Avenue Apartments. It sounds like there have been some serious habitability issues that need to be addressed right away. Please provide Community Corp with the support needed to make this possible. Displacing 100 residents does not sound like a sustainable or reasonable solution.

Thank you so much for your consideration,
Kind Regards,
Esther Hickman
Pico Neighborhood Resident
--
Esther Hickman
310.600.7306
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 4 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Ravel Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT Demolition

EXTERNAL
I ask the City Council and relevant City agencies to take action and protect the residents of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to prevent the displacement of more than 100 low-income residents. Please direct Community Corps of Santa Monica to support the longstanding needed improvements at this building in the Pico neighborhood.

I oppose plans CCSM to demolish this apartment building on Virginia Avenue across from the park and construct a new building because this would require the longtime residents to be forced to move out for several years. Instead, the Council should honor the request of this small community and direct CCSM to pursue rehabilitation, which would allow the repair of one section of the building at a time and avoid total demolition and the displacement of all residents.

The City has adopted as one of its goals in the Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) to "preserve neighborhoods.” Much is said about the need to support affordable housing. This is a neighborhood that requires City action to protect existing affordable homes for longtime residents of our city.

Thank you,
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
1039 Harvard Street
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 5 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT demolition

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and Santa Monica City Council members From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors of Santa Monica
Re: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab NOT demolition We ask the City Council and relevant City agencies to take action and prevent the displacement of more than 100 low-income residents by directing Community Corps of Santa Monica to pursue the longstanding needed improvements at this building in the Pico neighborhood.

We oppose any plans CCSM has to demolish this apartment building on Virginia Avenue across from the park and construct a new building, rather than rehab. This would require the longtime residents to be forced to move out for several years.

Instead, the Council should preserve this community by directing rehabilitation, which would allow one section of the building at a time to be repaired, avoiding total displacement of all residents.

The City has adopted as one of its goals in the Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) to "preserve neighborhoods." This is a neighborhood that requires City action.

Given that this matter addresses the approach taken by CCSM with public funds, and the use and impact of those funds, this matter should not be protected by the Brown Act, but rather should be agendized as a public agenda item rather than in Closed Session prior to any further funding of CCSM.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Hillel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick
Subject: Support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
From: Hillel G.

Re: 6/10/25 Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
I am a long-time Pico resident and I ask the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 of my low-income neighbors. Their plight is a test case to see if the City lives up to its stated goals of preserving diverse neighborhoods and protecting low-income renters from displacement.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:
 Mold and termite infestations
 Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
 Non-functioning wall heaters
 Broken windows
 Outdated and corroded plumbing
 Faulty electrical systems
 Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage the residents created so you can humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
At the upcoming City Council meeting I urge you to prioritize this issue, secure the funding needed for the full rehabilitation of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave., and ensure that the cross-generational tenants living there can remain in their homes.

Thank you for your considered attention to this issue.

Looking forward to a successful and happy ending to this humanly issue, thank you.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 David Yakobson
From: Hillel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick
Subject: Support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council Members
From: Hillel G.

Thank you for your considered attention to this issue.

Looking forward to a successful and happy ending to this humanly issue, thank you.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Susan Cline; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Heather Averick; Natalie Verlinich; Jing Yeo; Armine Chaparyan
Subject: June 10, 2025 City Council Meeting - *Agenda Item 5A: Support Rehabilitation of the 2033-2101 Virginia Ave Apartments*

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete & Esteemed Councilmembers -
It has come to my attention today that Community Corp. bought this property & now, rather than rehabilitate it for the 100 existing inhabitants as was proclaimed, intends to permanently displace them.

If the facts are as set forth above and in the call to action that follows, this is completely unacceptable.

This is exactly what we DO NOT want to see happening in our community, especially from an alleged affordable housing provider!
You have the power to prevent this tomorrow night.

If you are the Council you say you are, you will tell Community Corp. that only a beautiful rehabilitation for the existing tenants is acceptable.

Thank you -
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28+ years
A longtime community of 100 neighbors are facing permanent displacement from the Pico neighborhood. Community Corp bought their building pretending they were going to rehabilitate it and then claimed they needed 30M to fix 30 units with only getting one estimate. Now they say they can’t find the funds and have to displace 100 residents that will never be able to come back to their home.

Please find their message below and consider supporting rehabilitation and not displacement. We know displacement means more needless and outrageously expensive new development paid by the SM residents for community corp! ‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼
Dear Community,
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 Generations of Virginia Ave is a grassroots organization committed to protecting affordable housing and preserving the rich cultural fabric of Santa Monica. Right now, we’re fighting to prevent the displacement of residents in our own building and beyondadvocating for tenant rights, housing security, and equitable policies that put people over profit.
*Agenda Item 5A: Support Rehabilitation of the Virginia Ave Apartments* Why This Matters:
 Prevents displacement of long-time residents
 Preserves community bonds and cultural continuity
 Reduces the risk of homelessness for working families, seniors, and underserved groups
 Offers stability and predictability for tenants to live, work, and thrive.

We need your voice.

Support rehabilitation and stand with the families of 2033–2101 Virginia Ave who’ve built their lives in this community.

Can’t attend in person?
Submit the following written comment to: [email protected] "Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you in strong support of the residents of Generations of Virginia Ave and our community. The current living conditions in the building are deeply concerning and in many cases, inhumane. Residents are facing serious issues including:
 Mold and termite infestations
 Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
 Non-functioning wall heaters
 Broken windows
 Outdated and corroded plumbing
 Faulty electrical systems
 Exposure to asbestos and lead
I urge you to prioritize this issue, secure the funding needed for full rehabilitation, and ensure that tenants can remain in their rent-controlled homes." Together, let’s show that Santa Monica values:
 Preservation over profit
 Diversity over displacement
 Equity over erasure
 Real community over empty development
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: Mary Cornejo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 5:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick
Cc: Brian O'Neil; Oscar De La Torre; Maria Loya; Marisela Herrera; Tony Huizar; PNA Cris Mc Leod-Chair & Michelle
Subject: Displacement of Families residing at Virginia Avenue Apartments 2033-2101, S.M.

EXTERNAL
To whom this may concern;
My name is Mary Cornejo,
I am a concerned resident of Santa Monica.

My neighbor's residing at the Virginia Avenue Apartments have reported chronic neglect at the Virginia Avenue building for years. Such neglect has resulted in the following:
• Mold and termite infestations
• Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
• Non-functioning wall heaters
• Broken windows
• Outdated and corroded plumbing
• Faulty electrical systems
• Exposure to asbestos and lead
I am pleading with you to Please show empathy and consideration to their lively hood of all the families living within the Virginia Avenue apartment building. Rather than addressing and making necessary repairs you chose displacement. Shame on all of you who do not care. Our future Santa Monica's live there.

Thank you for your time and consideration to this crucial matter. If you have any questions or concerns I may be reached via email and/or by cell phone.

Best,
Mary Cornejo
Lifetime Native of Santa Monica
C 323•571•3135
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 David Yakobson
From: Erika Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tuesday June 10th Meeting- Virginia Avenue Apartments

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you today to express my concern about the deteriorating conditions of the building.

My father, who has been a resident since 1993, has been significantly affected by the neglect.

My father, who is 65, has experienced increasing health sensitivities as he ages. His current living situation is significantly impacting his well-being. He frequently suffers from colds, which seem directly related to mold in his unit. Furthermore, the deteriorating conditions, including exposed tiles and flooring, have led to a significant termite infestation, along with problems with cockroaches and occasional mice. It is disheartening that he has had to endure these issues for the past decade.

The current living conditions within the building are deeply concerning and, in many cases, inhumane. Residents are grappling with serious problems, including:
 Mold and termite infestations
 Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
 Non-functioning wall heaters
 Broken windows
 Outdated and corroded plumbing
 Faulty electrical systems
 Potential exposure to asbestos and lead
I urge you to give this matter your immediate attention. It is crucial to secure the necessary funding for a comprehensive rehabilitation of the property while ensuring that current tenants can remain in their homes throughout the process.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent issue.

Sincerely,
Erika Martinez
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 11:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 6/10/25 item 5-A -- 2033-2101 Virginia Avenue

EXTERNAL
June 08, 2025
To: Mayor Negrete and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP) Re: 6/10/25 item 5-A – 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. -- Rehab vs. demolition CCSM is planning to demolish this apartment building on Virginia Avenue across from the park and construct a new building, rather than rehab, so all the longtime residents will have to move out for several years.

With rehab, one section of the building at a time could be rehabbed in a few months, total displacement could be avoided, and the community could be preserved.

It is a goal of the city, as stated in the Land Use & Circulation Element, to "preserve neighborhoods." This would be a good place to start.

Finally, the FOSP Board supports the letter below from the Pico Neighborhood Association. ********************************************************************************** June 07, 2025
To: City Council Members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Re: 6/10/25 Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 2 Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033- 2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 low-income residents.

The residents at 2033-2101 Virginia have reported chronic neglect at the building for years. Such neglect has resulted in:
 Mold and termite infestations
 Leaking and deteriorating roofs and gutters
 Non-functioning wall heaters
 Broken windows
 Outdated and corroded plumbing
 Faulty electrical systems
 Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage that the residents created so you can humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
The PNA Board urges the City Council to prioritize this issue, secure the funding needed for the full rehabilitation of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave., and ensure that the cross-generational tenants can remain in their homes.

Thank you for your considered attention to this issue.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 3 David Yakobson
From: Rick Jennings <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 4:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 5A

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Rick Jennings and I’m writing to ask the City Council to please approve the funding for the rehab of 2033 - 2101 Virginia Avenue apartments and not support a tear down.

I am a Santa Monica resident who has lived here for almost 25 years with my wife and three children. The people who live in the Virginia Avenue apartments are vital to the community. These apartments are also important to many families and individuals who live and have lived here for generations. Rehab would preserve our homes and our community.

Thank you so much for your support!
Best,
Rick Jennings
310.428.8575
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 4 David Yakobson
From: Maricela Ponce <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #5A

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is, Maricela Ponce; I am writing to ask the City Council to please approve the funding for the rehab of 2033 - 2101 Virginia Avenue apartments and NOT support a tear down.

These apartments are important to many families and individuals who live here. Rehab would preserve our homes and our community.

Thank you so much for your support!
Maricela Ponce
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 5 David Yakobson
From: matt guajardo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item number 5A

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Matthew Guajardo, and I’m writing to ask the City Council to please approve the funding for the rehab of 2033 - 2101 Virginia Avenue apartments and not support a tear down.

These apartments are important to many families and individuals who live here. There are, in fact, multiple residents who are physically/mentally disabled who relly on in home care. Uprooting ans forcing them out is not only a physical, but finacial and medicinal strain on the residents. Some of them have been residing and paying rent for 3-4 decades and rightfully deserve stay. Rehab would preserve their homes and our community.

Thank you so much for your support!
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 6 David Yakobson
From: Spencer Klein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 12:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 5A

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Spencer Klein, and I’m writing to ask the City Council to please approve the funding for the rehab of 2033 - 2101 Virginia Avenue apartments and not support a tear down.

These apartments are important to many families and individuals who live here. Rehab would preserve our homes and our community.

Thank you so much for your support!
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 7 David Yakobson
From: Eduardo Hernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 12:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 5A

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Eduardo Hernandez, and I'm writing to ask the City Council to please approve the funding for the rehab of 2033 - 2101 Virginia Avenue apartments and not support a tear down.

These apartments are important to many families and individuals who live here. Rehab would preserve our homes and our community.

Thank you so much for your support!
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 8 David Yakobson
From: Marcos Ponce <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 12:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 5A

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Marcos Ponce, and I’m writing to ask the City Council to please approve the funding for the rehab of 2033 - 2101 Virginia Avenue apartments and not support a tear down.

These apartments are important to many families and individuals who live there. Rehab would preserve these homes and our community.

Thank you so much for your support!
Marcos R. Ponce
310 483 0094
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 9 David Yakobson
From: Christina wioch <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 6:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 6/10/25 Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,

I am a long-time Pico resident and I ask the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 of my low-income neighbors. Their plight is a test case to see if the City lives up to its stated goals of preserving diverse neighborhoods and protecting low-income renters from displacement.

This is an especially difficult time for displacement since so many people have been displaced by the fires and are looking for housing, as well as having to deal with price gouging.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 10 David Yakobson
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 4:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan.Hall. @santamonica.gov; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Heather Averick Cc: Brian ONeil; PNA; Tony Huizar
Subject: PNA Board: Item 5A - 6/10/25 Meeting: Support Residents at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave from Displacement

EXTERNAL
June 07, 2025
To: City Council Members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Re: 6/10/25 Item 5A – City Should Support Needed Improvements at CCSM’s 2033- 2101 Virginia Ave. to Avoid Displacement of over 100 Low-Income Residents Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
The Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) Board of Directors asks the City Council and relevant City agencies to support the needed improvements at CCSM’s building at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave to avoid displacing over 100 low-income residents. The situation at 2033-2101 Virginia Ave. is a plight faced by many Pico residents. In a way, this situation is ground zero to see if the City lives up to its stated goals of preserving diverse neighborhoods and protecting low-income renters from displacement.

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) 11  Broken windows
 Outdated and corroded plumbing
 Faulty electrical systems
 Exposure to asbestos and lead
Here is the webpage that the residents created so you can humanize the situation and put faces to the families who would be displaced if a remedy is not forthcoming:
https://www.keepsmlocal.org/
The PNA Board urges the City Council to prioritize this issue, secure the funding needed for the full rehabilitation of 2033-2101 Virginia Ave., and ensure that the crossgenerational tenants can remain in their homes.

Thank you for your considered attention to this issue.

Item 5-A
June 10, 2025
Item 5-A
June 10, 2025

5.A.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7134 : Closed Session: Conference with real estate negotiator) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 10, 2025
Agenda Item:
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, Interim City Manager, City Manager's Office Subject: City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Report Update Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. PowerPoint Presentation
B. PowerPoint Presentation
C. PowerPoint Presentation
Packet Pg. 423
Information Services Crime Dashboard Demo
Prasanna Joshi | Enterprise Architect and Digital Development Manager| Information Services Department June 10, 2025
City Manger Report
June 10, 2025
City Manger Report
June 10, 2025
a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD Crime Dashboard Live Demonstration
Westbound
Broadway
5th to Ocean
• Chief’s vision  Dashboards
• Infrastructure work is in Progress
• Data Platform
• Data Pipeline
• Bootstrapping efforts
• No external help
• No Vendor Support
• PD dashboards will be available on June 12th on the PD Transparency Center website.
• Ongoing/Current dashboard requests
• CIP, Traffic, Fire Incident Response, City Attorney.

City Manger Report
June 10, 2025
City Manger Report
June 10, 2025
a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD

SANTA MONICA
Police Department
2 0 2 4 A n n u a l R e p o r t
Council Update
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Immigration Enforcement
• We support peaceful expression and the right to protest • Criminal behavior that threatens public safety will be addressed and will not be tolerated
When lives are at risk, we respond to protect those in harm’s way – fellow officers, federal law enforcement, and every person in our communitywithout regard to immigration status.

Our focus is on public safety, not immigration enforcement.

City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Overview • Strategic Plan 2024-2028 • Calls for Service • Criminal Behavior • 2024 Crime Statistics • Part I & Part II • Arrests • Downtown • Special Projects • Homelessness • HLP – Homeless Liaison • Technology • Transparency • Summary City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Strategic Plan
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Versaterm (Records Management)
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System)
UCR (old) NIBRS (new)
Detailed individual incident
reports for the original
eight index crimes and 38
other offenses
Monthly aggregate crimes
counts for eight index
crimes (Murder, Rape, Robbery,
Aggravated Assault, Burglary,
Larceny/Theft, GTA, & Arson)
Records each offense
occurring in an incident
Hierarchy rule: counts only
the most serious crimes
Distinguishes between
attempted and completed
crimes
Does not distinguished
between attempted and
completed crimes
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Calls for Service104,061 103,462 95,536 101,040 123,491 75,770 77,101 79,86581,272 18,336 18,564 24,013 19,946 26,337 18,939 19,743 21,721 96%
2023-2024
Increase in Officer-Initiated
Calls for Service 128,820 77,204 23,950 51,616
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

PART I CRIME PART II CRIME ARRESTS
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime 2024 Crime Stats – Part I
-2%
2023-2024
Decrease in Part I Crimes
77 Crimes Total 4,384 4,303 4,755 4,917 4,840
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime 2024 Crime Stats – Part I 2,927
63 479 744 39418245
Murder/homicide increased from 1
incident in 2023 to 6 in 2024.

Rape cases remained relatively
stable with 48 in 2023 and 45 in 2024.

Aggravated Assault at 394 incidents is a
decrease over 2023. (-2.2%)
Incidents of Arson decreased from 80
in 2023 to 63 (-21%)
Robberies dropped significantly: 182
in 2024 (-25%)
6 GTAs declined for the first time in
years: 479 cases in 2024 (-16%).

Overall burglary increased: 744
cases (+14%), driven mainly by a 17%
increase in residential burglaries.

Larceny remains the most reported
crime category, stable year-overyear.
1 48 244 403 653 573 2,915
80 City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Edged Weapons
41 60
56 59
52 71 75 83
74 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Aggravated Assault – Knife
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime 2024 Crime Stats – Part II
PART II Crime
16%
2023-2024
Increase in Part II Crimes
574 Crimes Total 4,080 2,738 2,6723,264 3,506 727 631 761 391 171 136 160 City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime 2024 Crime Stats – Part II cont.

City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime 2024 Crime Stats – Part II cont.

City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Weapons Arrests
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Arrests989 1,538 1,694 2,802 1,840 2,723 1,633 2,438 981 1,599 3%
2024
60% of all arrests
involved homeless
suspects
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Crime Impact Team (CIT)
Relaunched in August 2024
817 117
Self-Initiated Activity Felony Arrests
92 Misdemeanor Arrests
71 Citations
Data August 2024 – April 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Directed Action Response Team (DART)
3045 Calls for Service
Average Per Month - 254
2024
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Traffic Enforcement (Motorcycle Officers )
221
211
460
495 460
91 75
43 Citywide - Basic Traffic
Enforcement Operations
2,835
Citations in 2024
845 802
Vehicle Stops Citations
11 Operations
208
Vehicles Stopped
DUI Saturation
66 4 2 1 1
Operations
DUI Checkpoints
1,746
Vehicles Entered
Checkpoint
733 54 3
30 City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Traffic Enforcement (Motorcycle Officers )
221
211
460
162
495 460
91 75
157
37 30
344 318
29 Operations
5 Operations
8 Operations
13 Operations
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime

DART DSU RETAIL THEFT TASKFORCE PROMENADE
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Promenade Part I Crime WILSHIRE COLORADO 4

TH STREET
2ND STREET 49 22 33 202224 11
5 3 19 14 422474
• Notable decrease in robbery and aggravated
assault. • Notable increase in pickpocket, theft from motor vehicles in parking structures • Slight increase in shoplift and grand theft auto 2%
2023-2024
Part I Crime
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Promenade Select Part II Crime 39 28 4445 11 8 11 7
9 75 63
3 WILSHIRE
4 TH STREET COLORADO2ND STREET
5%
2023-2024
Part II Crime
• Decrease in simple assault and “other” sex offenses
in 2024 compared to 2023. • Notable increase in drug/narcotics violations City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Promenade Calls for Service
3,411 980
318
501
626 356
318 8,874 256
Calls for Service
Up from 8,038 in 2023
Arrests
20%
Calls involving
homeless suspects
70%
Arrests involving
homeless suspects
Top 7 Call Types
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Organized Retail Theft
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime SM Pier Criminal Activity
3045 Calls for Service
Average Per Month – 254
Violent Crime saw a notable decrease,
mainly due to fewer reported
Aggravated Assaults on the Pier.
2024
Arrests
6%
2023-2024 23541 51 50 12 12 42
from 71 to 67 incidents
Part I Crime
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Homeless Liaison Program
From 4 to 7 days a week
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime HLP Team 2024 Review
4,541
Calls for Service
3,528 335
Self-Initiated Activity
(Ped Stops, Periodic Checks, &
Traffic Stops)
Encampments
Addressed
1,686
Referrals to Service, Field
Interviews & Advisals
Closed 3-1-1
Requests
862 135
Citations
61 Arrests
237
Mental Health
Evaluations
161
5150 Holds
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Before and After
AFTER
BEFORE

BEFORE AFTER
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime

DFR ALPR SMART CENTER FLOCK CAMERAS
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Drone as a First Responder
1,551
1,898
996
1,544 (81.3%)
264
167
DFR is a force multiplier. It frequently resolves calls without dispatching patrol units, allowing ground officers to stay in the field.

City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime ALPR, Flock Cameras, & CCTV
Citywide Coverage
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime SMART Center
1,551
1,898
996
1,54481.3%)
264
167
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime

INTERVIEW NOW NTM
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Women in Policing Initiative
Since 2021
new sworn officers
have been women.
25% of the 73
15%Total of Female Sworn Officers
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Recruitment Strategies
YTD for 2025, 13 New Officers have been hired.
12 New Officers
66%
From 120 monthly applications to 200 since
implementing Interview Now & NTN
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Dedicated Website
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime

DASHBOARDS BLUE NOTEBOOK ZENCITY
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Community Engagement
80 39
Coffee with a Cop/
Community
Engagement Events
Security / CPTED
Assessments
120
Neighborhood Watch/
Association Meetings
33 Business Improvement
District Meetings
2 10-12 Week Community
Academies
26 Events focused on
Youth Wellbeing
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Social Media

5.7K 25K
Comments Views
72K
Fans & Followers
743
18K
Posts
117K
Reactions Shares

3.7M
Impressions
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Zencity & Blockwise
2,008
residents surveyed
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Part I down 2.%
(77 crimes)
Decreases observed in
robbery, aggravated assault,
catalytic converter thefts,
auto theft (GTA), arson, and
theft from vehicles.

Arrests up 3%
Part II up 16%
Led by Weapons Violations,
Narcotics & Disorderly
Conduct
Calls for Service
up 25%

DSU, HLP & DART
continue to be
effective in
impacting crime
CIT Relaunch &
DFR is a force
multiplier

CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOR

ARRESTS &

CALLS FOR

SERVICE

SPECIALIZED

UNIT IMPACTS
Summary
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Looking Forward 2025
SMART Center Launch
Traffic Patterns & Accident Software
Recruitment Website
ALPR Cameras
DOT Collaboration
Studio 66 Community Engagement Programming
Community Data Dashboards
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Police Chief Ramon Batista
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual Crime Aesthetic Ambition Piercing & Fine Jewelry
Ame Salon
Animal Kingdom SM
Assistance League of Santa Monica
Avocado
Barnes & Noble
Barry Snell, CPA
Bay Chiropractor
Bay Cities Italian Deli
Bezian Bakery
Blue Republic
Bob Gabriel Insurance
Bob's Market
Brentwood General
Brookdale Ocean House
Buena Vida Tea Bar and Garden
Bun and Mi
California Closets
Cooper Optometry
Co-opportunity Santa Monica Market
Crossroads
Dan's Modern Chinese
Dean from Dean's Barbershop
Different Strokes Painting
Dolcenero
Élephante
Engel & Völkers
Enviro Plumbers
Fairmont Miramar
Father's Office
Flair Cleaners
Forma Restaurat & Cheese Bar
Gilbert's El Indio
Good Body Pilates
"Harvelle's"
Huckleberry
Jakle, Alexander, & Patton
Jinya Ramen
Joe's Pizza
Kanan Construction
Kavahana
Kreation Kafe & Juicery
Lincoln Barber
Lincoln Car Wash
Lovebug and Me Music
Lucky Penny General Store
Lunetta All Day
Margaret O'Leary
Neurowellness
Noma Sushi
Number One Beauty
Ocean Park Pharmacy
Perspire Sauna Studio
Physical TherapyWorks
Pinkies Nail Salon
Printing Palace
Rabano
Ralph Mechur Architects
Ride it Baby Bikes
Rip City Skates
Rustic Canyon
Sandy Days Beach Camp
Santa Monica Brew Works
Santa Monica Education Foundation
Santa Monica High School
Santa Monica Music Center
Santa Monica Picnic Co
Santa Monica Tooth Doctor
Santa Monica Yoga
Sara Hallajian - Ame Salon
Sidecar Donuts
Skin Remedies
Sling Pilot Academy
Still Life Pottery Studio
Stokes Tire Service
Sun, Moon, Rain
Surf City Tours
Tacos Por Favor
Tavern on Main
Ted Winterer
Ten Women Gallery
Thai Vegan
The Albright
The Growing Place
The Lobster
The Massage Place
The Pet Affaire
The Pump Station & Nurtury
Tower 25
Toyota Santa Monica
Trifit LA
UCLA Medical
Uniqlo
Urban Jungle
VCA Main Street
Wally's Santa Monica
Wells Fargo Ocean Park
Westside Heating and Cooling
Yale Jewelers
Ye Olde Upholstery Shoppe
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
City Manager's Report
June 10, 2025
c
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7074 : City Manager Report: SMPD 2024 Annual City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 10, 2025
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 23
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Mobility (DOT) Subject: Study Session to review draft analysis, findings, and recommendations of the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study, funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning grant.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that this study session is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

2. Receive, discuss, and provide direction regarding the initial findings and concept level recommendations for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study project.

Summary
Santa Monica’s Department of Transportation (DOT) continues to advance transportation safety improvements to help achieve the City’s priority of ensuring Clean Streets and Safe Neighborhoods, and the City Council’s Vision Zero commitment to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries caused by traffic collisions. As a result of prior studies such as the Vision Zero Action Plan and the Local Roadway Safety Plan, Santa Monica Boulevard emerged as a high priority corridor that has seen severe trafficrelated injuries and one fatality over the past ten years. To further study this corridor, staff secured a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Communities planning grant, which provides funding for transportation and land use planning projects to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and projects that enhance safe use of roadways.

The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study project began in October 2024, engaging stakeholders and residents on how to improve safety along this corridor. At the same

7.A
Packet Pg. 475
2 of 23
time, City staff have been working with a consultant team to analyze the previous ten years of crash data along the corridor, and pairing crash trends with community feedback to establish a set of safety and transit recommendations to improve Santa Monica Boulevard from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Boulevard (the eastern city limit).

The study session and staff presentation serve to generate a rich discussion on the most recent findings and initial recommendations for this project. Council feedback and direction from this study session will be incorporated into the draft recommendations, carried forward through a community open house event in August 2025, and ultimately will inform the final Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Plan that will be presented to City Council for adoption in February/March of 2026. Once adopted, City staff will seek grant funding to design and construct the improvements identified in this study.

Background
On February 23, 2016, City Council adopted the Pedestrian Action Plan, which included the Vision Zero commitment to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries caused by traffic collisions on Santa Monica roadways (Attachment A). In 2017, the City analyzed eleven years of crash data (2006 to 2016) to create a “Priority Network” (representing the 10% of City streets that account for 50% of severe and fatal crashes) to focus the City’s future roadway safety enhancements. In 2022, the City renewed its analysis by completing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which analyzed the most recently available crash data (2015 to 2019) to further prioritize safety improvements. These efforts enabled the City to receive state and regional grant funding for numerous roadway design improvements targeted at addressing specific roadway challenges identified in data, such as the Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study and Improvement projects, the East Pico Safety Study and tactical improvements, and smaller interventions like crosswalk modernization, daylighting efforts, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and all-way stop implementation.

Both the 2017 Vision Zero analysis and the 2022 LRSP identified Santa Monica Boulevard as a priority corridor that experienced 8 fatal or severe injury crashes in the 2017 analysis, and 206 total crashes resulting in 1 fatality and 9 severe injuries in the LRSP analysis (Attachment B). The LRSP also identified key intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard with notable crash histories, including:
• 6th Street

7.A
Packet Pg. 476
3 of 23
• 15th Street
• 16th Street
• 18th Street
• 20th Street
• 26th Street
On March 9, 2023, staff applied to Caltrans for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study to evaluate collisions and identify targeted safety enhancements along the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor. The application was prepared based on the priorities of the City Council’s adopted plans and programs. On August 31, 2023, the City was awarded $522,327 in grant funds, and on November 14, 2023, the Council adopted a resolution to accept the awarded Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant with a required $67,673 in matching funds from Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) revenues, for a total project cost of $590,000 (Attachment C).

Discussion
The goals of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study are to:

1. Gather existing conditions information to understand the context of the corridor;

2. Identify targeted safety enhancements through a detailed and data-driven process;

3. Gather community feedback through a robust public outreach process;

4. Encourage safe and equitable access to destinations, businesses, and transit along Santa Monica Boulevard; and

5. Identify preferred short-term and long-term recommendations to improve safety for all roadway users.

To date, the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study has conducted in-depth data analysis and a robust community engagement process to better understand crash patterns, safety concerns, and the community’s lived experiences/observations on Santa Monica Boulevard. Based on this process, the project team has identified potential safety countermeasures and roadway enhancements to help address identified challenges. Detailed in this Staff Report are a corridor overview, initial data analysis findings, summary of feedback received from the community, and a summary of draft recommendations that would be included in the final Santa Monica Boulevard Safety

7.A
Packet Pg. 477
4 of 23
Plan. Recommended enhancements would better connect the corridor to the adjoining neighborhoods, major destinations and job centers, while improving safety for people walking, cycling, driving, and taking transit.

Santa Monica Boulevard, Then and Now
Known as “America’s Main Street,” Route 66 spans more than 2,400 miles throughout eight states, connecting Chicago to Santa Monica. It was one of the United States' first continuous stretches of paved highway and served as a major path for those who migrated west. Route 66 was commissioned on November 11, 1926, and on January 1, 1936, Santa Monica Boulevard became a part of Route 66 which currently terminates at the intersection of Lincoln and Olympic Boulevards. It was decommissioned as a federal highway in 1985 following the creation of the Interstate Highway System. Today, Santa Monica Boulevard is one of the city’s principal east-west arterial roads with an abundance of connections to transit, jobs, housing, services, and destinations along this active and developed corridor.

Study Area
The safety study examines the full 2.4-mile extent of Santa Monica Boulevard within the city limits, from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue. Santa Monica Boulevard is a critical street that provides multimodal access to community destinations such as:
• Santa Monica Main Library
• Santa Monica College Performing Arts Center
• McKinley Elementary School
• Nearby public parks including Memorial Park, Reed Park, and Douglas Park • High density residential neighborhoods (Mid-City and Downtown Santa Monica) • Large job centers such as Downtown Santa Monica, Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, and Providence Saint John’s Health Center • Retail automobile sales and service companies
In 2022, the City adopted the 2021 – 2029 Housing Element that identified approximately 340 suitable sites as having a high potential for use as future housing.

More than 100 of the identified sites are located within one block of Santa Monica Boulevard. The corridor includes key transit lines for both Big Blue Bus and Metro, including Big Blue Bus Routes 1 and Rapid 10, and one Los Angeles Metro route that runs throughout the boulevard (Line 4). These transit routes connect residents and

7.A
Packet Pg. 478
5 of 23
workers to broader regional destinations such as UCLA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Downtown Los Angeles, and points in between.

The City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan distinctly categorized Santa Monica Boulevard into a few key segments. • Ocean Avenue to Lincoln Boulevard includes the busy Downtown neighborhood with many shopping opportunities as well as a transit plaza for many local bus lines.
• Lincoln Boulevard to 20th Street has been Santa Monica’s “auto row” and remains dedicated to automobile sales and service. The LUCE includes guidelines for auto dealerships to redevelop in a format that more efficiently utilizes the site and creates a cohesive and visually attractive street front. • 20th Street to Cloverfield is surrounded primarily by Providence Saint John’s Health Center and associated medical offices and facilities. Providence Saint John’s Health Center is currently in the process of redesigning significant portions of the campus that could result in increased traffic and pedestrian volumes, and changes in points of ingress/egress on Santa Monica Boulevard. • The eastern end of Santa Monica Boulevard from Cloverfield Boulevard to Centinela Avenue is comprised of small businesses primarily served by an autobased clientele but is envisioned as evolving into a vibrant pedestrian and transit corridor with a mix of local and regional-serving retail offerings and services.

The LUCE classifies Santa Monica Boulevard as a principal arterial roadway for cars and transit. The study area has 20 signalized intersections (19 signalized intersections in City of Santa Monica and one signalized intersection in City of Los Angeles), 14 twoway stop-controlled intersections, and 21 alleys. The majority of Santa Monica Boulevard has four travel lanes, two in each direction, with intermittent turn lanes and on-street metered parking. Like many streets in Santa Monica, the roadway geometry varies throughout the corridor, with a narrow profile and asymmetrical lane conditions in the Downtown area, a wider profile with some on-street parking from Lincoln Avenue to 19th Street, and a very wide profile from 26th Street to Centinela Avenue (see Table 1).

Block spacing along the corridor averages about 320 feet between intersections.

Concrete sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street throughout the study area.

7.A
Packet Pg. 479
6 of 23
The speed limit between Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard is 25 mph and between Lincoln Avenue and Centinela Avenue it is 30 mph. However, many drivers do not abide by speed limits and travel at higher speeds as shown in Table 2.

Table 1- Santa Monica Boulevard Street Profile
Segment From To Number of
Travel Lanes
Width (in feet)
1 Ocean Avenue 5
th St. 3 42’ – 0”
2 5
thStreet Lincoln
Boulevard.
3 58’ – 0”
3 Lincoln
Boulevard.
26th St. 4 63’ – 0”
4 26thStreet Harvard St. 4 68’ – 0”
5 Harvard St. Centinela
Avenue
4 76’ – 6”
Figure 1 - Santa Monica Boulevard Street Widths
Table 2 - Speed Limits vs. 85th Percentile Speeds
Santa Monica Boulevard
Segments
Speed Limits 85th Percentile
Speeds
Ocean Avenue to Lincoln
Boulevard
25 mph 25 mph – 29 mph
Lincoln Boulevard to Cloverfield
Boulevard
30 mph 30 mph – 34 mph
Cloverfield Boulevard to
Centinela Avenue
30 mph 35 mph – 49 mph

7.A
Packet Pg. 480
7 of 23
Safety Analysis Findings
In winter 2024/2025, the project team conducted a comprehensive safety analysis of Santa Monica Boulevard focused on the last 10 years of crash data and recent transit data (Attachment D). During 2015-2024, 435 injury crashes and 401 Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes—crashes in which no one is injured, but damage occurs to vehicles or other property—were recorded along the study corridor. In the safety analysis, PDO crashes are included in the maps but are excluded from the analysis aiming at identifying specific patterns of injury crashes because there is a significant difference between PDO and injury crash attributes. Figure 2 illustrates the number of crashes and their distribution by injury severity. Notably, visible injuries and complaints of pain account for 48% of the total, while severe injuries and fatalities account for the remaining 3.7%.

Figure 2 – Distribution of Severity for all Crashes
Who is involved in crashes?
The two most common age groups for people involved in crashes are between 26–35 and 36–45, accounting for 24% and 17% of those involved, respectively. Moreover, seniors aged 66-75 and 76+ make up 23% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes, a higher proportion than the 13% of drivers in these two senior age groups.

Crash modes are categorized as such: a motor vehicle crash involves only automobiles, a pedestrian crash involves a pedestrian and a motor vehicle, and a bicycle crash involves a bicyclist and a motor vehicle. Figure 3 shows the distribution of crash modes by injury level (Fatal/Serious Injury includes one fatality during the period of analysis).

7.A
Packet Pg. 481
8 of 23
Nearly 81% of crashes involve only motor vehicles. However, when examining fatal and serious injury crashes, motor vehicle crashes account for 45%. Pedestrians are overrepresented in serious injury crashes, making up 29% of such incidents compared to 11% in all crashes. Bicycle and scooter crashes are also overrepresented in serious injury crashes (26%) compared to all crashes (8.4%).

Figure 3 - Crashes by Mode
Where are crashes happening?
In the past ten years, Santa Monica Boulevard has seen crashes throughout the corridor. The analysis found that 83% of all crashes occur at intersections, while the remaining 17% occur at midblock locations. Crashes also occur most frequently at signalized intersections, but injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections where the side streets are stop-sign controlled (see Figure 4). Although some intersections have a higher total number of crashes (Figure 5), other intersections have a higher number of injury crashes (Figure 6). In the past 10 years, one fatality along the corridor has occurred, at the intersection of 18th Street.

Figure 4 - Injury Level by Type of Location

7.A
Packet Pg. 482
9 of 23
Figure 5 - Heat Map of All Crashes
Figure 6 - Heat Map of Injury Crashes
What are common crash types?

7.A
Packet Pg. 483
10 of 23
The safety analysis looked at the primary collision factors contributing to crashes as determined by investigating officers at a crash scene. At intersections, the most significant primary collision factor for injury crashes is failure to yield to an automobile’s right-of-way. In examining trends for right-of-way violations, the following preceding movements resulted in collisions:
• Vehicle-Vehicle: The most common scenario involves two vehicles proceeding straight. These movements are typical for broadside crashes. Other common scenarios include a vehicle proceeding straight colliding with a vehicle making a left turn, vehicle proceeding straight into a stopped vehicle. • Vehicle-Pedestrian: The dominant movement preceding the crash is a vehicle making a left turn into a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. • Vehicle Bicyclists: The most common motor vehicle movement involved in these crashes was making a right turn, making a left turn, and proceeding straight, while the bicycle was proceeding straight in all instances.

Unsafe speed is a collision factor second only to right-of-way violations. Among the 31 serious injury crashes, 3% were associated with speeding, a lower proportion compared to minor injury crashes and property damage only. This trend is atypical, as most crash analyses show a positive correlation between speed and injury severity. Out of the 836 crashes analyzed, only 48 (5%) were related to impairment, a small factor of the overall crashes. Similarly, “inattention” (distracted driving) is a small factor resulting in crashes on Santa Monica Boulevard. At intersections, the most significant primary collision factor for injury crashes is failure to yield to an automobile’s right of way. For injury crashes occurring at midblock locations, improper turning and unsafe speeds are the most common primary collision factors.

Given the safety analysis’ focus of vulnerable road users and severe injury crashes, the analysis includes a list of intersections organized by weighted crash severity. This weighting exercise serves as a reference for selecting safety improvements at intersections but is not the sole determining factor since some intersections may have more desirable destinations, greater community feedback, or opportunities to actualize roadway improvements.

Community Engagement and Interdepartmental Coordination

7.A
Packet Pg. 484
11 of 23
Community engagement for the Safety Study kicked off last October with an event at the Santa Monica Main Library called “Light Up the Night.” This community touchpoint was coordinated with support from library staff and in tandem with the library’s trick or treat event which drew participants from throughout Santa Monica. The event used two interactive “beacons” where community members could discuss priorities for the study and leave comments on a map. Participants were asked, “what would you like to see more of along Santa Monica Boulevard?” and were encouraged to choose one of four improvement categories: Safer Crossings, Safer Vehicle Movements, Improved Sidewalks, or Something Else. During a three-week period, 208 comments were placed on the beacons and Safer Vehicle Movements was the most popular improvement, followed by Safer Crossings. Lincoln Boulevard, Ocean Avenue, and 3rd Street were the most mentioned cross-streets on the map, likely due to the event taking place in Downtown. A full summary can be found in Attachment E.

The second community touchpoint included a walking audit of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Hosted in tandem with Providence Saint John’s Health Center, the audit invited 20 community members to observe and document behaviors of people using Santa Monica Boulevard. The major feedback included the need to Make Crossing Safer though the introduction of refuge islands and new or upgraded crosswalks, Improve Signal Timing for Pedestrians though leading pedestrian intervals, Further Separate Cars from Pedestrians through buffer spaces, and Design for Slower Vehicle Speeds using signage or narrowing of travel lanes. A full summary can be found in Attachment F.

The third major engagement tool utilized included an online interactive map where community members could provide location-specific comments on safety issues they experienced on Santa Monica Boulevard. Over 350 comments were received from October 2024 to April 2025, with the top three categories being Difficult Crossings, followed by Something Else, which included many comments about cleanliness, bicycle facilities, and consideration for bus only lanes, and Speeding as a concern on Santa Monica Boulevard.

On May 7, 2025, the project team presented an update to the City’s Planning Commission and received feedback on the progress of the safety study. Commission members expressed a desire to prioritize improving crossing conditions and pedestrian safety along the corridor, noting examples of key intersections they found difficult to

7.A
Packet Pg. 485
12 of 23
navigate. Generally, the Commission expressed support for the project and overall approach.

Aside from the community touchpoints, the study was promoted through multiple methods including, but not limited to, door-to-door canvassing on the corridor (reaching over 260 businesses), postcard mailings to residents and businesses along Santa Monica Boulevard (10,000 in total), in-person business outreach, presentations to three neighborhood associations, and pop-up tabling at events such as the Downtown Farmer’s market, Douglas Park, and at McKinley Elementary School during their Multicultural Day event. Throughout the process, the community was able to obtain project information on a dedicated City webpage and provide comments via email. The final community touchpoint will be an open-house meeting to be held this summer along the corridor, where residents can review and comment on draft safety recommendations.

Based on the findings of the Safety Analysis and the feedback received from the community through the engagement process, the study team has developed safety recommendations that address identified crash patterns and community concerns, especially improving pedestrian crossings and limiting vehicle-pedestrian conflicts along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Draft Recommendations
As part of the safety walk audits, the community engagement feedback, and lessons learned from the Wilshire Safety Study project, the project team identified three categories for improvements: 1) systemic safety needs that can be applied corridorwide, 2) focus intersection recommendations, and 3) transit improvements.

Systemic Recommendations
Systemic recommendations would include the installation of low- to moderate-cost countermeasures at locations with a high risk of severe crashes. These improvements include:
• Consistent pavement markings and signage,
• Right-Turn-Only-Restrictions from side streets at unsignalized intersections, • Bicycle crossing improvements such as bike detection and carrying bike lanes through intersections,

7.A
Packet Pg. 486
13 of 23
• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPIs), and
• Signal timing coordination at all signalized intersections that will help mitigate congestion and ensure speed limit adherence (with a particular focus on the segment between 20th and 26th streets).

These recommendations are common in Santa Monica, and staff would utilize striping, signage, and bollards to implement in the near term.

Focus Intersection Recommendations
In addition to the systemic recommendations, the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study would include unique concept-level plans for 15 focus intersections to address their specific conditions. Focus intersections were identified by factoring their unique crash history and weighted crash severity rank, geometric conditions, proximity to community resources, project team observations, and community input. The recommended 15 focus intersections include:
• 6th Street
• Lincoln Boulevard
• 10th Street
• 11th Street
• 14th Street
• 15th Street
• 16th Street
• 18th Street
• 19th Street
• 20th Street
• Chelsea Ave
• 26th Street
• Princeton Street
• Stanford Street
• Franklin Street
Figure 7- Focus Intersection Locations

7.A
Packet Pg. 487
14 of 23
For the purposes of this study session, the project team has outlined initial draft recommendations for five focus intersections (Attachment G). Similar design concepts and recommendations could be applied at other focus intersections as described below:
• 6th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is an important node in Downtown and near community anchors including the Main Library, the Santa Monica Family YMCA, and many businesses. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, 6th Street ranked number 12 for weighted crash severity and received a high number of comments throughout the engagement process. There are also key bicycle and bus routes at this intersection and high pedestrian traffic.

Considering this, a scramble intersection is recommended at this location along with a “no right turn on red” prohibition to separate movements between pedestrians and drivers. Implementing these treatments gives pedestrians an exclusive signal phase to cross the street without the presence of vehicles entering the intersection, and crossings can be completed diagonally across an intersection. These improvements will be further studied for traffic impacts and could apply to the following intersections:
a. 2
nd Street
b. 4
th Street
c. 5
th Street
d. 6
th Street
e. 7
th Street
f. 20th Street

7.A
Packet Pg. 488
15 of 23
• 10th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a two-way stop-controlled intersection with no marked crosswalk. This location is adjacent to the Santa Monica College Performing Arts Center and small businesses. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, 10th Street ranked number 10 for weighted crash severity and generated a high number of comments throughout the engagement process. Crash history at this intersection includes two pedestrian crashes (one injury and one severe injury) for people crossing Santa Monica Boulevard.

Considering this, a new crosswalk, flashing beacons, and curb extensions are recommended at the west leg of the intersection to support crossing Santa Monica Boulevard. Flashing beacons alert drivers to yield to pedestrians crossing the street, while curb extensions reduce crossing distances and increase visibility of people at corners. As stated in the community engagement efforts, improving pedestrian crossings ranks as the highest priority for residents. To minimize conflicts with turning vehicles, a right turn only requirement from the side streets is also recommended. These improvements will be further studied and could be applied to the following intersections that do not currently have marked crosswalks:
a. 10th Street
b. 12th Street
c. 19th Street
d. Chelsea Avenue (would warrant additional analysis for a pedestrian signal)
e. Harvard Street
f. Stanford Street
g. Franklin Street
Figure 8 - New Pedestrian Crossings

7.A
Packet Pg. 489
16 of 23
• 11th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a signalized intersection with class 2 bike lanes in the northbound and southbound approaches, and a pair of bus stops. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, 11th Street ranked number 11 for weighted crash severity. While the project team does not currently recommend bicycle facilities on Santa Monica Boulevard considering Broadway (one block south) will have separated bike lanes with an estimated construction date of March 2027, and Arizona Avenue (one block north) currently has green bike lanes, bicycle crossings through key intersections are recommended to support the bikeway network at the following locations:
a. 11th Street
b. 14th Street
c. Yale Steet
Locations with bikeways in Downtown are recommended for pedestrian scramble markings and not bikeway markings. The team also recommends relocating the eastbound bus stop at 11th Street to the far side of the intersection to improve safety.

Relocating bus stops to the far side is recommended at the following additional intersections:
a. 14th Street
b. Berkeley Street
Figure 9 - New Bikeway Crossing Improvements

7.A
Packet Pg. 490
17 of 23
• 18th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is an unsignalized intersection with a marked crosswalk and flashing beacon at the west leg of the intersection. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, 18th Street ranked number 8 for weighted crash severity and the safety analysis shows many vehicle crashes at this intersection occur with vehicles proceeding through from the side streets, resulting in broadside injury crashes. Considering the existing crosswalk and flashing beacon, the team recommends curb extensions to shorten the crossing distance for people walking, as well as right turn only prohibition from the side streets to minimize conflicts with turning or through vehicle movements. As stated in the community engagement efforts, improving pedestrian crossings ranks as the highest priority for residents. These improvements will be further studied and could be applied to other intersections with existing marked crosswalks, including:
a. 9
th Street
b. Euclid Street
c. 15th Street
d. 16th Street
e. 18th Street
f. Princeton Street
• Stanford Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a two-way stop-controlled intersection with no marked crosswalk. During our walk audits and engagement

7.A
Packet Pg. 491
18 of 23
with local businesses, the team observed pedestrians crossing at this intersection. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, Stanford Street ranked number 24 for weighted crash severity and the safety analysis shows many vehicle crashes at this intersection occur with vehicles proceeding through from the side streets, resulting in broadside injury crashes. Considering this, a new crosswalk, flashing beacons, and a pedestrian refuge island located in the median is recommended at the east leg of the intersection to support crossing Santa Monica Boulevard. As stated in the community engagement efforts, improving pedestrian crossings ranks as the highest priority for residents, and pedestrian refuge islands help shorten crosswalk distances. While unsignalized intersections in the western portion of Santa Monica Boulevard are recommended for curb extensions, they are not proposed here as they would exclude the possibility of a curbside bus only lane on the eastern end of the corridor. The refuge island also impacts left turns from Santa Monica Boulevard which will be further studied and presented for community feedback. To minimize conflicts with turning vehicles, a right turn only requirement from the side streets is also recommended. These improvements could also be applicable to the following wide intersections at the eastern end of the project area:
a. Princeton Street
b. Harvard Street
c. Stanford Street
d. Franklin Street
Figure 10 - Pedestrian Crossing Improvements to Shorten Crossing Distances

7.A
Packet Pg. 492
19 of 23
These focus intersection recommendations are applicable to many other intersections throughout Santa Monica Boulevard and the Safety Study will provide recommendations for all intersections that warrant specific treatments. Recommendations for some intersections will require further study to ensure feasibility, namely:
• Chelsea Avenue – Study of a new crosswalk and appropriate safety countermeasures (i.e. flashing beacons, pedestrian signal, or traffic signal). • Lincoln Boulevard – Study of signal timing adjustments and potential bus queue jumps.
• 20th Street – Study of signal timing and pedestrian improvements for this high pedestrian area (could include scramble intersection).

Transit Improvements
Through the public engagement process the project team received comments about improving transit safety, reliability, and frequency on the corridor. The safety analysis also looked at transit performance for Big Blue Bus (BBB) Route 1 and Metro Line 4, both of which travel the extent of Santa Monica Boulevard. Headways for BBB Route 1 are scheduled for ten minutes at every stop. Route 1 experiences average speeds of 9 to 14 MPH, but generally experiences slower speeds from 20th Street to Cloverfield Boulevard during the AM and PM peak hours when compared to the rest of the corridor speeds, sometimes as low as 4-7 MPH in the eastbound direction. This route also experiences slower speeds in the Downtown area near the existing transit plaza. Metro Line 4 experiences consistent speeds of 10 to 15 MPH, although there are fewer bus

7.A
Packet Pg. 493
20 of 23
stops for Metro Line 4 (10 stops) compared to BBB Route 1 (25 stops), on Santa Monica Boulevard. Ridership data collected for both routes shows Downtown stops have the highest ridership, particularly at 6th Street and 4th Street. For BBB Route 1, the stops at 26th Street, 20th Street, and 14th Street also experience a high number of boardings and alightings compared to other stops on Santa Monica Boulevard.

Considering this project’s focus is examining traffic safety, the transit analysis is limited in scope, but the study will include a traffic analysis to better manage overall traffic flow, which impacts transit service. Safety-related transit improvement recommendations for Santa Monica Boulevard could include the relocation of bus stops from the near side to the far side of the intersection at the following locations:
• 11th Street
• 14th Street
• Berkeley Street
Relocating the bus stop to the far side of the intersection can improve pedestrian safety since it eliminates the sight distance restriction caused by the bus at intersections. For bus stops at nearside locations that cannot move far side due to existing conflicts (driveways, etc.), queue jumps are recommended. Queue jumps allow buses to bypass congested traffic at intersections, reducing delays and improving transit reliability.

Queue jumps are recommended at:
• Lincoln Boulevard
• 26th Street
Figure 11 - Bus Stop Improvements

7.A
Packet Pg. 494
21 of 23
During the engagement process, the project team also received community feedback supporting bus-only lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard. Caltrans will be installing peakhour bus only lanes in the next few years on Santa Monica Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles starting at Centinela Avenue, just east of the Santa Monica city limits.

Meanwhile, the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) has initiated a project to analyze the implementation of bus-only lanes on key corridors in the region, including Santa Monica Boulevard. Considering this, the safety study could incorporate recommendations for bus-only lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard – especially for a curb-side design. This allows buses to travel along the curbside lane to efficiently pick up and drop off at existing bus stops during peak commuting hours without sharing travel lanes with vehicles. The City has recent examples of curbside peak-hour bus-only lanes along Lincoln Boulevard from Pico Boulevard south to the city limits, where onstreet parking is prohibited from 7 AM to 9 AM in the northbound direction, and from 4 PM to 7 PM in the southbound direction, Monday through Friday. Because right of way widths vary throughout Santa Monica Boulevard, a similar curb-side design bus-only lanes could be implemented from the city limit (Centinela Avenue) to 26th Street. This would be a natural extension of the Caltrans bus-only lanes being installed in the City of L.A., and where there is currently on-street parking and a sufficiently wide street profile (see Figure 12). Extending the bus-only lane further west would warrant additional study to fully understand the constraints and tradeoffs, like parking loss and traffic impacts caused by travel lane reductions. The safety recommendations for focus intersection locations described above are designed to ensure that safety improvements do not preclude the potential for curbside bus-only lanes on the eastern segment of Santa Monica Boulevard between 26th Street and Centinela Boulevard as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12 - Street Widths along Santa Monica Boulevard

7.A
Packet Pg. 495
22 of 23
Next Steps
The safety study is on track to be completed in early 2026 and the project team is currently planning an open house style community workshop in August 2025 to showcase draft recommendations and collect final input from the community for the potential tradeoffs with improving safety along Santa Monica Boulevard. The project team will develop the plan for Council adoption in March 2026. Like the implementation of the Wilshire Safety Study, the anticipated rollout of the plan will take a phased approach. Once adopted, the plan will be leveraged to pursue various grant funding opportunities to implement the plan’s concept level recommendations, which would also require a separate in-depth design process before construction. There is no current funding identified to construct the recommended safety improvements at this time.

Environmental Review
This study session of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study is not a “project” subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the project 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”. No actions or projects are being approved as part of this Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include general policy and procedure making. Furthermore, the safety study is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15252 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) which exempts feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not

7.A
Packet Pg. 496
23 of 23
approved, adopted, or funded. The study identifies safety enhancements through analysis and outreach. Implementation of the improvements identified in the study would be subject to future environmental review and approval. Therefore, the study session is exempt pursuant to Section 15262.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no financial impact as funding for this study has been secured through a Council adopted resolution on November 14, 2023, accepting a grant award in the amount of $522,327 from the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant Program, with a local match of $67,673 from Transportation Impact Fees (TIF - C1008880.689000).

Considering that this project is a study, staff will return to City Council upon securing additional grant funding to construct the recommendations in this project. Local funding sources may need to be used as a match.

Prepared By: Carlos Hernandez, Senior Transportation Planner - Bicycle Program
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Vision Zero Plan
B. Attachment B - Local Roadway Safety Plan
C. Attachment C - Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study Grant Resolution D. Attachment D - Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Analysis Memo E. Attachment E - Touchpoint 1 Summary
F. Attachment F - Touchpoint 2 Summary
G. Attachment G -Draft Concept Plans for Focus Intersections H. Written Comments
I. PowerPoint Presentation

7.A
Packet Pg. 497
Study Intersection #1
Santa Monica Boulevard Safety
Enhancement Study
Concept #1 - 6th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING PARKLET EXISTING CURB RAMP EXISTING BUS STOP KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE 6TH ST

OCEAN AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
10TH ST
11TH ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST

CHELSEA AVE
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

STANFORD ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA BLVD
N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 40
21ST ST
22ND ST IMPROVEMENTS SOUTHLAND CREDIT UNION GOODWILL SANTA MONICA PUBLIC LIBRARY TAR & ROSES INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE PHASE WITH DIAGONAL CROSSING NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED EX. PARKLET
DRAFT

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 498
Attachment: Attachment G -Draft Concept Plans for Focus Intersections (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 Study Intersection #3 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concept #1 - 10th Street KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE 6TH ST

OCEAN AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
10TH ST
11TH ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST

CHELSEA AVE
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

STANFORD ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA BLVD
21ST ST
22ND ST IMPROVEMENTS CLASSIC TILE AND FLOORING INC. MEIS ARCHITECTS LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING CURB RAMP DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED CURB RAMP 40 IMPROVEMENTS CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) SMC OFFICES SMC PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PARKING PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) DRAFT

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: Attachment G -Draft Concept Plans for Focus Intersections (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) Study Intersection #4
Santa Monica Boulevard Safety
Enhancement Study
Concept #1 - 11th Street KEY MAP
6TH ST

OCEAN AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
10TH ST
11TH ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST

CHELSEA AVE
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

STANFORD ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA BLVD
21ST ST
22ND ST IMPROVEMENTS SANTA MONICA AUDI PARTS DEPARTMENT KIA SANTA MONICA STOKES TIRE SERVICE N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING CURB RAMP EXISTING BUS STOP PROPOSED BUS STOP RELOCATION 40 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI'S) RELOCATE BUS STOP TO FARSIDE BIKE LANE CONFLICT STRIPING ACROSS INTERSCTION BIKE LANE MODIFICATIONS (MINOR STREET) SMC PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PARKING PROPOSED CURB RAMP RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) DRAFT

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: Attachment G -Draft Concept Plans for Focus Intersections (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) Study Intersection #8
Santa Monica Boulevard Safety
Enhancement Study
Concept #1 - 18th Street KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE
6TH ST

OCEAN AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
10TH ST
11TH ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST

CHELSEA AVE
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

STANFORD ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA BLVD
21ST ST
22ND ST IMPROVEMENTS MIDWAY CAR RENTAL BRENTWOOD HONDA DEALER VACANT LOT HONDA PRE-OWNED VEHICLES N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 NOT TO SCALE 40 CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING CURB RAMP DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED CURB RAMP RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) DRAFT

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: Attachment G -Draft Concept Plans for Focus Intersections (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) X Study Intersection #15 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concept #1 - Stanford Street KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE 6TH ST

OCEAN AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
10TH ST
11TH ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
18TH ST
19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST

CHELSEA AVE
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

STANFORD ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE SANTA MONICA BLVD
22ND ST IMPROVEMENTS MAJOR MOTOR CARS BUNDA FITNESS CENTER DAYS INN N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 NOT TO SCALE 40 NEW PEDESTRIAN REFUGE PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) NEW RAISED MEDIAN LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING CURB RAMP DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED CURB RAMP RAISED MEDIAN LITTLE LUNCH / OFFHAND COFFEE WINE EXPO SANTA MONICA SCHOOL OF DANCE AND MUSIC NEW STRIPED MEDIAN RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) DRAFT

7.A.g
Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: Attachment G -Draft Concept Plans for Focus Intersections (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

As a Santa Monica resident, I want our streets to be safe and accessible for all modes of transportation, and I want us to reach our Vision Zero goals. While I appreciate the improvements proposed in this plan, it falls short of what’s truly needed.

As someone who lives at the intersection of Santa Monica Blvd and 15th St, I deal with the dangers and hostility of SM Blvd on a daily basis and have witnessed many crashes just on my block. And as someone who does not have the option to drive, it is very clear that the street I live off of isn’t meant to welcome me or anybody else outside of a car, either they’re walking, cycling, using a mobility device, taking transit,… despite providing access to a school, a library, parks, businesses, and many homes.

The improvements that are being proposed would improve this experience in some spots, but they would not make SM Blvd a safe corridor. It would continue to be a deadly, unwelcoming, and polluting corridor.

Many of you are in the position that you’re in because you care about the safety, accessibility, and enjoyability of our city. So does the staff working on these projects. Yet, we’re once again finding ourselves falling short of our ambitions. Just as fatal and severe injury crashes have continued to happen on Wilshire Blvd after similar changes were made, they will continue to happen on Santa Monica Blvd unless we make meaningful changes to this corridor. And while I cannot claim to be an engineer or have more knowledge than our hard-working and qualified staff, I know that we can and should do better as a city, which may require shifting priorities or rethinking our processes. This is a study. This means we should be in a position to evaluate all possible safety improvements, and yet, we’re choosing to be timid and to limit the scope of what’s possible.

The 435 injury crashes that occurred between 2015 and 2024 should not be brushed under the rug. It is your duty to implement the solutions that already exist. While resources may be limited, we must rethink how we tackle the traffic violence crisis that is affecting our community. The status quo isn’t working.

Thank you,
Caro Vilain
90404
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Ramon Batista; Elaine Polachek
Subject: Re: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Adding to the list of things that seem more important than hectoring cyclists instead of dealing with dangerous motorists, I find it hard to believe SMPD is so severely understaffed that they haven't had a chance to replace this temp license plate at any point since it expired six years ago. That first year it was expired was even before COVID. Yet I spotted them driving around like this just a few minutes ago coming out of Andrew's Cheese Shop.

When PD behaves like this it sends a very clear signal to other motorists that it's okay for them to do the same.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 3 Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 4 On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 8:51 AM Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

Just as fatal and severe injury crashes have continued to happen on Wilshire Blvd after similar changes were made, they will continue to happen on Santa Monica Blvd unless we make meaningful changes to this corridor.

I urge you to take our Vision Zero commitment seriously and to strive for more than spot improvements on this corridor, such as bus lanes that would make it safer and more accessible, improve emergency response, and help us reach our Vision Zero and sustainability goals. Council should also reject counterproductive recommendations contained in the agenda packet, such as the Nelson/Nygaard recommendation that "Bicycle and scooter crashes are overrepresented in serious injury crashes (55%) compared to all crashes (20%), and therefore safety improvements should support these users, including educational efforts to address high risk scooter and bike behaviors." Bicycle and scooter riders are overrepresented because when bad motorist behavior and bad street design causes a Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 5 collision, the party not encased in thousands of pounds of steel is going to take the brunt of the collision!
A bicycle or scooter rider being hit by this illegally lifted truck would show up as a "serious injury crash involving a bicycle/scooter". Are we really going to say that the problem is the behavior of the bicycle/scooter rider?
What about when the bike lane is illegally blocked? Surely the effort should be an education and enforcement effort until motorists learn to stop doing this. But I suspect that instead Nelson/Nygaard would consider the cyclist exiting the bike lane due to the illegal blockage "a high risk cyclist behavior".

But unfortunately PD loves to park in the bike lanes too.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 6 And while we're here, cyclists and scooter riders are not the ones illegally plowing through the K71s to make illegal left turns in/out of the downtown parking structures.

Thank you,
Jason
90403
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 7 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
As a Santa Monica resident just a block away from SM Blvd, I'm generally very supportive of making safety improvements there. Virtually every time I cross it there's a car not paying attention, speeding by, ignoring crosswalks, or cutting off the bus. I was extremely optimistic about the results of this safety study, but frankly I'm pretty disappointed with it.

To start off simply, why weren't bus lanes even considered? You, the city council, provided explicit direction by unanimously approving Item 16.E of the February 2025 meeting. Aligning with WSCCOG's initiative for BRT is such an obvious step for this study and we've lost yet another opportunity to move towards the vision that you directed. Even as transit advocates, my wife is fed up waiting in traffic as she sits on the BBB 1 every day. Why are we letting the solution to traffic be stuck in traffic?!? More broadly, this study seems to be going down the same path that has routinely failed so many in this city for previous projects. Despite being a year away from our "Vision Zero", fatal and severe injuries continue to be a regular part of everyday life. The recent changes to Wilshire Blvd were very similar to what is being proposed, yet we have continued to have multiple incidents along there, including fatalities. Repeating that project would be a clear statement that the city is still happy with "Vision Many".

More specifically, the proposed right turn only treatments shown for 10th and 18th street are a great example of how we haven't learned. Those treatments along Broadway and elsewhere are constantly ignored by drivers who still have ample room to continue putting other road users at risk. The Stanford street option is slightly better, but incidents like at Ocean Park & 3rd in April show that's not enough either.

There are too many residents and businesses suffering along SM Blvd for it to continue to be such a hostile environment. We must BE BOLD to prioritize people over cars and stop kicking the can down the road with such a blurry vision.

I hope we do better,
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Melissa Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:01 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: Support for 7A

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and City Council Members, I’m writing to express my strong support for Staff’s recommendations for Agenda Item 7A (Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study).

I’ve lived in Santa Monica since 1980. I’ve always been a walker. In those 4+ decades, I’ve logged more than 41,000 miles on Santa Monica’s sidewalks.

Walking keeps me connected with Santa Monica’s diverse and vibrant neighborhoods and has given me a familiarity with the evolution of the commercial boulevards that support and link them. However, I have had to learn which streets and intersections to avoid in order to maintain my safety. My safety – and that of my fellow pedestrians who walk for pleasure, for health, to shop, to get to work, and get their kids safely to school – has diminished.

That is why I am thrilled to see meaningful pedestrian improvements on the table. We pedestrians acknowledge that enforcement is scant to non-existent and understand that it merely solves the pedestrian safety problem one bad driver at a time. With your commitment to those tangible improvements, we will be able to depend on tested infrastructure solutions to provide a secure and predictable environment for pedestrians.

I applaud the exhaustive work of City staff and consultants to bring these solutions to the table tonight.

Many thanks,
Melissa Sweeney
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Anuj Gupta; Colleen E. Stoll; Jason Kligier; [email protected]
Subject: Support for Agenda item 7a Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Attachments: 2025-06 CC Agenda Item 7a Support SM Blvd Safty Study-SM Spoke SaMoSSA .pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council Members:

On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance please find attached our letter supporting staff recommendations for Agenda Item 7A: Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study. We appreciate the tremendous amount of data and analysis collected and included in the report as well as the high level of community engagement and outreach that got us to this point. We are look forward to seeing these safety improvements implemented expeditiously as we know they will help reduce vehicle/pedestrian/bike/vehicle conflicts and make our streets safer for everyone. --
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.

Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.

June 10, 2025

RE: Support for Agenda item 7a Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council Members:

On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance we support staff recommendations and the supporting documentation for Agenda Item 7A: Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study.

We appreciate the tremendous amount of data and analysis collected and included in the report as well as the high level of community engagement and outreach that we participated in –and helped to support– that included bilingual community surveys & outreach, a walk audit on the corridor as well as targeted engagement on and adjacent to the corridor with businesses along with engagement of McKinley school and parents.

We are excited to see safety improvements, which we know reduce vehicle/pedestrian/bike/vehicle conflicts, with the implementations that include proven safety of restricting right turns at 13 intersections, and 3 additional diagonal crossing intersections, (note: please limit vehicle right turns during pedestrian phase to make these true scrambles) along with pedestrian improvements that include curb extension, and refuge islands. We look forward to seeing the flexibility of more pedestrian improvements to come as outlined.

Bikeway markings crossing intersections is an awaited safety improvement that we are pleased to see finally realize.

We are also very pleased to see the bus travel timing improvements – with far side stop relocation and cue jumps. We appreciate and highlight that the implementations east of 26th Street leave room for the potential and phased implementation of bus only lanes. We understand that those would and should require a broader study of the potential impacts of pushing current vehicle commute traffic to adjacent parallel neighborhood (bike lane) streets. Broadway and Arizona are already burdened during commute times and could be further impacted if we were to propose the required removal of a travel lane to add a bus only lane on the corridor. We need to study the required mode shift to better understand viability. Robust and targeted collecting of data would be needed on the required level of mode shift along the corridor in conjunction with inter-jurisdictional coordination to explore treatments to improve bus travel times before reducing traffic lanes and the potential of pushing traffic onto adjacent neighborhood streets. These narrow neighborhood streets could become vulnerable to increased traffic on corridors where bikes currently enjoy a level of priority.* The Santa Monica Blvd. Safety improvements move us closer to an envisioned network of safer streets, not only supporting Santa Monica’s Vision Zero and the Climate Action and Adaptability Plan but also our environmental sustainability goals to reduce traffic volumes and encourage walking, biking and transit use by increasing safety and comfort on all corridors in Santa Monica and creating neighborhood connectivity to local destinations and schools. The message this project sends to current and future generations is that climate actions are made real with climate-sensible infrastructure for a resilient present and future while ensuring safe pedestrian movement for the most vulnerable road user. These Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) proposed safety improvements have the ability to reinforce our collective community and city commitment for a more environmentally sustainable and resilient future where everyone has safe and easy access to public transit, and choices for healthy, active mobility to walk, bike or roll for recreation and for their daily needs.

Improving street safety for all road users and bus travel times is key and helps create a more diverse, equitable and safe transportation system. We support these first steps and thank staff and the consultants for their work.

We trust the council will move swiftly and vote to move this proposal forward expeditiously - the safety of our community and everyone who visits Santa Monica –indeed our lives– are at stake.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
*Notes:

See Strategies to Increase Big Blue Bus Ridership by
Improving Travel Times and this Study by Streets For
All on bus delays where they recommend prioritizing bus lanes on SM Blvd in Los Angeles but show zero delays in Santa Monica. We acknowledge that there are
possibly some delays in SM during peak - various data
sources indicate no substantial delays.

LUCE:

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 8:27 PM
To: Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Caroline Torosis
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study from Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets[Item 7A]
Attachments: SMFFSS Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,The draft recommendations presented in the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety study are an essential step, but they feel too limited and reactive. They focus on spot improvements and minor fixes at problem intersections rather than embracing a broader vision for Santa Monica Boulevard as a safe, accessible, and vibrant corridor for everyone. The attached letter highlights some additional actions we think the Council should give staff as direction.

Sincerely,
Eli Gill, Juan Matute, Sirinya Matute, Boris Suchkov, and Caro Vilain Co-Founders of Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) June 9, 2025
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
The draft recommendations presented in the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety study are an essential step, but they feel too limited and reactive. They focus on spot improvements and minor fixes at problem intersections rather than embracing a broader vision for Santa Monica Boulevard as a safe, accessible, and vibrant corridor for everyone. This letter highlights some additional actions we think the Council should give staff as direction.

A holistic approach is needed to reimagine Santa Monica Blvd as a thoroughfare that serves all residents and visitors. The city should support a safe and people-friendly Santa Monica Blvd along its entire length, with foot traffic that can help businesses not just downtown, but along the whole length of the street. This can be done by treating the root causes of what the study already identified: speeding, especially in the eastern sections of the street; unsafe crossings; and lack of transit and bicycle access.

Create a New North-South Bike Option
Improving bicycle access is critical for the eastern part of Santa Monica Boulevard. The north-south bikeway map has a substantial gap between 17th St and Yale. Consider this opportunity to create a new north-south bikeway or bike-friendly street on Chelsea/Park Drive, as identified in the bike action plan’s bikeway network vision map.

Figure 2: Proposed Bikeway Crossing Improvements
1 Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) More Safety Interventions Needed East of Cloverfield and in College Streets Currently, the width of the street east of Cloverfield is nearly twice that of downtown. This excessive width encourages fast driving in an area that includes one of Santa Monica’s least advantaged elementary schools, making crossings dangerous.

Figure 1: Disparity in Street Width and Speeds
We appreciate the inclusion of the College Streets for the study of pedestrian crossing improvements (new crosswalk and flashing beacons) and ped refuge islands. But we are concerned that it does not go far enough. In a situation with multiple lanes in each direction, it remains stressful to cross - one car could stop, but then another passes it and hits a pedestrian crossing. And it’s still too challenging for children to navigate - a barrier that impacts the culture we aim to create, encouraging children to walk and bike independently to school.

Creating Safe Streets While Coordinating Regionally on Bus Lanes Thank you for preserving a bus lane option east of 26th Street. However, keeping the wide right-of-way for a bus lane will do little to slow the high existing travel speeds. The City’s study found that travel speeds between McKinley Elementary and the City limit routinely exceeded the speed limit by as much as 63%.

As an interim policy solution, the Council should direct the Director of the Santa Monica Department of Transportation to work with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to install an Automated Speed Enforcement System on Santa Monica Boulevard between Centinela and Bundy. This speed enforcement system will be a visible deterrent to operating 2 Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) vehicles at excessive speeds through the corridor. Assembly Bill 645 (2023) allows the City of Los Angeles to install and operate 125 automated speed enforcement systems throughout the city. The City of Santa Monica did not participate in the legislative process for AB 645 and cannot install its own speed enforcement systems.

Additionally, We are asking council further to direct the Director of the Department of Transportation to Monitor the legislative process for SB 720, which would allow a city to install a red light enforcement camera at intersections where data indicates that there is a heightened safety ris, which could include intersections in the segment between Cloverfield and Centinela Avenue. Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets, along with Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, are registered supporters of this bill. As of the date of this letter, the bill has cleared the Senate and is awaiting consideration in the Assembly.

Figure 4: Hardened Centerlines from NACTO Design Guide
In the Long term, please coordinate with the Westside Council of Governments on their priority bus corridors, which include Santa Monica Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard through Santa Monica.
3 Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) Figure 3: Westside COG Priority Bus Corridors Include Santa Monica Blvd Thank you for your attention to this critical opportunity to reshape Santa Monica Boulevard into a corridor that reflects our city’s values and future.

Sincerely,
Eli Gill, Juan Matute, Sirinya Matute, Boris Suchkov, and Caro Vilain Co-Founders of Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets

4 Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 5 Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 2 David Yakobson
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 3 What about when the bike lane is illegally blocked? Surely the effort should be an education and enforcement effort until motorists learn to stop doing this. But I suspect that instead Nelson/Nygaard would consider the cyclist exiting the bike lane due to the illegal blockage "a high risk cyclist behavior".

But unfortunately PD loves to park in the bike lanes too.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 4 And while we're here, cyclists and scooter riders are not the ones illegally plowing through the K71s to make illegal left turns in/out of the downtown parking structures.

Thank you,
Jason
90403
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Needs More
Attachments: WSCCOG Bus Corridors.jpg; WSCCOG MS Wilshire.png

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A. The proposed improvements to Santa Monica Boulevard fall far short of what is needed to meet our Vision Zero safety goals and ignore important regional mobility initiatives. As a MidCity resident, I am directly affected by this project and painfully aware of the failures of the recent Wilshire Boulevard improvements. I fear we are on the verge of repeating those same mistakes, and I’d like to point out what I believe are some of the most glaring omissions.

Wilshire’s Safety Failures
The recent tragedies on Wilshire are sobering reminders of how vulnerable pedestrians remain when crossing our streets.

While the changes may have improved safety for drivers, two critical elements remain missing for pedestrian safety: (1) slower vehicle speeds and (2) higher driver yield compliance at crosswalks.

Unfortunately, the proposed spot upgrades for Santa Monica Boulevard at unsignalized crossings mimic the designs used on Wilshire: curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, and Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). While wellintentioned, these measures have proven inadequate on our multi-lane arterials. Frankly, crossing Wilshire remains one of the most hostile, unpleasant, and dangerous parts of my daily life.

Missing Interventions: Raised Crossings and Intersections One key missing intervention is the use of raised crossings or raised intersections which can simultaneously reduce vehicle speeds and improve yield compliance. They function as gentle speed tables, naturally focus driver attention to the crossing, and encourage instinctive yielding by bringing drivers up to pedestrian level. Yield rates at raised crossings approach those of signalized intersections, but without the delay or congestion that signals can introduce.

When paired with the RRFBs, refuge islands, and curb extensions, raised crossings/intersections could make Santa Monica Boulevard truly safe to cross. They also more easily facilitate crosswalks on all four legs of an intersection, avoiding the current practice of forcing pedestrians to cross multiple legs of traffic to reach their destination.

Staff may raise concerns about drainage, or ironically claim that speeds and volumes are too high for raised crossings.

The Fire Department may cite a 6-second delay in response times. Yet cities that have successfully achieved Vision Zero routinely deploy raised crossings on major arterials. These challenges are solvable, and the tradeoffs are worth it.

Lane Widths Encourage Speeding
Even after the proposed changes, outer lane widths, especially at crossings, remain excessively wide, ranging from 13 to 20 feet. This design encourages speeding. To improve safety, lane widths should be narrowed to no more than 10.5 feet throughout the corridor. At the very least, edge lines should be implemented as an intervention where full narrowing is not feasible.

Pedestrian Scrambles and Signal Timing
I support the proposed pedestrian scrambles at 5th, 6th, 7th, and 20th Streets. However, it is essential to shorten signal cycle lengths to reduce pedestrian wait times. Compliance is low at existing scrambles like 4th & Colorado because the wait for a pedestrian phase is too long. This reflects a signal timing system designed for cars rather than people. I commend staff for including “No Turn on Red” provisions for the new scrambles, which is a necessary improvement that is missing from some current DTSM scrambles.

Chelsea Signal: Protecting a School Zone
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 2 At Chelsea Avenue, it is critical that the new signal at the park be either pedestrian- and bike-only or include a right-turnonly restriction for vehicles. Without these restrictions, the new signal will encourage more cut-through traffic near McKinley Elementary, particularly when combined with the upcoming signal at Chelsea and Wilshire.

Disregard for Regional Transit Plans
The 2020 WSCCOG Mobility Study, a SCAG-funded, data-driven, inter-jurisdictional study, included plans for bus lanes on Wilshire from Ocean to Centinela (Image Attached). Despite regional agreement (including from Santa Monica representatives), staff ignored these recommendations and made permanent infrastructure changes that now likely preclude implementation.

With Wilshire off the table, WSCCOG has again recommended new east-west bus lanes, this time for Santa Monica Blvd (Image attached). Yet again, it has been ignored in the City's proposal. Bus lanes not only improve transit performance, they also enhance safety for all road users, enable short segments of safe bicycle access to Santa Monica Blvd destinations, and support emergency vehicle access. It is essential that we implement these wherever feasible, even if it means travel or parking lane removal.

Other transit improvements
For non-bus lane transit improvement options, I would also like to see in-lane bus stops investigated in addition to the proposed far-side stops and queue-jumps. These have the added benefit of serving as mild traffic calming and create space for additional stop enhancements like improved shelters. Finally, 26th St should be a far-side stop.

This is an incredibly important opportunity to address one of our most dangerous roads, and I urge you to require more transformative changes to Santa Monica Blvd. The 435 injury crashes that occurred between 2015 and 2024 cannot be ignored, and we must implement the most effective solutions that exist.

Sincerely,
Connor Webb
90404
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study 1 David Yakobson
From: Auguste Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 11:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety so-called ‘Improvements’ , must go further

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
How this finds you well.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

Dedicated bus lanes and protected bike lanes make streetscapes safer for all road users. Also they make them more efficient, more sustainable, and more appealing to spend time around. No brainer:
these should be at the forefront of any design changes on SM Blvd.

As a Santa Monica adjacent resident, I want these streets to be safe and accessible for all modes of transportation, and I want us to reach Vision Zero goals. While I appreciate the improvements proposed in this plan, it falls short of what’s truly needed.

Right now when I ride BBB, bike down, or even walk SM Blvd I don’t feel safe.

Time to take action is now. We want results.

Thank you,
Auguste MILLER
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 2 David Yakobson
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 6:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Do More and Slow cars down for Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

Speed is the biggest issue here. Please direct staff to bring options that will reduce speeds to 20-25 mph throughout the corridor.

Thank you,
Eli Gill
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Christopher Michel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

Thank you,
Christopher Michel 90292
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Colin Warn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A – Santa Monica Blvd Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding item 7A.

As someone who uses the streets of Santa Monica often to walk and bike, I want our streets to be safe and accessible for all modes of transportation, and I want us to reach our Vision Zero goals. While I appreciate the improvements proposed in this plan, it falls short of what’s truly needed.

Thank you,
Colin Warn
90292
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 10:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A: Better Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Improvements

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding Item 7A.

As a Santa Monica resident, voter, parent, driver, biker, and pedestrian I want our streets to be safe and accessible for all modes of transportation, and I want us to reach our Vision Zero goals. While I appreciate the improvements proposed in this plan, it falls short of what’s truly needed.

Just as fatal and severe injury crashes have continued to happen on Wilshire Boulevard after similar changes were made, they will continue to happen on Santa Monica Boulevard unless we make meaningful changes to this corridor.

The 435 injury crashes that occurred between 2015 and 2024 should not be brushed under the rug.

It is your duty to implement the solutions that already exist. While resources may be limited, we must rethink how we tackle the traffic violence crisis that is affecting our community.

To that end, I ask for both bus lanes and protected, separate bike lanes on the length of the corridor.

Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2025

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SAFETY STUDY
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

PROJECT OVERVIEW
To establish and
understand the
context of the
corridor.

GATHER

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
INFO
SEEK

COMMUNITY

FEEDBACK
Using a
detailed and
data-driven
process.

Through a
robust public
outreach
process.

IDENTIFY

TARGETED
SAFETY

ENHANCEMENTS
Approach
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Downtown “Auto Row” Medical / School
Destinations
Small Businesses
Project Area
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) SAFETY ANALYSIS FINDINGS • Young people ages 16-25 are overrepresented in crashes (16% of all crashes
vs. 8% of City’s population).
• Seniors aged 66+ make up 23% of all pedestrians
involved in injury crashes
(19% of this age group in
Santa Monica).

Who is impacted?
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) SAFETY ANALYSIS FINDINGS • Right of Way violations are the primary collision factor. • Crashes occur most frequently at signalized intersections. • Injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections.

What are common crash types?
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Touchpoint #2:

Community Walk Audit
at St. John’s Health
Center in February.

Social Pinpoint:

Interactive map survey,
October - April 2025.

Touchpoint #3:

Future community
workshop planned for
September 2025.

Touchpoint #1:

Pop-up at Downtown
branch, OctoberNovember 2024.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings • Crashes occur most frequently at signalized intersections. • Injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections. • Pedestrians are overrepresented in serious injury crashes.
• Safer pedestrian crossings and safer vehicle movements are most desired by the community.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

IDENTIFY IMPROVEMENT TYPES
SAFETY

ANALYSIS

COMMUNITY

FEEDBACK
FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

LAND USE

DESTINATIONS
Stakeholder engagement

SYSTEMIC

IMPROVEMENTS
FOCUS

INTERSECTIONS

TRANSIT

IMPROVEMENTS

1. 2.

3. Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) Systemic Improvements
Installation of low- to moderate-cost
countermeasures at locations with the
highest risk of severe crashes. • Consistent pavement markings and signage. • Leading Pedestrian Intervals • Signal Timing Coordination (20th to 26th Street)
• Right turn only from side streets at all unsignalized intersections.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

FOCUS INTERSECTION IMPROVMENTS
Recommendations:
• New pedestrian scramble
intersection
• No Right Turn on Red restriction
6th St.

New Scramble Crosswalks:
• 5th St.
• 7th St.
• 20th St. (needs further study)
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

FOCUS INTERSECTION IMPROVMENTS
Recommendations:
• New crosswalk at west leg and
flashing beacons
• Curb Extensions
• Right turn only from side streets
10th St.

New Crosswalks:
• 12th St.
• 19th St.
• Chelsea Ave.
• Harvard St.
• Stanford St.
• Franklin St.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

FOCUS INTERSECTION IMPROVMENTS
Recommendations:
• Bike markings across the
intersection
• Far side bus stop relocation
11th St.

New Bike Crossings:
• 14th St.
• Yale St.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

FOCUS INTERSECTION IMPROVMENTS
Recommendations:
• Curb Extensions
• Right turn only from side streets
18th St.
• 9th St.
• Euclid St.
• 15th St.
• 16th St.
• Princeton St.

Improvements to Existing Crosswalks:

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

FOCUS INTERSECTION IMPROVMENTS
Recommendations:
• New crosswalk at east leg and
flashing beacon
• Ped Refuge Island at east leg
• Westbound left-turn restriction
• Right turn only from side streets
Stanford St.
• Princeton St.
• Harvard St.
• Franklin St.

New Crosswalk with Ped Refuge Islands:

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

FOCUS INTERSECTION IMPROVMENTS
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed Improvements
Far Side Relocation • Improves visibility of pedestrians at crosswalks.
• Minimizes right turn conflicts for vehicles. • Allows operators to merge into the travel lane. • Locations: 11th St. , 14th St., Berkley St.

Queue Jumps • Allows buses to bypass traffic at intersections. • Locations: Lincoln Blvd., 26th St.

Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session)

QUESTIONS
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025
Item 7-A
June 10, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6919 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study – Study Session) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 10, 2025
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 18
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Arminé Chaparyan, Director, Administration
Subject: Large Format Digital Signage Study Session
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that this study session is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act;

2. Authorize City staff to initiate negotiations with the applicant for the Development Agreements for new outdoor digital displays located at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade;

3. Provide direction to Staff regarding desired project parameters and approach to community benefits; and

4. Discuss the approach for future large-format digital signage with off-site advertising, including the adoption of an ordinance to establish a pilot program to limit this signage to the Third Street Promenade area.

Summary
The City has received two development agreement applications from UNITED XYZ LLC for the installation of new large format digital displays at two properties on the Third Street Promenade in the City’s Downtown. Since the City’s Municipal Code does not permit such large scale, digital billboards that displays off-site advertising, development agreements were submitted for the installation of these digital displays. The City first prohibited billboards and offsite advertising in 1985, and there are currently no static or digital billboards in the City. The proposed large scale, off-site digital displays would be a first for the City in many decades. Because of case law that has developed related to regulation of billboards and off-site advertising, approval of these digital displays will likely have broader policy implications with regard to future digital display applications that may be received by the City. Therefore, staff seeks Council direction on the

7.B
Packet Pg. 552
2 of 18
proposed development agreements with key considerations to the terms of the agreements, community benefits, and performance standards. As part of this discussion, staff also seeks feedback on a potential regulatory framework to inform staff’s preparation of more information about a large-scale digital signage program with legal and financial considerations and approaches for policy options, per Council’s October 22, 2024 direction. As the time of writing of this staff report, the City received a fourth development agreement (DA) application for a proposed large-format digital display at 1310 3rd St Promenade; this new application is in addition to the pending development agreement application for three digital displays at Santa Monica Place submitted in February 2024. Council’s direction at tonight’s study session will help inform processing of these proposed DAs.

Discussion
Signage in the City of Santa Monica is currently regulated under Chapter 9.61 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The City required the amortization of signs existing prior to April 11, 1985, that were not in conformance with the Sign Code, by April 11, 2000 including free-standing signs, and “off-premises” signs (i.e., off-site advertising) which would have included any billboards. As the end of the amortization period approached, the City created a Meritorious Sign program that allowed certain non-conforming signs to be preserved due to their historic, cultural, or aesthetic merit. In total, 115 signs were designated as meritorious signs by the City Council on March 22, 2000 and codified in SMMC Section 9.61.030.0280. The Sign Code continues to prohibit free-standing signs such as billboards and also prohibits offsite signage. In recent years, the signage regulations have been amended to accommodate advances in advertising technology, allow for flexibility and creativity in business signage on the Third Street Promenade, but did not expand to offsite advertising, and to support revenue opportunities for wayfinding signs in the public right-of-way, subject to a license agreement with the City.

On September 13, 2022, Council directed staff to explore establishing a large-format digital signage pilot program at Santa Monica Place that supports placemaking and stimulates economic recovery efforts in the Downtown. Council further directed that the pilot program include a public art component, community messaging and promotion of

7.B
Packet Pg. 553
3 of 18
Santa Monica, and be supported by a revenue-sharing content opportunity to support community programs and services. Subsequent to that direction, on February 7, 2024, Macerich submitted a DA application for digital displays at Santa Monica Place. Staff was in negotiations with Macerich on the DA until the application was paused in June 2024.

On January 10, 2023, Council adopted an Ordinance to award a franchise to BIG Outdoor for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a digital wayfinding and outof-home advertising kiosk network for a 20-year term, per the terms and conditions stated in the ordinance. The City initiated the Digital Wayfinding and Out-of-Home (OOH) Advertising Kiosk Program to provide interactive information to residents and visitors, enhance public safety via emergency capabilities, deliver community messaging, and generate revenue through advertising sales. The City and BIG Outdoor executed a franchise agreement, effective February 22, 2023 (the “Franchise Agreement”).

Additionally, on March 25, 2025, Council adopted an Emergency Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.61 to increase flexibility for signage in the Bayside Conservation District and Third Street Promenade to promote economic recovery. With the adoption of the IZO, animated signs, including digital display signs, are now permitted on a façade facing the Third Street Promenade. These animated signs are permitted only if they are on-site signage (i.e., advertisement that pertains solely to goods or services that are produced or offered on the premises where the advertisement is displayed). Furthermore, animated signage is limited in size to the area above the storefront.

In its ongoing efforts to promote economic recovery and growth within the Downtown District, the Council adopted an emergency ordinance to establish the Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone, on May 13, 2025. The establishment of this entertainment zone provides valuable opportunities for the City to also consider synergistic enhancements to its existing commercial signage on the Promenade.

7.B
Packet Pg. 554
4 of 18
Project Information
The first digital display (24ENT-0233) is proposed to be installed on the upper level façade of the existing commercial building at 301 Arizona Avenue/1253 3rd Street Promenade, at the northeast corner of 3rd Street and Arizona Avenue. This digital display would comprise approximately 820 sf of area, wrapping the corner of the building above the storefront. The display would be full motion, with LED and would provide for paid on-site and/or off-site advertising, curated art, and civic announcements.

Address 301 Arizona Avenue/1253 3rd Street Promenade
Parcel Size: 14,998 sf
Zoning District: Downtown – Bayside Conservation (BC)
Existing On-Site
Improvements:
31,560 sf four-story commercial building
Proposed Sign Type Attached corner wrap (southwest)

7.B
Packet Pg. 555
5 of 18
Proposed Sign
Dimensions
Varies across signage face (~ max 59’ 1” width x 16’ 5” height) Figure 1: Proposed Rendering of Digital Display at 301 Arizona The second digital display (25ENT-0021) is proposed to be installed on the upper level façade of the existing commercial building at 1202 Third Street Promenade, at the southwest corner of 3rd Street and Wilshire Boulevard. The existing building is a City designated Landmark originally constructed in the Late Moderne style. The digital display would comprise approximately 800 sf of area, wrapping the corner of the building above the storefront with the building tower still prominently visible. The display would be full motion, with LED and would provide for paid on-site and/or off-site advertising, curated art, and civic announcements.

Address: 1202 Third Street Promenade
Parcel Size: 14,990 sf
Zoning District: Downtown – Bayside Conservation (BC)

7.B
Packet Pg. 556
6 of 18
Existing On-Site
Improvements:
44,949 sf commercial building (City-designated Landmark) Proposed Sign Type Attached corner wrap (northeast)
Proposed Sign Dimensions ~ Max 56’ 4” width x 16’ height Figure 2: Proposed Rendering of Digital Display at 1202 3rd Street Staff seeks Council direction on the proposed development agreements with key considerations to the terms of the agreements, community benefits, and performance standards. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the City and an applicant that specify the design parameters, development standards, and requirements of a project. Development agreements provide some flexibility from the development standards of the Zoning Code in return for some level of public benefit. While a development agreement is an alternative to the standard development approval process; in practice, it is similar to other public review processes where Council makes the final decision. The Council has more discretion in imposing conditions and

7.B
Packet Pg. 557
7 of 18
requirements on the proposed project and since development agreements are negotiated contracts, both parties must agree to all terms. A development agreement is adopted by ordinance.

Financial Considerations
The installation of large format, digital displays on the Promenade provides a valuable opportunity to generate financial revenue for the City and to stimulate commercial activity in the City’s Downtown District. Other cities such as West Hollywood, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of San Jose have recently permitted digital displays within public rights-of-way and on private properties in exchange for financial benefits to the jurisdiction (see Attachment A of this report).

The City of West Hollywood, which currently allows for offsite signage and billboards, has a comprehensive off-site signage policy for Sunset Boulevard, with large digital signage permitted through development agreements. The development agreement grants the signage applicant the vested rights to construct and operate the digital billboard during the term of the agreement and in exchange, the City of West Hollywood receives a number of significant public benefits. Proposed billboards must demonstrate a high level of creativity and meet specific design excellence principles that are set forth in the Sunset Boulevard signage policy.

Similarly, on December 15, 2023, the City of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance to permit Metro’s Transportation Communication Network (TCN) digital display off-site signage project. The TCN project consists of digital displays on up to 49 Metro-owned sites. The TCN project is being implemented through an agreement between Metro and the City of Los Angeles that establishes revenue sharing on a 50/50 basis.

In San Jose, new digital displays are being implemented in a phased approach with the first phase focused on off-site signage on city-owned sites and the second phase directed at off-site signage that faces the freeway and in the downtown area. The first phase was approved on February 25, 2025, and would permit six digital displays on five

7.B
Packet Pg. 558
8 of 18
city-owned sites. In return, San Jose would receive between 30-33% of revenue with a minimum annual guarantee.

Digital billboard programs for signage that are located on public property generally generate more financial benefits due to site control by the public agency permitting the billboards. The applicant for the development agreements has proposed a 20% revenue-sharing structure along with a minimum annual guarantee to be paid according to a schedule:

Year(s) Min Annual
Guarantee
1 $500,000
2 $750,000
3-4 $850,000/yr
5-9 $935,000/yr
10-14 $1,028,500/yr
15-19 $1,131,350/yr
20-24 $1,244,485/yr
25-29 $1,368,933.50/yr
30-34 $1,505,826.85/yr
35-39 $1,656,409.54/yr
40-44 $1,822,050.49/yr
45-49 $2,004,255.54/yr
50-55 $2,204,681.09/yr
In addition to the revenue sharing and MAG, the applicant has proposed a one-time contribution ($500,000 per display) to be paid upon construction of the digital displays.

Staff seeks Council direction as to the financial benefits proposed by the project applicant.

Additionally, in reviewing the financial benefits of the proposed digital displays, Council should consider the potential for digital advertising oversaturation, particularly as it

7.B
Packet Pg. 559
9 of 18
relates to the Franchise Agreement between BIG Outdoor and the City. Under the Franchise Agreement, the City is entitled to a MAG of $5,000,000 per year during the 20-year term of the Franchise Agreement. The concept of advertising saturation implies that with increased investment in advertising, there will be a point where each additional dollar spent yields less return than the previous one. Therefore, the City is in the process of retaining a consultant to analyze the impacts, if any, on the digital kiosks.

Should Council direct staff to proceed with development agreement negotiations, Staff will engage an outside consultant with expertise in the digital signage market to conduct a valuation study of the proposed digital displays on the Third Street Promenade, including an analysis of their ability to generate a consistent revenue stream for the City.

Additionally, an assessment of the potential fiscal impact of new digital billboards on the City’s existing digital kiosk program will be conducted. The results of the valuation study and fiscal impact analysis will be utilized to inform the development agreement negotiations.

Community Content
Another community benefit for Council consideration is allocated display time for curated community content such as civic news, public service announcements, emergency notifications, Amber Alerts, community event updates, and/or cultural arts.

The City’s Arts Commission has expressed interest in utilizing the digital displays to showcase local artists and cultural programming. Although the City does not have the resources or dedicated staff for a digital arts program, Council could require that the digital billboard operator coordinate with the City for professionally curated art content as part of its responsibilities for ongoing programming and operation of signage.

The Council may also wish to consider allocating unsold ad time for the advertising of local businesses at a reduced cost. This provision would support the City’s Buy Local program to strengthen the local economy.

Other Considerations (Terms, Other Community Benefit Considerations)

7.B
Packet Pg. 560
10 of 18
Due to the high upfront cost associated with the installation of digital displays (minimum of $1,000,000 or more), digital display agreements from other cities typically have terms of 10 years or more. A longer-term agreement provides greater assurance of financial revenue for the City but commits the City to the digital billboard on the site(s) for the length of the agreement. The applicant has proposed a term of 55 years for both development agreements, which is the typical term required to ensure affordability for inclusionary units in new market rate development. The Franchise Agreement has a 20-year term.

As part of the agreements for digital billboards, cities have also required placemaking contributions and urban enhancements. For example, in the City of Santa Ana, operators of new digital billboards must provide landscaping to the property and removal of other static billboards to reduce visual clutter. Another option in lieu of physical improvements is funding for community beautification efforts such as open space or infrastructure improvements, or contributions to the Downtown Business Improvement District.

Furthermore, to ensure continued commercial vibrancy and presence on the site, a building occupancy threshold could be imposed to ensure that the building on which digital display is affixed will be predominantly occupied with tenants. The applicant for the proposed development agreement has proposed a ground floor occupancy of 50%.

Potential Issues or Concerns
Digital billboards are strictly regulated by other cities to address potential concerns associated with driver distraction and aesthetic impacts on nearby sensitive land uses.

Driver Distraction – One issue of concern regarding digital billboards is the potential for driver distraction, particularly for the portions of the displays that face cross streets to the Promenade (i.e. Wilshire Boulevard and Broadway). State law, through California Vehicle Code Section 21466.5, prohibits the display or maintenance of “any light of any color of such brilliance as to impair the vision of drivers upon the highway.” Excessive light, flashing/strobe effects, intense contrast, and scrolling text should be prohibited to minimize driver distraction. The applicant and City staff are aware of State law

7.B
Packet Pg. 561
11 of 18
requirements and would refine the proposal based on best practices employed by other examples of freeway-adjacent signage in the region.

Impacts on Sensitive Land Uses – While the Third Street Promenade is comprised of mostly commercial uses, there are some residential uses located on or near the Promenade that may have view of the proposed digital signage. Staff is commissioning a lighting study with a consultant to analyze the potential lighting impacts on these nearby sensitive uses. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that standards regulating illumination levels, contrast, and glare would be required to minimize potential effects.

First Amendment Considerations and Framework for Future Applications In 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1333 (CCS), adopting the City’s Sign Code, which, in part, prohibited offsite advertising, including billboards. Offsite advertising existing at the time of the Sign Code’s adoption could remain in place for an additional 15 years, but was required to be removed by 2000. Since that time, the prohibition on offsite advertising and billboards has remained in place. While the City generally has discretion with respect to land use and contracting decisions, signs are a form of expression protected by the free expression clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, which generally results in a higher level of scrutiny by courts.

Because digital billboards that display offsite advertising are protected First Amendment expression as commercial speech, courts will review content-neutral regulations on such digital billboards under the intermediate scrutiny test for commercial speech set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n (1980) 47 U.S. 557, 566.

This means that, upon legal challenge, a court will look to see whether: 1) the City has demonstrated a significant governmental interest in regulating digital billboards; 2) that the regulation directly advances the asserted government interest; and 3) the regulation is not more extensive than necessary. If the Council desires to move forward with permitting digital billboards that display offsite advertisements in the general Promenade area only, the Council could consider adopting an ordinance to create a pilot program that establishes a “sign district” delineating a geographical area around the Promenade that limit where digital billboards are allowed in the City. This would avoid potential citywide proliferation of digital signs while the City studies the effectiveness of digital billboards in the Promenade area. Should the Council not desire to limit the potential

7.B
Packet Pg. 562
12 of 18
locations of digital billboards that display offsite advertising, no such pilot program or sign district would be necessary.

Regulatory Framework
Interest in new digital billboards is particularly high on Santa Monica’s iconic Third Street Promenade. The high levels of visitor foot traffic associated with the Third Street Promenade provides valuable opportunities for digital marketing. In addition to Council direction on the two proposed development agreements, Staff is seeking direction from Council as to whether a broader regulatory program should be established to determine what areas of the City are appropriate for digital billboards, and under what conditions.

Should Council desire to limit the geographical areas of the City in which digital billboards are eligible, staff recommends that the program be limited to the Promenade area, with all digital billboards subject to execution of a development agreement in a form and content acceptable to the City.

The City could benefit from establishing program parameters as a pilot program through adoption of an ordinance that would guide the proposals for new digital displays. The two pending applications provide an appropriate basis and starting point for development of program parameters if Council supports establishment of such a program, including whether to adopt the program prior to initiation of negotiations of any development agreements for large format digital displays. Program requirements for consideration could relate to:
➢ Location: Where future digital displays would be allowed. Staff recommends that future digital displays be limited to the Promenade based on the following reasons:

General Plan/Downtown Community Plan Consistency: The installation of digital displays on the Promenade is supported by numerous DCP goals and policies, including but not limited to the following.
• Goal LU2: Downtown is a thriving creative and cultural center with a unique concentration of innovative businesses, performance spaces, museums and programmed events.

7.B
Packet Pg. 563
13 of 18
• Goal LU3: Santa Monica’s Downtown continues to be the economic center for the City, providing a diverse and flexible mix of uses that can meet future resident, business and visitor demand.
• Goal CCP2: Downtown continues to be a thriving and diverse economic force that supports the city’s vitality, fiscal stability and high levels of community services.
o Policy CCP2.1 Strengthen the retail experience by supporting cultural and art uses, connections to the Expo Light Rail, and attractive streets and public spaces.
o Action CCP2.1A Partner with merchants, property owners, residents and community supporters of Downtown Santa Monica to share responsibility for implementing this Community Plan and achieving its goals. o Policy CCP2.3 Support Downtown’s role as a visitor destination by encouraging uses that appeal to both locals and tourists, including food, retail, entertainment and overnight accommodations.
• Goal CCP5: The Third Street Promenade continues to anchor the Downtown’s retail and public space experience with updated features and activities. o Policy CCP5.1 New public art should be encouraged and located to enhance the pedestrian experience and create an immersive arts experience.
o Action CCP5.1A Install Pathway Art, Banners and Urban Design Features to support the walking experience and to promote awareness of Downtown’s cultural offerings.
o Policy CCP5.2 Consider opportunity for negotiated development agreement art contributions to be aggregated in order to facilitate the acquisition of significant public art pieces.
• Goal PPS 4: Downtown’s public space network is operated, maintained, and managed well.
o Policy PPS4.3: Ensure that the Third Street Promenade is regularly updated to remain consistent with the surrounding areas in terms of infrastructure, landscaping, signage and aesthetic upgrades.

7.B
Packet Pg. 564
14 of 18
o Action AM1.3F Develop an improvement program for the Third Street Promenade that maintains its iconic role in the Downtown.

Unique Urban Character: The Promenade is the City’s only pedestrian-only outdoor shopping esplanade, lined with a diverse mix of retail, restaurant, bars, business, and entertainment uses. The Promenade is world-renowned for its vibrancy and lively street entertainment. Therefore, establishing a digital signage program on the Promenade would build on the success of this distinct activity area and would also be complementary to the Promenade’s recent designation as an entertainment zone.

Minimal Impacts on Sensitive Uses: While there are some very limited residential uses on the upper floors of existing commercial buildings, the Promenade is predominantly commercial and has historically been developed for commercial uses. As such, limiting future digital signage to the Promenade would minimize potential environmental effects on sensitive residential uses.

Economic Opportunity: The Promenade is considered the City’s economic engine, generating 15% of sales tax revenues citywide. The Promenade is one of the top destinations for Santa Monica tourists. In the month of April 2025, Downtown Santa Monica Inc, recorded a visitor count of approximately 351,282.

The high visitation levels of the Promenade create valuable and focused opportunities for the digital advertising market.

Consistency with the Third Street Promenade Stabilization and Economic Vitality Plan: Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) engaged in a series of conversations, workshops, interviews, and surveys and developed the Third Street Promenade Stabilization and Economic Vitality Plan. It recommends short- and medium-term policy and procedural changes to continue promoting the stabilization and economic vitality of the Third Street Promenade. Some of these proposed changes are to existing land use regulations, one of many

7.B
Packet Pg. 565
15 of 18
elements that can contribute to making the Promenade a successful, and economically sustainable retail environment of choice.
➢ Operational hours: Note that the proposed DA’s are for 24/7 operations with signage to be dimmed at night
➢ Size and Type: For example, freestanding vs building placement ➢ Design Standards: Brightness/illumination levels, display times, refresh rates, and other standards related to design approval by the City ➢ Proposed Community Benefits: Potential community benefits (e.g., upfront and ongoing revenue and allocation of funds, community content, associated off-site improvements, etc.)
Fiscal Impact Analysis
As indicated previously, West Hollywood’s Sunset Strip signage policy establishes comprehensive standards and guidelines for new digital displays. Through established uniform standards, the potential issues of driver distraction and aesthetic impacts can be minimized.

Public Outreach & Community Meeting
A community meeting was held on-line for the projects on April 3, 2025 via Zoom. The meeting was also noticed, including the meeting Zoom link, on the on-site signage, as well as on the home page of the website for the projects. There were 12 attendees outside of the development team. Comments from attendees included questions on pedestrian safety, energy usage of the digital signage, advertising rates, and operational standards.

Questions for Council
Terms 1. What terms and conditions should the agreements contain (length, options for extensions, etc.)?
Community Benefits
Financial 2. Is the proposed financial benefit structure

7.B
Packet Pg. 566
16 of 18
appropriate?

3. Other considerations in terms of payment timing
(e.g., timing of one-time contribution for each
digital signage)?
Community /Art Content 4. How should public art content be curated?

5. As part of the community content benefit, should
there be benefits for local businesses?
Other 6. What other community benefits should be
considered? (e.g., streetscape enhancements,
contributions to the Downtown Business
Improvement District, etc.)

7. What is an appropriate occupancy threshold for
the proposed buildings?
Location 8. Are the locations for the two proposed digital displays appropriate?

9. Should the City establish a guiding program/policy
for future applications of digital displays?
Performance Standards 10.What operating conditions should be applied to the proposed digital displays?

11.What other performance standards should be
established (other than brightness, refresh rates,
etc.)?
Next Steps
Council will need to provide direction on whether to pursue the development agreements for the proposed digital displays and whether a broader framework for a digital signage program is appropriate. If directed by Council, Staff will proceed with Development Agreement negotiations and conduct environmental review of the proposals in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Environmental Review

7.B
Packet Pg. 567
17 of 18
This study session is not a “project” subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the project 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”. The purpose of this study session is to receive Council direction and comments. No actions are being undertaken that will result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA review will be undertaken if Council directs staff to proceed with the proposed development agreement applications.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
January 10, 2023 Council adopted 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 in the public right-of-way.

March 25, 2025 Council adopted an Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.61 to increase flexibility for signage in the Bayside Conservation District and Third Street Promenade to promote economic recovery.

May 13, 2025 Council adopted an emergency ordinance to establish the Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot program.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions in this report. Should the Council direct staff to proceed with the proposed development agreement applications, staff would return to Council with the negotiated development agreements which would include financial contributions to the City.

7.B
Packet Pg. 568
18 of 18
Prepared By: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Digital Displays in Other Jurisdictions B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation
D. PowerPoint Presentation

7.B
Packet Pg. 569
Attachment A – Digital Signage in Other Cities
Digital Signage
Proposal/Program
Location /
Geography
Financial Benefits Community
Programming
Terms of
Agreement
Other
Requirements/Benefits
Notes:

Proposed DA’s at
301 Arizona Avenue
& 1202 3rd Street
2 Sites / Downtown
District
Per proposed display:
• 20% of gross revenue;
• min annual guarantee equal to
Year(s) MAG
1 $500,000
2 $750,000
3-4 $850,000/yr
5-9 $935,000/yr
10-14 $1,028,500/yr
15-19 $1,131,350/yr
20-24 $1,244,485/yr
25-29 $1,368,933.50/yr
30-34 $1,505,826.85/yr
35-39 $1,656,409.54/yr
40-44 $1,822,050.49/yr
45-49 $2,004,255.54/yr
50-55 $2,204,681.09/yr
• $500,000 contribution paid at
installation
20% of total
annual operating
time (12 minutes/
hour)
55 years • Ground floor
occupancy
requirement of 50%
West Hollywood
Sunset Strip
Sunset Boulevard Unspecified – to be negotiated
Example seen:
• Private property: 25-30% of
gross revenue; Public
property: 40-45% of gross
revenue in excess of annual
revenue threshold
• MAG - $900,000 for 3 years of
term
Unspecified – to
be negotiated
(generally, 17.5%
of content time
Unspecified
– Generally,
30 years
• Annual credit to defer
costs;
• Public realm
enhancements
contribution (e.g.,
$500,000)
• 50% building
occupancy
requirement or entire
ground floor of
Building
Program adopted
March 2019
Application must
be processed
through
development
agreements
Examples:
8501 Sunset Blvd

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment A - Digital Displays in Other Jurisdictions [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage
Proposal/Program
Location /
Geography
Financial Benefits Community
Programming
Terms of
Agreement
Other
Requirements/Benefits
Notes:
8497 Sunset
9015 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles Metro
Transportation
Communication
Network (TCN)
Metro Right of Way
(e.g.,
freeway/highway
facing)/ City of Los
Angeles
50% of net revenue generated Unspecified time
– allowances for
public transit
promotion and
emergency
messaging
20 years • Must remove up to 320
static billboards
• Cannot be placed in or
within 200 feet of
residential zone
• Integration with
intelligent information
transportation system
(e.g., real time traffic
data)
Program
implemented
through 2022
MOU and TCN
Ordinance
(adopted
12/15/23)
Santa Ana - Digital
Signage Program
Private Properties;
Within 300 feet of a
freeway
• 30% of Net advertising revenue
• MAG - $90,000 per face of
billboard
Min of 5 % of
advertising
inventory, up to 1
spot in standard 8
spot rotation on
billboard
15 years • Removal of existing
static billboards at
specified ratios
• Physical site
improvements
• Streetscape &
pedestrian
enhancements
• Local hiring for static
billboard removal
Santa Ana
Digital Signage –
City-Owned
Properties
5 City-Owned Sites
adjacent to
freeways; Digital
banners at street
locations
• $550,000 bonus payment at
year 1
• 40% of net revenue
• MAG - $1,180,000
15% of
advertising
inventory
25 years,
with 10 year
extension
option
• Prevailing wage
requirements
• Maintenance of site
parcel
Development
Agreement with
single operator

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment A - Digital Displays in Other Jurisdictions [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage
Proposal/Program
Location /
Geography
Financial Benefits Community
Programming
Terms of
Agreement
Other
Requirements/Benefits
Notes:

San Jose – CityOwned PropertiesDowntown – 4 City
Owned Properties
• 30% or 33% of projected gross
revenue
• MAG varies by sign ($2.5
million for parking structure
sign to $8.7 for performing arts
center sign)
15% of
advertising time
in addition to
unsold
advertising time
10 years,
with 2
optional 5-
year
extensions
• Artistic sign
enhancements (local
artists)
• Urban improvements
in public plaza
Development
Agreement with
single operator
Inglewood 2 sites at SoFi
Stadium
• $100,000 bonus payment per
face paid at operation
• 50% gross revenue
• MAG $240,000 per billboard
• 10% of
advertising time
for public
service
announcement
s
• Local ad
discount of
75% for small
local
businesses
20 years,
with 4
optional 5-
year
extensions
Development
Agreement
Vacaville Parcels abutting
the I-80 and I-505
freeways
Unspecified – to be negotiated Unspecified – to
be negotiated
Unspecified
–
to be
negotiated
• Removal of existing
billboards at a ratio
of 3 to 1 or in lieu
payment or
additional
community benefits
(additional funding
for parks,
beautification, or
infrastructure)
Program adopted
7/23/25
Application must
be processed
through
development
agreements

7.B.a
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment A - Digital Displays in Other Jurisdictions [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Digital Billboard Signage

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a voting member of the population of the City of Santa Monica and as a business owner, I encourage you to reject the current proposal for digital billboards at the corner of 3rd and Wilshire Blvd. The proposal as it is structured is not an equitable solution for the business owners inside the city and is proposing public-private revenue sharing on private property. Public-Private revenue sharing to obtain a license to advertise is extortion by the city of Santa Monica, as is a $500,000 application fee.

City ordinance should be fair and equitable to all businesses. There are many options for advertising which do not require the infrastructure, electricity use and light pollution that permanent LED billboards will result in. I would be happy to discuss other options with the city reps if they are interested.

Thank you,
Joe DiRosa
Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
310-770-5171
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 2 David Yakobson
From: Raymur Flinn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: Digital Displays at 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade - Support Attachments: LOS for OBM 6.9.2024.docx.pdf

EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter of support for the Digital Displays.

Raymur Flinn
Executive Director
Santa Monica Education Foundation
1717 4th Street, Suite 132A
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Office: 310-450-8338
Cell: 310-663-0022
smedfoundation.org
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) June 7, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Orange Barrel Media – Support for Santa Monica Public Schools Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
The purpose of this letter is to share information about Orange Barrel Media’s support for our public-school students.

We are truly grateful for the commitment Orange Barrel Media has made to our students and schools. They have shown themselves to be a community-minded partner, supporting equitable education for all Santa Monica children in our public schools.

Orange Barrel Media has recently become a Corporate Hero donor to the Santa Monica Education Foundation, contributing financially to help fund critical programs. In addition to their monetary support, they have also offered to promote the Education Foundation on their proposed digital displays on the Third Street Promenade. This generous offer will help highlight the vibrant arts programs supported by our donors and will encourage broader support for the Foundation's mission.

These contributions ensure that students across all Santa Monica public schools receive enriching experiences in Academics, Arts, and Athletics.

Without support from Orange Barrel Media and other dedicated Corporate Heroes, Santa Monica schools would look vastly different.

We appreciate Orange Barrel Media’s investment in our schools and their commitment to Santa Monica’s future leaders.

Sincerely,
Raymur Flinn
Executive Director
1717 4th Street Ste 132A, Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-396-4557 smedfoundation.org Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Abdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:39 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: email to council re 7-B

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I’m writing to express my support for the proposed digital displays at 301 Arizona and 1202 Wilshire, and to encourage you to move forward with Staff’s recommendation to start Development Agreement negotiations with the applicant.

As a former Councilmember and Mayor, I appreciate the value these signs will bring to the community economically and culturally. The displays will create a meaningful and long-term revenue stream for the City, offer a platform to spotlight community programs, provide an accessible advertising opportunity for local businesses, and serve as a virtual digital gallery for local artists. Altogether, they will add energy and creativity to the area, and help boost our ongoing economic recovery efforts.

Thank you,
Judy Abdo
------------------------------------------------------------- Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Hamilton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 2:24 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: Digital Displays | 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade - Support Attachments: Santa Monica Draft Support Letter 05.29.25 - John Reed.docx

EXTERNAL
Please see attached letter of support for the digital displays at 1202 Third Street Promenade.

Should you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you,

PHYLLIS HAMILTON

REAL ESTATE MANAGER
5420 LYNDON B JOHNSON FREEWAY
SUITE 300, DALLAS, TX 75240
C: 972-824-5180
Email: [email protected]
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) RSG Group | John Reed Fitness
5240 LBJ Frwy., Suite 300
Dallas TX 75240
May 29, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Digital Display Development Agreements
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
On behalf of John Reed Fitness, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed digital display at 1202 Third Street Promenade (25ENT-0021). As a tenant in this iconic building, we are deeply invested in the ongoing vitality of the 1200 block and the long-term success of our business within it.

The proposed digital display will not only enhance the energy and appeal of the area, it will also provide a canvas for us to promote our business. Like many businesses in the area, we face the challenge of maintaining foot traffic and visibility in a changing retail landscape, and signage is a useful tool to attract customers. This project offers a creative, impactful way to address that challenge.

By bringing in interest and engagement to the block, the digital display will not only help attract new customers to our gym, but the increased traffic will help other nearby businesses as well. Moreover, the signs will generate revenue for the City which can be reinvested back into the Promenade.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if additional information is needed.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Hamilton
Real Estate Manager
John Reed Fitness – Santa Monica
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Lindsey Lincoln <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 8:43 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: Yes on Digital Displays at 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade Attachments: SMBGC Letter of Support.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hello –
I am attaching Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica’s Letter of Support for digital displays on the Third Street Promenade.

Thank you,
Lindsey Lincoln
Director of Marketing & Communications
Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica
1220 Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90401
T: 406.781.6636
Make a difference for local kids at smbgc.org!
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Digital Display Development Agreements
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my support for the two proposed large format, digital displays on the Third Street Promenade located at 301 Arizona Avenue (24ENT-0233) and 1202 Third Street Promenade (25ENT-0021).

These projects represent an exciting opportunity to bring new life and energy to the Santa Monica Promenade – particularly the 1200 block, which is ideally suited for this type of activation. The digital displays will not only add vibrancy and visual interest to the area but will also serve as a platform to showcase dynamic public art and community content that reflects the creative spirit of Santa Monica.

More importantly, the projects have been designed to directly benefit the city – not only through their thoughtful designs and integration into the urban environment but by generating new, ongoing revenue streams for the City.These funds can support essential city services and programs, making the signs not just a visual enhancement, but a meaningful public asset.

Being that the 1200 block is currently underutilized and in need of revitalization, it stands to benefit greatly from the foot traffic, engagement, and placemaking that these signs will help foster. By blending art, innovation, and economic impact, this project aligns perfectly with the goals of revitalizing the Promenade and strengthening its role as a cultural and commercial hub.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if additional information is needed.

Sincerely,
Brynja Seagren
CEO
Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica
Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica
1220 Lincoln Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
6/9/2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 2 David Yakobson
From: David Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 4:14 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok; councilmtgitems Subject: Support for Digital Displays at 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade Attachments: Promenade Digital Display signage support letter 060625.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed large format digital display signs on the Third Street Promenade located at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade.

These are prominent corners of the Promenade chosen to help highlight the northern end that has languished over the past decade or more and to invite others to enter the Promenade from the north.

The signage is also intended to benefit the City with advertising revenues as well as with time set aside for City content.

The Promenade is an ideal place for these digital displays, and a very talented firm has been preparing these designs including reviews with interested groups.

The signs are in keeping with the vibrant tone and active use that the City should want for this special shopping district and tourist attraction at the heart of downtown Santa Monica.

I strongly support this great addition and attraction for the Third Street Promenade that enhances a community resource and benefits all the surrounding businesses.

Thank you,
David Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue
(letter attached)
David Kaplan | KCK ARCHITECTS
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 452 7505
310 713 5446 cell
www.kckarchitects.com
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) June 6, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

Re: Digital Display Development Agreements
Santa Monica Promenade

Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed large format digital display signs on the Third Street Promenade located at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade.

These are prominent corners of the Promenade chosen to help highlight the northern end that has languished over the past decade or more and to invite others to enter the Promenade from the north.

The signage is also intended to benefit the City with advertising revenues as well as with time set aside for City content.

The Promenade is an ideal place for these digital displays, and a very talented firm has been preparing these designs including reviews with interested groups.

The signs are in keeping with the vibrant tone and active use that the City should want for this special shopping district and tourist attraction at the heart of downtown Santa Monica.

I strongly support this great addition and attraction for the Third Street Promenade that enhances a community resource and benefits all the surrounding businesses.

Thank you,
David Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 3 David Yakobson
From: Clay Collett <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 11:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok; Jibran Shermohammed; Gaby Ghermezi; Daniel Negari
Subject: Digital Displays at 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade – Applicant Rep Letter Attachments: Santa Monica OBM Letter - 6.7.25.pdf; Attachment A - OBM Perspective on Questions for Council.pdf; Attachment B - Community Benefits Summary.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Please see attached letter of support regarding Agenda Item 7-B for the proposed digital displays at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade, as well as two attachments outlining (a) our perspective on the thoughtful questions posed to Council for the June 10 hearing and (b) a summary of the public benefits we see in the project.

We are eager to partner with Daniel Negari and the City on these projects, and believe we can deliver a truly compelling digital platform at these two project sites, rich with art, city content and revenue generation for the city. We humbly ask for your support of these two development agreements on June 10, and we thank you for your time and consideration of this item. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Thank you and have a great weekend all.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) OBM
9165 Sunset Blvd.

West Hollywood, CA 90069
June 7, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re:Digital Displays/Signs on Third Street Promenade Private Properties Agenda Item 7-B
Locations: 1202 Third Street Promenade and 301 Arizona Avenue DA Application Nos. 24ENT-0233 & 25ENT-0021
Dear Councilmembers:

We are writing in full support of the four Recommended Actions stated on page 1 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s Large Format Digital Signage Study Session, including most importantly that City Council authorize City staff to initiate development agreement negotiations for the digital displays proposed at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade. As the media company partnering with the property owner UNITED XYZ, LLC/Daniel Negari on the proposed digital signs, we would also like to provide our perspective for your consideration on the questions City Staff posed to the City Council. (See Attachment A for a full summary of answers to the questions raised.) The above-referenced development agreement applications propose installation of high-quality LED digital signs on the existing buildings at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade that provide meaningful benefits to the City. (See Attachment B for a full summary of benefits.) Among other things, the proposed development agreements would:
• generate substantial general fund revenue to the City on an expedient basis, including at least $1 million per sign the first of operation, and ongoing revenue sharing thereafter with minimum annual guarantees (or MAGs),
• enhance and enliven the economic environment of the Downtown including the Third Promenade and the new Promenade Entertainment Zone, during a time of need, • ensure content on the signs includes public art/artistic creations, civic announcements of public interest or importance, and content promoting the City and/or its rich history, including Downtown Santa Monica and the Third Street Promenade (as well as advertising), • result in memorable and creative attractions for visitors and residents alike, • increase pedestrian activation, engagement and enjoyment, • ensure the digital displays are of the highest quality and complementary to the two buildings and their surroundings, and
• require design and installation of an interpretive exhibit commemorating the history of the former J.C. Penney building, an officially designated City Landmark at 1202 Third Street.

Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 2 We at Orange Barrel Media (OBM) are a leading national media company with substantial experience designing, operating, maintaining and curating signs of this type in many cities throughout the nation. OBM’s portfolio includes unique displays in top urban markets across the nation, including New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Miami and West Hollywood. We work closely with property owners and local municipalities to permit and develop advertising properties that the public finds fun, attractive and exciting. In each city, we deliver high-end, high-value projects like the ones before you on June 10, and we have experience across the country working with artists and arts collectives to curate interesting and contextual arts programs.

We have specifically designed and customized the entablature framework around these displays to complement the historic building at 1202 Third Street and to reflect the coastal character of Santa Monica at 301 Arizona Avenue. Through the development agreement process, our goal is to deliver the highest quality displays that the City of Santa Monica will be proud of.

We look forward to presenting our vision for the proposed digital displays at your June 10th Council meeting, and we hope to receive the City Council’s authorization at that time to proceed with development agreement negotiations with the City Staff. We have previously hosted a successful virtual community meeting about these two proposed signs and conducted outreach to various interested parties, stakeholders and artists and art collaboratives. Because the building at 1202 Third Street Promenade is a designated City Landmark, we have met with representatives of the Santa Monica Conservancy to share our concept and have collaborated with preservation architect Robert Chattel on the research and approach pertaining to this design.

Again, we ask that the City Council authorize City Staff to proceed with development agreement negotiations for these two properties. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to discussion at the hearing.

Best regards,
Clay Collett
Senior Development Director
Orange Barrel Media, LLC

cc: Elaine Polacheck
Arminé Chaparyan
Rachel Kwok
Daniel Negari
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 ATTACHMENT A
OBM’S PERSPECTIVE ON QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
With respect to the eleven questions posed to the City Council in the Staff Report (pages 15-16), we ask for your consideration of the following:

1. What terms and conditions should the agreements contain (length, options for extensions, etc.)?
We’ve proposed a term of 55 years for each development agreement. This proposal reflects the very high upfront investment we (OBM and Daniel Negari) will be making to design, entitle, fabricate and install the signs – estimated to be approximately $4,000,000-$5,000,000 per sign based on the current proposed designs, plus the physical alterations to the buildings associated with the digital display installations. In this regard, other cities that allow for high-quality, custom signage designs like the ones proposed here have approved substantial development agreement terms, including West Hollywood which allows for 30-year development agreement terms. We appreciate your consideration of the importance of a longer development agreement term and ask that you direct City Staff to negotiate for a term length that reflects the investment being made by the applicant team to bring these signs to fruition. We note also that a short term will likely lead to a cumbersome reapplication process at the end of the term, which spends unnecessary city and staff resources. 2&3. Is the proposed financial benefit structure appropriate? Other considerations in terms of payment timing (e.g., timing of one-time contribution for each digital signage)?
Our proposed 20% share of gross revenues with a growing minimum annual guarantee as well as a $500,000/per sign bonus paid when the signs “go live” is a strong offer for digital displays that require no investment from the City and are located on private property where the sign company also must pay rent to the property owner as another share of gross revenue. Notably, in the first year of operations, the City will receive a minimum of $2,000,000 ($1,000,000/sign). Attachment B includes a summary of the proposed community benefit for each of the signs, including the minimum annual guarantees.

4. How should public art content be curated?
We support City Staff’s recommendation for a requirement that OBM coordinate with the City for professionally curated art content. Since our inception in 2004, OBM has been committed to developing media that supports the production and presentation of art. We believe art is a powerful form of expression that enriches communities and encourages meaningful dialogue. Our community engagement team is dedicated to developing key partnerships with internationally recognized and local artists, as well as museums, art institutions, and curators, to activate art in highly visible areas. We are committed to developing a unique, locally-minded arts program for display on the Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 2 proposed signs, and we are excited by the opportunity to work with the City to ensure a diverse mix of voices are represented in the arts program.

While there are a variety of ways we can partner with the City on the public art component, one way it could work would be for the Arts Commission to review and provide input on public art plan as to over-arching program objectives and goals—for example, a desire to promote local Santa Monica artists, art of school-aged children and/or artists focused on advocating civil rights/inclusiveness awareness—and then Cultural Affairs staff could provide final approval of this public art plan. Overall, we’ve worked collaboratively with cities across the nation to deliver public art, and we are confident that we can work with City Staff on a process that works for Santa Monica and does not overburden City Staff’s workload.

5. As part of the community content benefit, should there be benefits for local businesses?
We certainly support displaying beneficial promotions of local businesses as part of the community content that will be displayed throughout the day on these signs.

Provided the City Council agrees, we look forward to working with City staff on how to best allocate the community content time between local business promotion, public art and other community content (e.g., civic announcements of public interest or importance and content promoting the City, including Downtown Santa Monica, the Third Street Promenade and things like slices of Santa Monica history).

6. What other community benefits should be considered? (e.g., streetscape enhancements, contributions to the Downtown Business Improvement District, etc.)
For 1202 Third Street Promenade (a City-designated landmark), the proposed development agreement includes a commitment that we will design and install an interpretive exhibit commemorating the history of the former J.C. Penney building, an officially designated City Landmark. We would work with our consultant Robert Chattel, the Santa Monica Conservancy and the Landmarks Commission and potentially an artist to design such a commemorative exhibit.

Although the question about allocation of City revenue from the signs is best answered by the City Council, OBM supports a portion of City revenue from Downtown digital displays to be allocated to DTSM, Inc. for reinvestment in the Promenade.

7. What is an appropriate occupancy threshold for the proposed buildings? In our opinion, the purpose of the occupancy threshold is to incentivize the property owner to continue activating the building with tenants after the digital signs are installed while acknowledging that some of the factors in keeping the building occupied are beyond the owner’s control (e.g., downturn in commercial retail and office leasing market). We’ve proposed an occupancy threshold that triggers a substantial increase in the minimum annual guarantee when either (a) more than 50% of the rental floor area is unoccupied or (b) the entire ground floor level remains unoccupied for more than 12 Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 3 consecutive months. Having these two prongs – focusing on both the ground floor activation and overall building occupancy – reasonably addresses the purpose of an occupancy threshold without being overly punitive on the property owner.

In our experience, the digital displays will assist with attracting and retaining commercial tenants, not only within the subject properties but also adjacent properties.

In this regard, we would like to highlight the letters of support for our proposed digital displays submitted by an owner of other properties on the Promenade and a long-time leasing broker.

8. Are the locations for the two proposed digital displays appropriate? Absolutely. When Daniel approached us, we looked at his inventory of Santa Monica properties. We specifically landed on selecting these two properties for the first digital displays for several reasons:
• Both properties are located on the Third Street Promenade, a walk street where the City has been strategically targeting for economic investment and activation.
• Both properties are corner properties with excellent visibility. • Both properties are located on the 1200 Block, which is northernmost block of the Promenade, and is the block which Council previously identified as an area in need of focused revitalization and vibrancy improvements.
• The buildings have existing upper floors for mounting the displays, so these displays are not associated with any new development. Indeed, the 1202 Third Street property historically included a sign tower for J.C.

Penney, though the JCP logo no longer remains atop the circular tower.
• The display at 1202 Third Street Promenade has no adjacent residential uses, and the proposed display at 301 Arizona has been purposefully positioned away from the Criterion apartments to the south to avoid any light intrusion into the residences.

9. Should the City establish a guiding program/policy for future applications of digital displays?
This is a policy question for the City Council to address. That being said, we do think the Third Street Promenade is a great location for a pilot program for off-premises digital signs. If the Council decides to move forward with a program/policy, we urge the Council to continue processing our pending development agreement applications without delay. The Development Agreement applications for these two properties have already been filed (in November 2024 and January 2025), substantial filing fees have Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 4 been paid, draft development agreements have been submitted as a starting point for negotiations, and the signs have been designed at a concept review level. Furthermore, in advance of the City Council’s hearing, we have hosted a community meeting and conducted community outreach to various interested parties, stakeholders and artists and art collaboratives.

In our experience with this type of high-profile signage across the country, we think it will be helpful to City Staff to have concrete proposals before them to help inform how broader proposed standards might apply and work or not work on various sites including sites with historic resources and sites with neighboring residential uses.

Finally, if the City decides to move forward with our proposals, substantial revenue to the City will be realized sooner.
10& 11. What operating conditions should be applied to the proposed digital displays? What other performance standards should be established (other than brightness, refresh rates, etc.)?
OBM supports ongoing maintenance requirements and a light standard, and we are confident we can work with staff to finalize clear standards in the development agreement. For example, we have proposed a nighttime luminance limit of 400 candelas per square meter and a daytime luminance limit of 6,000 candelas per square meter. We also will not display any content that could lead to driver distraction concerns, such as flashing or strobing content or scrolling text.

We also have proposed that 20% of the display time throughout the entire 24 hour day to be made available to the City for community or civic announcements of public interest or importance and content promoting the City, including Downtown Santa Monica and the Third Street Promenade.

We further support content restrictions and have proposed restrictions on any content containing (a) political advertisements designed to promote views of particular political groups or influence opinions of others on public policy issues; (b) adult-related products and services, firearms, tobacco, smoking, smoking materials, including electronic smoking or "vaping;" (c) sexually explicit or excretory subject matter; (d) false, misleading or deceptive content; (e) violation of copyright or trademark rights or is otherwise unlawful; (f) illegal activity; (g) profanity or violence; (h) material condoning discrimination based upon race, religion, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation; or (i) material that is harmful or disruptive to public use of the Third Street Promenade.

Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 Digital Displays Community Benefits Summary
301 Arizona 1202 Third Street Promenade
Installation
Contribution to
City of Santa
Monica
$500,000 per sign at C of O/final building permit sign-off (total $1,000,000) Annual
Contribution to
City of Santa
Monica
Greater of 20% of each sign’s annual gross revenues--with MAG equaling $850,000 per sign by year three and increasing annually thereafter
(see MAG table on page 2)
Portion of sign
operating time to
be allocated for
public purposes
20% of total operating time consisting of:
• Public art and City/nonprofit/public service announcements • All public-oriented content, including art, to run in the same general “loop” throughout the day as paid commercial content—ensuring that the art and other City/nonprofit content is not relegated to being shown only during off-peak or overnight hours. (Typical ad cycle is 28 days.) • In addition, signs will display more artwork whenever there is unsold advertising space.

Each sign tied to
ongoing
occupancy of
building to which
it is attached
MAG increased by 25% if either of the following:
• more than fifty percent (50%) of the rentable floor area within the Existing Building remain unoccupied for more than 12 months or
• the entire ground floor level of the Existing Building remains unoccupied for more than 12 months.

Historic
Commemorative
Installation
n/a Permanent physical commemorative installation
at 1202 Third Street Promenade reflecting the
history of the property giving rise to its
designation as a City Landmark.

ATTACHMENT B
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 2 Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) Per Sign
Year(s) 301 Arizona
Annual MAG Contribution
1202 Third Street
Promenade
Annual MAG Contribution
Total Annual MAG
Contribution
1 $1,000,000
($500,000 “go live bonus +
$500,000 MAG)
$1,000,000
($500,000 “go live bonus +
$500,000 MAG)
$2,000,000
($1,000,000 “go live bonus +
($1,000,000 MAG)
2 $750,000 $750,000 $1,500,000
3-4 $850,000/yr $850,000/yr $1,700,000/yr
5-9 $935,000/yr $935,000/yr $1,870,000/yr
10-14 $1,028,500/yr $1,028,500/yr $2,057,000/yr
15-19 $1,131,350/yr $1,131,350/yr $2,262,700/yr
20-24 $1,244,485/yr $1,244,485/yr $2,488,970/yr
25-29 $1,368,933.50/yr $1,368,933.50/yr $2,737,867/yr
30-34 $1,505,826.85 /yr $1,505,826.85/yr $3,011,653.70/yr 35-39 $1,656,409.54 /yr $1,656,409.54/yr $3,312,819.08/yr 40-44 $1,822,050.49 /yr $1,822,050.49/yr $3,644,100.98/yr 45-49 $2,004,255.54 /yr $2,004,255.54/yr $4,008,511.08/yr 50-55 $2,204,681.09/yr $2,204,681.09/yr $4,409,362.18/yr Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 5 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 4:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: June 10, 2025 Council Agenda Item 7B.4: Digital Advertising in the City of Santa Monica
Attachments: DTSM Inc Digital Advertising Position Letter 6.6.25.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Honorable Council Members, On behalf of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) Board of Directors, I am writing to share our position on digital advertising in Downtown Santa Monica, ahead of your upcoming discussion on this topic scheduled for the June 10, 2025, Council meeting.

At its meeting on May 20, 2025, the DTSM, Inc. Board revisited the subject of digital signage and, following a comprehensive discussion, reaffirmed its position from April 25, 2024. The Board recommends the City of Santa Monica develop a district-wide digital signage plan and commit to reinvesting related advertising revenue directly into Downtown, including a meaningful allocation for DTSM, Inc.

Board members emphasized the need for a cohesive strategy to ensure that any future digital signage is implemented thoughtfully and responsibly. This approach would help ensure that any signage introduced is visually appropriate, high-quality, and consistent with Santa Monica's distinctive character.

Thank you for your ongoing partnership and leadership.

Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas, LPM
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Ste. 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.393.8355 (Office)
www.DowntownSM.com
Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | TikTok
Sign up for our newsletter
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
June 6, 2025
RE: June 10, 2025 Council Agenda Item 7B.4: Digital Advertising in the City of Santa Monica Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Honorable Council Members, On behalf of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) Board of Directors, I am writing to share our position on digital advertising in Downtown Santa Monica, ahead of your upcoming discussion on this topic scheduled for the June 10, 2025, Council meeting.

Thank you for your ongoing partnership and leadership.

Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

CC: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
Community Development Director Arminé Chaparyan
Economic Development Manager Jennifer Taylor
Planning Manager Jing Yeo
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 6 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Negari <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: Re: Digital Displays at 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade – Applicant Letter Attachments: Community Benefits Summary DA Applications 2025.06.05.pdf

EXTERNAL
Including the attached community benefits summary enclosed.

On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM Daniel Negari <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Attached is a letter of support regarding Agenda Item 7-B for the proposed digital displays at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade.

As a lifelong Santa Monican and the largest property owner on the Promenade, I’m deeply committed to revitalizing the area and believe this initiative is a critical step toward that goal. I hope you will consider the points outlined and authorize staff to move forward with development agreement negotiations.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Best regards,
Daniel Negari

UNITED XYZ, LLC
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 Digital Displays Community Benefits Summary
301 Arizona 1202 Third Street Promenade
Installation
Contribution to
City of Santa
Monica
$500,000 per sign at C of O/final building permit sign-off (total $1,000,000) Annual
Contribution to
City of Santa
Monica
Greater of 20% of each sign’s annual gross revenues--with MAG equaling $850,000 per sign by year three and increasing annually thereafter
(see MAG table on page 2)
Portion of sign
operating time to
be allocated for
public purposes
20% of total operating time consisting of:
• Public art and City/nonprofit/public service announcements • All public-oriented content, including art, to run in the same general “loop” throughout the day as paid commercial content—ensuring that the art and other City/nonprofit content is not relegated to being shown only during off-peak or overnight hours. (Typical ad cycle is 28 days.) • In addition, signs will display more artwork whenever there is unsold advertising space.

Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 2 Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) Per Sign
Year(s) 301 Arizona
Annual MAG Contribution
1202 Third Street
Promenade
Annual MAG Contribution
Total Annual MAG
Contribution
1 $1,000,000
($500,000 “go live bonus +
$500,000 MAG)
$1,000,000
($500,000 “go live bonus +
$500,000 MAG)
$2,000,000
($1,000,000 “go live bonus +
($1,000,000 MAG)
2 $750,000 $750,000 $1,500,000
3-4 $850,000/yr $850,000/yr $1,700,000/yr
5-9 $935,000/yr $935,000/yr $1,870,000/yr
10-14 $1,028,500/yr $1,028,500/yr $2,057,000/yr
15-19 $1,131,350/yr $1,131,350/yr $2,262,700/yr
20-24 $1,244,485/yr $1,244,485/yr $2,488,970/yr
25-29 $1,368,933.50/yr $1,368,933.50/yr $2,737,867/yr
30-34 $1,505,826.85 /yr $1,505,826.85/yr $3,011,653.70/yr 35-39 $1,656,409.54 /yr $1,656,409.54/yr $3,312,819.08/yr 40-44 $1,822,050.49 /yr $1,822,050.49/yr $3,644,100.98/yr 45-49 $2,004,255.54 /yr $2,004,255.54/yr $4,008,511.08/yr 50-55 $2,204,681.09/yr $2,204,681.09/yr $4,409,362.18/yr Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 7 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Negari <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:29 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Armine Chaparyan; Rachel Kwok
Subject: Digital Displays at 301 and 1202 Third Street Promenade – Applicant Letter Attachments: Councilmembers Letter from UNITED XYZ.pdf; Councilmembers Letter from UNITED XYZ 2025.06.06.docx

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Attached is a letter of support regarding Agenda Item 7-B for the proposed digital displays at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Best regards,
Daniel Negari

UNITED XYZ, LLC
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

UNITED XYZ, LLC
2800 Olympic Boulevard, #1
Santa Monica, CA 90404
June 6, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Digital Displays/Signs at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade (24ENT-0233 and 25ENT-0021)
Agenda Item 7-B – Support
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:

My name is Daniel Negari, I am the founder and CEO of XYZ. I was born in Santa Monica and have been in the area for most of my life. Over the past several years, I’ve invested more than $100 million into revitalizing Downtown Santa Monica and the Third Street Promenade — a place I deeply care about and believe in. I’m proud to now be the largest property owner on the Promenade, with even more longterm investment planned.

As the owner of the properties located at 301 Arizona (northeast corner of Third Street Promenade and Arizona) and 1202 Third Street Promenade (southwest corner of Third Street Promenade and Wilshire), and the applicant for the digital displays proposed at these properties. I respectfully urge you to authorize City Staff to move forward with development agreement negotiations for the proposed digital displays as recommended by City Staff. We look forward to obtaining your feedback, as well as your authorization to proceed.

As we all know, the Promenade — especially the 1200 block — is in urgent need of reinvention. The Council’s recent creation of the Entertainment Zone was a critical step forward. These digital displays are the next. They will generate much needed revenue the City in year one, with a long-term revenue platform to support public safety, enhance the Entertainment Zone, provide vital resources to DTSM, and improve City services.

Through another property owner that has digital displays on his property in West Hollywood, I was fortunate to connect with Orange Barrel Media (OBM) and learn about their custom digital displays. OBM creates value for property owners, municipalities, and the general public by designing and operating iconic out of home media displays that add to the quality and character of urban places. They pride themselves on incorporating ongoing advances in design and technology of these displays; and they continually generate a diverse and captivating programming mix of commercial messages, public art, and community content. I was particularly impressed with OBM’s focus on architecturally distinctive signs and prior experience with designing and installing digital displays on historic buildings. As an owner of over 10 landmarks in the Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Santa Monica City Council
June 6, 2025

Page 2 ends

city, this is one of the most important points for me as a preservation minded steward of these assets.

After learning more about the revenue generation potential of these signs and OBM’s public art program, I reviewed my real estate portfolio with OBM and we identified 301 Arizona (Footlocker building) and 1202 Third Street Promenade (John Reed Fitness building, a City-designated landmark) as the top two locations for the digital displays.

Orange Barrel Media has embraced the opportunity to work in this marketplace and has designed creative entablature to frame these two digital displays. On the historic 1202 Third Street site, Orange Barrel’s design team has collaborated with preservation architect Robert Chattel. And, on the 301 Arizona site, they’ve intentionally designed and positioned the sign to avoid impacts on residential tenants living across Arizona Avenue.

For each sign, we are proposing revenue sharing with the City, starting with a minimum of $1,000,000 in year 1 of operations ($500,000 “go live” bonus and $500,000 minimum annual guarantee to the City). That means the City will receive at least $2,000,000 in the first year both signs are installed (assuming they are installed in the same year), and ongoing revenue sharing to the City thereafter. I understand that DTSM Inc.’s Board recently voted that a portion of City revenue from Downtown digital displays be allocated to DTSM, Inc. for reinvestment in Downtown. We are supportive of this but understand the allocation of revenue is a decision for the City Council.

The displays will also include other community benefits such as incorporation of public art, community announcements, and public service announcements and alerts that will be interspersed throughout the commercial advertisement loop. A list of the key financial and community benefits is enclosed with this letter.

I realize that the concept of off-premises advertising on private property, particularly in the digital format, is a new concept to Santa Monica. Our development agreements propose creative, captivating, thoughtful, rewarding and proven approaches to this opportunity. The signs will provide about 800 to 850 sf of digital display area each. Other than the installation of these digital displays on the two existing buildings, no new development is proposed.

We filed these development agreement applications for the digital displays in November 2024 (301 Arizona) and January 2025 (1202 Third Street Promenade) and appreciate your direction to move forward with negotiations.

Approval at this float-up hearing represents an important first step in a public review process. Multiple key milestones still lie ahead, including Development Agreement negotiations, City Council approval, design review, Landmarks Commission Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Santa Monica City Council
June 6, 2025

Page 3 ends

consideration, Coastal Commission approval, and the full plan check and permitting process. Timely action is critical, as delays could cause us to miss alignment with major upcoming events such as the World Cup, Super Bowl, and Olympics – opportunities that will not return anytime soon.

I hope the City Council will agree that the time is ripe for the City to move forward with expeditiously processing these two development agreements.

Sincerely,
Daniel Negari
Property Owner and Founder & CEO

UNITED XYZ, LLC
cc: Elaine Polacheck
Arminé Chaparyan
Rachel Kwok
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

UNITED XYZ, LLC
2800 Olympic Boulevard, #1
Santa Monica, CA 90404
June 6, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

city, this is one of the most important points for me as a preservation minded steward of these assets.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 2025

Page 3 ends

I hope the City Council will agree that the time is ripe for the City to move forward with expeditiously processing these two development agreements.

Sincerely,
Daniel Negari
Property Owner and Founder & CEO

UNITED XYZ, LLC
cc: Elaine Polacheck
Arminé Chaparyan
Rachel Kwok
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 8 David Yakobson
From: Michael Bezerra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 1:58 PM
To: Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Cc: Chandler Bryant
Subject: Third Street Promenade Digital Display
Attachments: Santa Monica Support Letter - Promenade Tenants.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well.

Please find attached a letter expressing my support for the proposed digital display on the Third Street Promenade. I believe this addition will contribute positively to the vibrancy and economic vitality of the area.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Michael Bezerra
8272 Sunset Blvd. Suite D. West Hollywood, CA 90046
[email protected]
June 3, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Digital Display Development Agreements
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
On behalf of Cabo Cantina, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed digital displays at 301 Arizona Ave (25ENT-0021) and 1202 Third Street Promenade (25ENT-0021). As a proud tenant of this iconic location, we are deeply committed to the continued vitality of the Promenade and the long-term economic health of the community it anchors.

The 1200 block is urgently in need of revitalization. In today’s evolving retail environment, visibility and engagement are essential. Like many businesses in the area, we face the challenge of maintaining foot traffic. The proposed digital display provides a creative solution that reenergizes the block, enhances the pedestrian experience, and drives meaningful economic activity, allowing us and our neighbors to thrive.

With increased traffic and activity in the area, the digital displays reinvigorate the public realm and support the City’s efforts to ensure the Promenade remains a vibrant, safe, and welcoming destination for residents and visitors alike. Additionally, the revenue generated by the displays creates a new stream of funding that can be reinvested directly into essential city services and programs.

We urge you to approve this proposal and help unlock its potential benefits for the entire community. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Please reach out if additional information is needed.

Sincerely,
Michael Bezerra
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sheyda Semnani <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 10:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: Jeff Appel
Subject: 301 Arizona & 1202 3rd - Digital Display Development Agreements Attachments: Support Letter (Digital Billboard).pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please see aƩached leƩer in support of the digital billboard on behalf of United El Segundo dba The Now.

Please feel free to reach out with any quesƟons.

Best,
Sheyda Semnani| In House Counsel

THE NOW
Office Tel: (855) 300-2708 ext. 114
Direct: (310) 208-9929
9815 National Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90034
[email protected]
https://www.thenow.la/
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) June 3, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Digital Display Development Agreements
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
On behalf of United El Segundo, Inc, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed digital displays at 301 Arizona Ave (25ENT-0021) and 1202 Third Street Promenade (25ENT-0021). As a proud landlord, we are deeply committed to the continued vitality of the iconic Promenade and the long-term economic health of the community it anchors.

We urge you to approve this proposal and help unlock its potential benefits for the entire community.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Please reach out if additional information is needed.

Sincerely,
Jeff Appel
CEO/Owner
[email protected]
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Large-Format Digital Displays
Study Session
January 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Purpose of Tonight’s Study Session
Receive Council direction on whether to proceed with the proposed DA applications for Large Format Digital Displays at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade
 If authorized, receive input on what community benefits should be included in DA
 DA’s are negotiated contracts and therefore, Council has more discretion in imposing conditions and requirements on a project
Seek Council direction on program parameters for considering future off-site digital displays, including establishing a pilot program limiting such signage to the Third Street Promenade Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Background Information
• Signage regulations
 Regulated under Chapter 9.61 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code  Billboards and off-site digital advertising prohibited • City has received 4 DA Applications for Digital Signage  Santa Monica Place - DA application submitted for 4 digital displays on February 7, 2024 (paused in June 2024)
 301 Arizona Ave – DA application submitted for digital display on November 21, 2024
 1202 Third Street Promenade – DA application submitted for digital display on January 30, 2025
 1310 3rd St Promenade – DA application submitted for digital display on May 28, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Background Information
• March 22, 2000 – designation of over 100 meritorious non-conforming signs
• September 13, 2022 - Council directed staff to explore establishing a large-format digital signage pilot program at Santa Monica Place • February 7, 2024 - DA application submitted for digital displays at Santa Monica Place (paused in June 2024)
• January 10, 2023 – Adoption of Ordinance to award a franchise to BIG Outdoor for digital kiosk network
• March 25, 2025 - Emergency Ordinance to increase flexibility for signage in the Bayside Conservation District and Third Street Promenade. • May 13, 2025 - Council adopted an emergency ordinance to establish the Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Proposed Digital Displays
301 Arizona Avenue/1253 3rd Street 1202 Third Street Promenade • Approximately 820 sf
• Full motion
• On/off-site Advertising
• 24/7 operation to be dimmed at night
• Content restrictions
• Approximately 800 sf
• Full motion
• On/off-site Advertising
• 24/7 operation to be dimmed at night
• Content restrictions
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Financial Considerations for the DA’s
• One Time Contribution $500,000 per display at CofO or final building permit • Proposed 20% revenue share or Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) Year(s) Min Annual
Guarantee
1 $500,000
2 $750,000
3-4 $850,000/yr
5-9 $935,000/yr
10-14 $1,028,500/yr
15-19 $1,131,350/yr
20-24 $1,244,485/yr
25-29 $1,368,933.50/yr
30-34 $1,505,826.85/yr
35-39 $1,656,409.54/yr
40-44 $1,822,050.49/yr
45-49 $2,004,255.54/yr
50-55 $2,204,681.09/yr
• Potential concerns on advertising saturation (i.e., digital kiosks, other digital displays)
• Valuation Study and Fiscal Impact Study to be conducted if Council authorizes negotiations
$
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Community Content
Allocated community content (e.g. civic news, PSA, emergency notifications, cultural arts)
 Proposed 20% of total annual operating time – City has latitude to decide what content should be displayed
 In emergencies, City immediately may display emergency announcements
 Proposal – Operator to provide curated art content in coordination with Arts Commission, subject to City approval
San Jose (2nd/San Carlos Parking Garage)
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Other DA Considerations
Terms, Other Community Benefits
 Length of Agreement
• Applicant has proposed 55 years
• Other cities: 20-30 years
 Urban Placemaking
• Physical improvements
• Alternatively, contributions to Business Improvement District  Building Occupancy Requirement
• Applicant has proposed 50% occupancy of ground floor
• Example: WeHo – 50% of building or entire ground floor Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Potential Issues/Concerns
• Driver Distraction & Light Spillage  Can be mitigated through standards such as refresh rates, illumination levels, restrictions on strobe/similar effects
• First Amendment Considerations and
Future Applications  Off-Site digital signage on private property is currently prohibited
 Signs are protected under the First Amendment, and
regulation of off
-site digital billboards is subject to
Constitutional scrutiny.
 Relaxing the existing prohibition may have future
implications
Denver, Colorado
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Questions for Consideration

TOPIC QUESTIONS
Terms What terms and conditions should the agreements contain (length, options for extensions, etc)?
Community Benefits
Financial • Is the proposed financial benefit structure appropriate? • Other considerations in terms of payment timing?
Community /Art
Content
• How should public art content be curated?
• As part of the community content benefit, should there be benefits for local businesses or other programs?
Other • What other community benefits should be considered? (urban placemaking, building occupancy)
Location • Are the locations for the two proposed digital displays appropriate? • Should the City establish a guiding program/policy for future applications of digital displays?
Performance
Standards
• What operating conditions should be applied to the proposed digital displays? • What other performance standards should be established (other than brightness, refresh rates, etc.)?
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Potential Pilot Program Parameters
Should the City draft an ordinance establishing a pilot program for large format digital displays on Third Street Promenade?
Staff recommends the program be
limited to Promenade based on:
 General Plan consistency
 Unique urban character
 Minimal impacts on sensitive uses
 Economic opportunity
 Consistency with Third Street
Promenade Stabilization and
Vitality Plan
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Potential Pilot Program Parameters
Program Parameters
 Development Agreements required to be
proposed for each proposed display
 Location limited only to Third Street Promenade
(staff recommendation)
 Design Standards – lighting, brightness levels
 Proposal Requirements
 Operational Hours – should these be
limited?
 Size and Type
 Proposed Community Benefits – are there
minimum categories that DA must propose?
 Fiscal Impact Analysis

SUNSET BOULEVARD ARTS AND

ADVERTISING PROGRAM
City of West Hollywood
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Recommendation

1. Discuss the approach for future large-format digital signage with off-site advertising, including the adoption of an ordinance to establish a pilot program to limit this signage to the Third Street Promenade area

2. Authorize City staff to initiate negotiations with the applicant for the Development Agreements for new outdoor digital
displays located at 301 Arizona Avenue and 1202 Third Street Promenade

3. Provide direction to Staff regarding desired project parameters and approach to community benefits for both
DAs
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Recommended Action
Thank you!
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.c
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

SANTA MONICA

SPECTACULAR SIGNS
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA

ROBERT JAY CHATTEL
Historic Resources Consultant
Chattel, Inc.

BERTA NEGARI
Ownership Team
United XYZ, LLC

DEDICATED PROJECT TEAM

DANIEL NEGARI
Property Owner and Founder & CEO
United XYZ, LLC

JIBRAN SHERMOHAMMED
VP, Development & Corporate Counsel
Orange Barrel Media

YUMNA SIDDIQI
Senior Director of Architecture
Orange Barrel Media

NELS YOUNGBORG
Historic Resources Consultant
Chattel, Inc.

GABY GHERMEZI
Associate Development Director
Orange Barrel Media

CLAY COLLETT
Senior Development Director
Orange Barrel Media
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

OFFICES IN NEW YORK
, LOS ANGELES,

COLUMBUS & CHARLOTTE

LARGEST OPERATOR OF DIGITAL OOH MEDIA

IN DOWNTOWN ATLANTA, WASHINGTON DC,

BOSTON, DENVER & ON THE SUNSET STRIP
EST. 2004
160
+
OBM + IKE Market
Map Key:

OBM Market
IKE Market AS SOC IAT E S WORK I N G TO G E T H ER

TOWARDS A COMMON GOAL

NATIONWIDE REACH

KANSAS CITY DENVER

BERKELEY

OAKLAND

SAN JOSE

LOS ANGELES

CULVER CITY

WEST HOLLYWOOD

SAN DIEGO

PHOENIX

TEMPE DALLAS

ARLINGTON

SAN ANTONIO

HOUSTON

CHICAGO

MINNEAPOLIS
ST. LOUIS

DETROIT

CLEVELAND

CINCINNATI

COLUMBUS

PITTSBURGH
BOSTON

NEW YORK

BALTIMORE

PHILADELPHIA

WASHINGTON, DC

NORFOLK

CHARLOTTE

RALEIGH

ATLANTA
TAMPA

WEST PALM BEACH

NASHVILLE
MIAMI

AVENTURA

CORAL GABLES

MIAMI BEACH

MEET OBM
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA MIAMI, FL

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA SAN JOSE, CA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

PROPOSED PROGRAM
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1200 BLOCK LOCATIONS f Both properties are located on the Third Street Promenade.
f Both properties are corner properties with excellent
visibility.
f Both properties are located on the 1200 Block. f Both buildings have existing upper floors for mounting the displays, so these displays are not associated with any new development. Indeed, the 1202 Third Street
property historically included a sign tower for J.C.

Penney.
f 1202 Third Street Promenade has no adjacent residential uses, and the proposed display at 301 Arizona has
been purposefully positioned away from the Criterion
apartments to avoid any light intrusion into the
residences.
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA

HISTORIC PROMENADE PHOTOS
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 1202 3RD STREET

EXISTING CONDITIONS
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) PROJECT RENDERING: DAY VIEW
1202 3RD STREET
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) PROJECT RENDERING: NIGHT VIEW
1202 3RD STREET
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) 301 ARIZONA AVENUE

EXISTING CONDITIONS
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) PROJECT RENDERING: DAY VIEW
301 ARIZONA AVENUE
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) PROJECT RENDERING: NIGHT VIEW
301 ARIZONA AVENUE
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA

SURROUNDING USES
1202 3RD STREET
301 ARIZONA AVENUE
Third Street Promenade

COMMERCIAL

MIXED-USE

COMMERCIAL/

RESIDENTIAL
Wilshire Boulevard

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) PROJECT BENEFITS f Generate substantial general fund revenue to the City on an expedient basis
f Enhance and enliven the economic environment of the
Downtown including the Third Promenade and the new
Promenade Entertainment Zone
f Ensure content on the signs includes public art/artistic creations, civic announcements of public interest or
importance, and content promoting the City and/or its
rich history, including Downtown Santa Monica and the
Third Street Promenade
f Result in memorable and creative attractions for visitors and residents alike
f Increase pedestrian activation, engagement and
enjoyment
f Require design and installation of an interpretive exhibit commemorating the history of the former J.C. Penney
building, an officially designated City Landmark at 1202 Third Street
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) COMMUNITY CONTENT (20% OF OPERATING TIME) f Public art and City/nonprofit/public service announcements
f Santa Monica Arts Commission to review and provide
input on public art plan as to over-arching program
objectives and goals—for example, a desire to promote
local Santa Monica artists, art of school-aged children and/or artists focused on advocating civil rights/
inclusiveness awareness.
f Santa Monica Cultural Affairs staff to provide final
approval of this public art plan and confirm selected
artists/artwork conforms to the plan.
f Based on this public art plan, Applicant to commission and display art on the digital signs interspersed with the advertising.
f All public-oriented content, including art, to run in the same general “loop” throughout the day as paid
commercial content—ensuring that the art and other City/ nonprofit content is not relegated to being shown only
during off-peak or overnight hours.
f In addition, signs will display more artwork whenever there is unsold advertising space.
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) CITY REVENUE SHARE f City to receive the following financial benefits, across both displays:
20%

GROSS REVENUES ANNUALLY
$2,000,000

GUARANTEED IN YEAR ONE
($1,000,000 ONE-TIME CONTRIBUTION + $1,000,000 MAG)
$4.8M
APPROX. AVERAGE ANNUAL PROJECTED REVENUE
$260M
APPROX. TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA

PROGRESS TO DATE & NEXT STEPS
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLICATIONS f 301 Arizona Avenue/1253 Third Street Promenade filed on November 21, 2024. f 1202 3rd Street Promenade filed on January 30, 2025.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING (APRIL 3, 2025)

OTHER COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH (ONGOING)

PRELIMINARY COUNCIL FLOAT-UP (CURRENT)
NEXT STEPS f DA Negotiations and Project Review f Planning Commission Recommendation Hearing f City Council Hearing(s) f Landmarks Commission (1202 3rd Street Only) f Coastal Commission f Building & Safety f Fabrication f Installation Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA

OBM INPUT ON QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL

1. What terms and conditions should the agreements contain (length, options for extensions, etc.)? f DA term length needs to reflect the investment being made by the applicant team to bring these signs to fruition f 55 year term proposed
f Payment to City is immediate and not after applicant’s return is made - a long term secures long term revenues to the City 2 & 3. Is the proposed financial benefit structure appropriate? Other considerations in terms of payment timing (e.g., timing of one-time contribution for each digital signage)?
f 20% share of gross revenues
f Growing minimum annual guarantee
f $500,000/per sign bonus paid when the signs “go live.”

4. How should public art content be curated?
f OBM can curate art content -- we have and will continue to develop key partnerships with internationally recognized and local artists, as well as museums, art institutions, and curators
f Arts Commission to review and provide input on public art plan as to over-arching program objectives and goals.

5. As part of the community content benefit, should there be benefits for local businesses? f Yes, we can work with City Staff on how to best allocate the community content time between local business promotion, public art and other community content.

6. What other community benefits should be considered? (e.g., streetscape enhancements, contributions to the Downtown Business Improvement District, etc.) f For 1202 Third Street Promenade (a City-designated landmark), interpretive exhibit commemorating the history of the former J.C. Penney building designed in consultation with consultant Robert Chattel, the Santa Monica Conservancy and the Landmarks Commission and potentially an artist f Allocating a portion of City revenue from Downtown digital displays to DTSM, Inc. for reinvestment in the Promenade.

Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
OBM INPUT ON QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL (CONT.)

7. What is an appropriate occupancy threshold for the proposed buildings? f Substantial increase in the minimum annual guarantee when either (a) more than 50% of the rental floor area is unoccupied or (b) the entire ground floor level remains unoccupied for more than 12 consecutive months f Digital displays will assist with attracting and retaining commercial tenants both on the subject properties and adjacent properties

8. Are the locations for the two proposed digital displays appropriate? f Yes, both properties are corner properties on the 1200 Block identified by Council as an area in need of new, creative ideas and revitalization

9. Should the City establish a guiding program/policy for future applications of digital displays? f If Council wishes to do this, please continue processing our pending development agreement applications so that substantial revenue to the City will be realized sooner.
f Third Street Promenade is a great location for a pilot program. 10 & 11. What operating conditions should be applied to the proposed digital displays? What other performance standards should be established (other than brightness, refresh rates, etc.)?
f Ongoing maintenance requirements
f Daytime and nighttime light limitations
f Avoid driver distraction concerns by prohibiting flashing or strobing content or scrolling text f Content restrictions
• (a) political advertisements; (b) adult-related products and services, firearms, tobacco, smoking, smoking materials, including electronic smoking or “vaping;” (c) sexually explicit or excretory subject matter; (d) false, misleading or deceptive content; (e) violation of copyright or trademark rights or is otherwise unlawful; (f) illegal activity; (g) profanity or violence; (h) material condoning discrimination based upon race, religion, creed, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation; or (i) material that is harmful or disruptive to public use of the Third Street Promenade.

Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

APPENDIX
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

COMMUNITY BENEFITS SUMMARY
Digital Displays Community Benefits Summary
301 Arizona 1202 Third Street Promenade
Installation
Contribution to
City of Santa
Monica
$500,000 per sign at C of O/final building permit sign-off (total $1,000,000) Annual
Contribution to
City of Santa
Monica
Greater of 20% of each sign’s annual gross revenues--with MAG equaling $850,000 per sign by year three and increasing annually thereafter
(see MAG table on page 2)
Portion of sign
operating time to
be allocated for
public purposes
20% of total operating time consisting of:
• Public art and City/nonprofit/public service announcements • All public-oriented content, including art, to run in the same general “loop” throughout the day as paid commercial content—ensuring that the art and other City/nonprofit content is not relegated to being shown only during off-peak or overnight hours. (Typical ad cycle is 28 days.) • In addition, signs will display more artwork whenever there is unsold advertising space.

ATTACHMENT B
© 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session)

GUARANTEED CITY REVENUE SHARE
Year(s) 301 Arizona Avenue 1202 3rd Street
1 $1,000,000
($500,000 MAG + $500,000 one-time contribution)
$1,000,000
($500,000 MAG + $500,000 one-time contribution)
2 $750,000 $750,000
3-4 $850,000/year $850,000/year
5-9 $935,000/year $935,000/year
10-14 $1,028,500/year $1,028,500/year
15-19 $1,131,350/year $1,131,350/year
20-24 $1,244,485/year $1,244,485/year
25-29 $1,368,933.50/year $1,368,933.50/year
30-34 $1,505,826.85/year $1,505,826.85/year
35-39 $1,656,409.54/year $1,656,409.54/year
40-44 $1,822,050.49/year $1,822,050.49/year
45-49 $2,004,255.54/year $2,004,255.54/year
50-55 $2,204,681.09/year $2,204,681.09/year
Total Minimum Annual Contribution
*includes one-time $500,000 contribution More than $80,000,000 More than $80,000,000 © 2025 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) Thank You
Jibran Shermohammed
VP, Development & Corporate Counsel
[email protected]
(770) 714-9174
Clay Collett
Senior Development Director
[email protected]
(615) 977-1773
Gaby Ghermezi
Associate Development Director
[email protected]
(310) 890-5773
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025
Item 7-B
June 10, 2025

7.B.d
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6986 : Large Format Digital Signage Study Session) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 10, 2025
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Mobility (DOT) Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675 to allow bicycles and other devices in transit-only lanes
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675 to allow bicycles and other devices to operate in transit-only designated lanes, and to permit the Director of the Department of Transportation to administratively designate new transit-only lanes.

Summary
Since adopting the Bike Action Plan in 2011 and the Bike Action Plan Amendment in 2020, the City has made significant progress in building a safe and comfortable citywide cycling network. However, key corridors without bike lanes remain, leaving cyclists without comfortable cycling options on some routes. Currently, the Santa Monica Municipal Code does not allow the operation of bicycles or other devices in transit-only lanes. Providing authority to the Director of the Department of Transportation (DOT) to designate transit-only lanes with supportive bus conditions as permissible for cyclists and shared mobility device users would allow designated corridors to serve as new connections for active transportation. This would also facilitate continuity on crossjurisdictional corridors with the City of Los Angeles, where bicycles and bike-lanepermissible devices are permitted in transit-only lanes. Staff therefore recommends

10.A
Packet Pg. 646
2 of 7
amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675 to give the DOT Director the authority to determine which transit-only lanes permit cyclists and other currently permitted bike lane users. Additionally, staff recommends Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675 be further amended to give the Director the authority to designate additional transit-only lanes across the City, allowing the City to respond flexibly to changes in transit demand, potentially in response to upcoming regional mega-events.

Background
The City’s Municipal Code currently allows transit-only lanes to be reserved for the exclusive use of buses and other limited mobility services as designated by the Traffic and Parking Engineer and approved by City Council. The existing transit-only facilities in the City are:
• Peak-time only southbound lane on Lincoln Boulevard between Pico Boulevard and Ozone Street (Monday to Friday, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.);
• Peak-time only northbound lane on Lincoln Boulevard between the south City limit and Grant Street (Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.); • All-day eastbound lane on Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 4 th Court;
• All-day westbound lane on Broadway between Ocean Avenue and 5th Street.

Lincoln Boulevard is a major regional corridor with a manageable gradient compared to adjacent parallel streets, making it a preferred north-south corridor for some bicyclists and other device operators. Likewise, the Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway transit-only lanes in Downtown Santa Monica offer access to numerous destinations.

Notably, the westbound transit-only lane on the westernmost four blocks of Broadway connects the existing protected bikeway on Ocean Avenue with the protected bikeway under development along Broadway. The role of western Broadway as a bike network connector has long been recognized, with the corridor marked as a bikeway in both the City’s 2011 Bike Action Plan and the 2020 Bike Action Plan Amendment. The appendix of the Bike Action Plan explicitly calls for the transit-only lane to permit bicyclists, facilitating this bike network connection.

Discussion

10.A
Packet Pg. 647
3 of 7
Staff believe giving cyclists and other device operators formal permission to ride in transit-only lanes can enhance safety and riding comfort, as the lanes have lower traffic volumes, are used by trained transit vehicle operators, and afford easier turning movements. Owing to these preferable travel conditions, staff have observed cyclists and other device operators already using the transit-only lanes, particularly on Broadway.

Despite the preferable cycling and other device conditions in many transit-only lanes, their use by cyclists and other device operators is currently prohibited in Santa Monica.

While the California Vehicle Code directs cyclists to ride “as close as practicable” to the right-hand curb (CVC section 21202a), under the current text of SMMC 3.12.675, cyclists, as well as other device operators who are currently permitted (and in the case of e-scooters legally required) to use the City’s Class II bikeways are still required to ride to the left of transit lanes. This can expose cyclists and other bike-lane-compatible device users to faster and more voluminous traffic, and make negotiating turns more challenging. For example, under current regulations, bike and e-scooter riders are required to use the center travel lane on westbound Broadway as it connects to Ocean Avenue, exposing them to heavy mixed traffic and making turns northbound onto Ocean protected bikeway more cumbersome.

The proposed ordinance amendment to allow the DOT Director to designate bikeinclusive transit-only lanes would help prevent cyclists and other device operators from being subject to citation for traveling in a lane with a higher degree of riding comfort and practicality. Permitting cycling and other bike-lane-compatible device usage in these more comfortable transit-only lanes has been shown to generate real safety improvements, as demonstrated by a trial completed in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles implemented new shared bus-bike lanes on Wilshire and Sunset Boulevards in 2015 and, in conjunction with LA Metro and the consultant Fehr & Peers, studied the impact over a two-year period. Crashes involving cyclists decreased by 10% and 30%, respectively, despite the number of cyclists increasing on both corridors.

Santa Monica presents broadly favorable conditions for permitting cyclists and other device operators in transit-only lanes. The National Association of City Transportation

10.A
Packet Pg. 648
4 of 7
Officials (NACTO) has created general guidelines for the installation of shared bus-bike lanes. They recommend that shared bus-bike lanes provide the following features:
• Operating speeds of 20 mph or less (to reduce conflicts from overtaking maneuvers);
• Transit headways of 4 minutes or longer (i.e. 15 buses per hour or fewer, again to reduce conflicts between cyclists and buses); and
• Travel lanes between 10 and 12 feet wide.

Table 1 shows how each of the five current transit-only lanes in Santa Monica measure with respect to these guidelines. The first numeric column gives stop-to-stop median bus speeds, which per NACTO guidance include time spent dwelling at stops and are calculated from both BBB and Metro operational data. All transit-only lanes in Santa Monica fall well under the recommended 20 mph upper limit. The next column gives the maximum number of buses per hour in each lane. These figures derive from bus schedule calculations, along with field verifications by City staff. Here, four of the five transit-only lane segments meet the NACTO guideline maximum of 15 buses per hour.

The remaining fifth segment represents a single half block of eastbound Santa Monica Boulevard, between 4th Street and 4th Court.

Table 1. Santa Monica Transit-Only Lanes in Relation to NACTO Guidance Bus Lane Highest stop-tostop median
bus speeds
(mph)
Maximum
number of
buses per
hour
Meets NACTO
guidance
Lincoln Blvd, southbound,
b/n Pico Blvd. and Ozone
St.
13 7 Yes
Lincoln Blvd, northbound,
b/n Grant St. and south
City limit
16 8 Yes
Broadway, westbound b/n 16 12 Yes

10.A
Packet Pg. 649
5 of 7
Ocean Ave. and 5th St.

Santa Monica Blvd,
eastbound, b/n 4th St. and
4 th Ct.
11 32 No
Santa Monica Blvd,
eastbound, b/n Ocean
Ave. and 4th St.
11 15 Yes
Owing to both its particularly important place in the City’s bike network, as well as its NACTO-compatible bus speeds and frequencies, the DOT Director would plan on initially designating the existing transit-only lane on westbound Broadway as inclusive of cyclists. This initial designation would immediately help fulfill the City’s formal bike network plans, while providing City staff with the opportunity to directly observe the functioning of shared bus-bike lanes.

It is important to note, however, that the remainder of existing transit-only lanes also hold the potential to improve the City’s mobility networks by allowing cyclists and other device operators in the future following thorough staff review. Both the Lincoln Blvd. lanes and the western portion of the Santa Monica Blvd. lane fall within NACTO guidelines. And while the easternmost half-block of Santa Monica Blvd. exceeds NACTO-recommended bus frequency when BBB and LA Metro routes are jointly considered, the NACTO guidelines serve as best-practices, and do not preclude successful implementation of shared bus-bike lanes. Notably, the successful and safetyenhancing implementations in City of Los Angeles portions of Sunset and Wilshire Boulevards (referenced above) occurred on corridors with similarly high bus frequencies. In fact, the Fehr & Peers report evaluating these implementations referred to a portion of the Wilshire corridor as “most likely the single busiest transit corridor in the county.”
In preparing this recommendation, DOT’s Mobility Division staff have consulted with various internal City stakeholders, including Big Blue Bus, Santa Monica Police Department, and City Attorney’s Office. BBB Motor Coach Operators have already

10.A
Packet Pg. 650
6 of 7
received training on and have experience with shared bus-bike lanes, as such lanes already exist within BBB’s service area in the City of Los Angeles and in Culver City.

If the ordinance amendment permitting designation of cyclist-inclusive transit-only lanes in the City is approved, DOT staff would develop additional training for BBB Motor Coach Operators to better promote safety for cyclists and other device operators and the smooth operation of BBB vehicles. This training would be complemented by safety outreach to local cyclists, for example by instructing Motor Coach Operators to not overtake cyclists and other operators within a transit-only lane and likewise instructing cyclists to not attempt to overtake stopped buses within such lanes. Concerns were raised about bus headways and about cyclist safety in shared lanes, particularly on corridors with higher transit travel speeds and frequencies. In planning for an initial shared bus-bike designation on the Broadway transit-only lane, staff would seek to add to existing literature on the safety benefits of shared bus-bike lanes by directly observing and evaluating their performance on a controlled and amenable corridor that would offer immediate benefits to the City’s bike connectivity.

If this ordinance amendment is approved, the DOT Director would plan on designating the westbound transit-only lane on Broadway, from 5th St. to Ocean Ave., as inclusive of cyclists and other designated active transportation users. The Mobility Division is evaluating the exact signage and striping changes required for this designation. Staff would plan to coordinate full implementation of the Broadway designation as soon as practicable, and ahead of the completion of the Broadway protected bike lane project.

Full implementation would consist of the DOT Director’s designation, the aforementioned signage and striping, Motor Coach Operator training, and cyclist education and outreach. Similar steps would be taken ahead of any subsequent designation of cyclist permission in additional transit-only lanes.

Finally, the recommended ordinance amendment also includes language to permit the DOT Director to designate additional Transit-Only lanes (with or without cyclist inclusion) as needed, and without hardcoding Transit-Only corridors in the Santa Monica Municipal Code. This additional flexibility would aid the City in swiftly responding to changes in transit demand, specifically as may arise as a result of upcoming regional mega-events.

Environmental Review

10.A
Packet Pg. 651
7 of 7
The ordinance amendment to allow bicyclists in transit lanes is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15301. Section 15301 of the CEQA State Guidelines provides Class 1 (existing facilities) exemption for projects that consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, leasing, licensing, permitting, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use. Additionally, the amendment is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 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 proposed ordinance amendment to change the definition of transit-only lanes to permit bicyclists and other active transportation users would not result in a physical effect on the environment nor expand existing lanes.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no immediate financial impacts to the implementation of shared bus-bike lanes. However, staff anticipates costs associated with the installation of bike-bus signage, pavement markings, and wayfinding signage, which will be funded out of the DOT Mobility Division’s operating budget.

Prepared By: Trevor Thomas, Senior Transportation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment 6-10- 2025 hvt
B. Written Comments
C. PowerPoint Presentation

10.A
Packet Pg. 652
1 City Council Meeting: June 10, 2025 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.12.675

TO ALLOW BICYCLES AND OTHER DEVICES IN TRANSIT-ONLY LANES AND TO

AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO

ADMINISTRATIVELY DESIGNATE TRANSIT-ONLY LANES
WHEREAS, since adopting the Bike Action Plan in 2011 and the Bike Action Plan Amendment in 2020, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) has made significant progress in building a safe and comfortable citywide cycling network, however, key corridors without bike lanes remain, leaving cyclists and other device operators without comfortable options on some routes; and
WHEREAS, under Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675, transit-only lanes may only be used by buses and other limited mobility services as designated by the Traffic and Parking Engineer and approved by Council; and WHEREAS, currently, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675 does not permit the operation of bicycles and other devices in traffic lanes designated as transitonly lanes; and WHEREAS, authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to designate bicycle and other device inclusive transit-only lanes would help prevent cyclists and other device operators from being cited for traveling in a lane with a higher degree of riding comfort and practicality; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles, which surrounds the City on three sides, currently permits the operation of bicycles and other devices in designated transit-only

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment 6-10-2025 hvt (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only 2 lanes, and permitting the same in Santa Monica will assist in creating a multijurisdictional network; and
WHEREAS, City staff will develop additional training for Big Blue Bus (“BBB”) Motor Coach Operators to better promote safety for cyclists and other device operators; as well as provide safety outreach to cyclists and other device operators; and WHEREAS, amending the Municipal Code to allow the Director of the Department of Transportation the ability to administratively designate future transit-only lanes will enable the City to swiftly respond to changes in transit demand, specifically as those demands may arise from upcoming regional mega-events.

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

SECTION 1. Section 3.13.675 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.12.675 Transit Lanes
The Parking and Traffic Engineer Director of the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer, may designate specified lanes of traffic for transit service as follows:. A person may operate a bicycle or “shared mobility device”, as defined in Section 3.22.020, in designated lanes of traffic for transit service. Designated lanes of traffic for transit service are as follows:
(a)
Lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway between Ocean Avenue and Fifth Street may be designated for use by public transit buses only. (b)

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment 6-10-2025 hvt (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only 3 Parking on Lincoln Boulevard may be restricted to create transit lanes for use by:
(1) public transit buses; (2) dial-a-ride vans; and (3) charter party carriers and passenger stages operating pursuant to State licenses or permits. However, diala-ride vans, charter party carriers and passenger stages may only use transit lanes if they have at least two passengers on board and may not make passenger stops within the transit lane.
(c) The Director of Transportation, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer, may designate lanes of traffic for transit services other than lanes listed in sections (a) and (b) above. The Director of the Transportation shall make available to the public a list of designated lanes of traffic for transit services.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment 6-10-2025 hvt (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only 4 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment 6-10-2025 hvt (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only 1 David Yakobson
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 10A - Support for shared bus lanes

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I support Agenda Item 10A to allow buses, bikes, and scooters in bus transit only lanes as this long over due implementation will bring us in alignment with other major cities safe street designs policies such as Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Sharing lanes between buses and bikes can enhance both bus efficiency and cyclist safety while freeing up space in general traffic lanes. People on bicycles benefit from a separation from high-speed traffic, reducing their risk of collisions.

Studies such “SharedBus-BikeLaneSafetyAnalysis: Assessing Multimodal Accessand Conflicts” https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/dot_65819_DS1-

1.pdf__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!th_HDOUdprrXY8izkxDpOuUjinnmwck0YCVkUA0qqlWyLoGCpHihLDAALl_xVsQH_bxGsHKZlX-nWfevxB7H3oS6qZ3gQ$ support these conclusions.

Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written Comments (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:47 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Item 10A

EXTERNAL
Good morning Council,
I'm writing in support of Item 10A regarding bicycles and bus lanes. As a resident along Broadway, I regularly bike west through one of these areas to get to restaurants and connect to the beach bike path.

It's a hectic area already and sharing the lane with normal vehicle traffic is not a safe option. Using the bus lane is commonplace throughout the rest of the area and provides a much safer alternative.

Administrative designation for transit only lanes also makes sense and should lead towards more effective execution of transit service.

Thanks
Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written Comments (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) 2 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Anuj Gupta; Colleen E. Stoll; Jason Kligier; [email protected]
Subject: Support for Agenda Item 10a
Attachments: 2025-06 CC Agenda Item 10a Support bikes in transit lanes ordinace amendment- SM Spoke SaMoSSA .pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council Members:

Please find our support letter attached for agenda item 10a Thank you for your dedication and service to Santa Monica! --
Cynthia Rose
Director
Santa Monica Spoke
SMSpoke.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 10-A
June 10, 2025
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comments (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.

Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.

June 10, 2025

RE: Support for Agenda item 10a Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment.

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and City Council Members:

On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance we support staff recommendations and the supporting documentation for Agenda Item 10a Buses Bikes and Scooters in Transit Only Lanes Ordinance Amendment.

We fully support the long overdue implementation to allow buses, bikes, and scooters in transit only lanes. The City of Los Angeles –which surrounds Santa Monica on three sides– currently permits this operation and has for a long time. Permitting the same uses in Santa Monica provides a clear multijurisdictional network and helps prevent people on bikes and other mobility devices from being cited for traveling in a lane with a higher degree of riding comfort and practicality. We support amending the Municipal Code to allow the Director of the Department of Transportation the ability to administratively designate future transit-only lanes. This will enable the City to dynamically respond to changes in transit demand –specifically as those demands may arise from upcoming regional mega-events.

In reading the updated ordinance there appears to be a lack of clarity/parity in regards to personal escooters. The amended ordinance language reads:

3.12.675 Transit Lanes
The Parking and Traffic Engineer Director of the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer, may designate specified lanes of traffic for
transit service as follows:. A person may operate a bicycle or “shared mobility device”, as defined in Section 3.22.020, in designated lanes of traffic for transit service. Designated lanes of traffic for transit service are as follows:

This language seems to leave out personally owned e-scooters/mobility devices? It would seem the intent is not to exclude these personal devices. The ordinance language should be clarified so that personally owned e-scooters are allowed – the same as “shared mobility devices”.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comments (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) 1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 6:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda 6/10/2025 Item 10A

EXTERNAL
I support amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.675 to allow bicycles and other devices in transit-only lanes
In the further interest of public safety, I also strongly support the City enforcing Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.540 --Bicycle riding or coasting restricted. (a) It shall be unlawful to ride a bicycle or to coast in any vehicle upon any public sidewalk (c) Any person violating subsection (a) of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars per violation, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment; or shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars but not more than two hundred fifty dollars.

In addition, Santa Monica traffic regulations prohibit the following:
 Riding on the Third Street (Beach) Promenade.
 Riding on sidewalks.
 Riding in public parking structures.
 Clinging to moving vehicles.
 Riding on handle bars.
 Operating a pedicab without a pedicab permit.

It is my understanding that these ordinances apply to motorized bicycles and scooters.

Thank you,
Michael Baroff
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025
Item 10-A
June 10, 2025

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comments (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) Buses and Scooters in Transit-Only Lanes
Trevor Thomas | Sr. Transportation Planner | SaMoDOT, Mobility Division June 10, 2025

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) Why Start with Broadway Transit-Only Lane
Amenable Conditions
Importance in City's
Bike Network
Ability to Hone
Implementation &
Evaluate
Broadway, 5th to Ocean

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) Proposed Shared Lane Implementation Steps
• Start with Broadway
• Prepare Evaluation Scheme
• Work with BBB, SMPD, and
Community
• Implement Signage and
Pavement Markings
• Formally Designate Shared
Status
• Evaluate

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) Why Change How We Designate Transit-Only Lanes
Lanes Can Be
Added/Adjusted More Flexibly
Flexibility Will Be Important
Ahead of Regional MegaEvents
Eastbound
Santa Monica Blvd
Ocean to 5th
Westbound
Broadway
5th to Ocean
Northbound
Lincoln
Dewey to Grant
Southbound
Lincoln
Pico to Ozone

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) Recommendation Summary
• Grant DOT Director the
ability to designate transit-
only lanes that permit
bicycles and Shared
Mobility devices
• Grant DOT Director the
ability to administratively
designate new transit-only
lanes

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6675 : Permitting Bicycles in Transit-Only Lanes) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 10, 2025
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Scheduled FiveYear Water Service Rate Adjustments Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing for the proposed five-year water rate adjustment;

2. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines for the five-year water rate adjustment public hearing;

3. Receive public comments pursuant to Proposition 218 requirements;

4. Consider all protests against the proposed water rate adjustments that have been submitted in accordance with Proposition 218; and

5. Adopt the resolution establishing five-year schedule of water rate adjustments to go into effect July 1, 2025.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica continues to be a recognized leader in the world for its innovative water infrastructure projects and environmental policies aimed to provide a resilient, reliable and sustainable water supply. The Water Resources Division of the City’s Public Works Department provides drinking water, wastewater collection, and recycled water services to residential, commercial, and institutional customers throughout the city. These services are funded through self-sustaining Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds that are separate from the City’s General Fund. The Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds are evaluated every five years to ensure that sufficient funding is available to: 1) supply high-quality drinking water for potable use, 2) maintain routine operation and maintenance of the water distribution and wastewater collection infrastructure, 3) implement capital improvement program (CIP) projects for

12.A
Packet Pg. 667
2 of 10
system resiliency and reliability, 4) advance sustainable water management efforts (e.g., water conservation and sustainable groundwater management), and 5) comply with Proposition 218 requirements to ensure cost of services are properly allocated amongst user classifications and rate tiers. The City Council has consistently taken a strategic approach to setting future water and wastewater rates that balance a concern for keeping costs affordable to the community while adequately investing in long-term water quality, reliability, resiliency, and sustainability.

Staff in the Water Resources Division have retained a rate study consultant, NBS, to conduct the rate study and recommend rate adjustments as outlined in the Water and Sewer Rate Study Report (Attachment A). Rate adjustments are needed to invest in system reliability and resiliency as well as keeping pace with escalating costs in serving over 93,000 residents and 2,700 businesses and institutions that make up the City’s 18,000+ accounts for water and wastewater services. The Water and Sewer Rate Study Report recommends a 20% increase for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, 16% increase for FY 2026-27, 9% increase for FY 2027-28, 9% increase for FY 2028-29, and 6% increase for FY 2029-30 for the Water Enterprise Fund. The recommendation also includes implementing a 20% fixed charge and 80% commodity charge structure as well as adjusting the rate tiers and tier thresholds to reflect current cost of service. In addition, staff also recommends adopting the drought rate structure and maintaining the lowincome assistance program. The estimated average increase for each major customer class’s bi-monthly water charges of the total utility bill per year is listed below. • Single Family Homes - an estimated $29 increase for an average single-family home bimonthly bill, or roughly $15 per month, each year over five years. • Multi-Family Units - an estimated $66 increase on the bi-monthly bill for an average 8-unit multifamily residential building, which represents an approximate monthly increase of $4 per unit, each year over five years. • Commercial - an estimated $119 increase for an average commercial building’s bimonthly bill each year over five years.

Due to the legal requirements of Proposition 218 to appeal or protest rate increases, the

12.A
Packet Pg. 668
3 of 10
individual Water and Wastewater rate studies are being presented in separate public hearings and require separate action by Council. Proposition 218 notices (Attachment B) were mailed out the week of April 14, 2025, to inform all affected property owners of the proposed rate increases. Staff have also conducted in-person outreach to neighborhood groups, held general outreach meetings and to members of the business community to solicit feedback and provide education. Staff recommends City Council hold a public hearing, receive public comments, consider any protests against the proposed water rate adjustment, and adopt the resolution (Attachment C) to establish the five-year schedule of water rate adjustments.

Background
The Water and Wastewater Rate Study would establish the basis to set the water and wastewater rates for FY 2025-26 through 2029-30 in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements. Proposition 218 stipulates, among other things, that charges for water and wastewater services must not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to each parcel or customer. Staff have worked closely with a rate consultant, NBS, to establish the cost of service that is in compliance with Prop 218 requirements.

The rate study included a review of the following to set the water and wastewater rate structure:
• Operating and capital revenue requirements for the City’s Water and Wastewater enterprise funds over a five-year period, FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30; • Fund reserves, maintain AAA bond rating/capacity, and cover current and future debt obligations;
• Water and sewer rates / structure – adjusting the fixed-service charge component, tiered rates, number of tiers, usage allocations by tier, and customer class designations (e.g. residential, commercial);
• Affordability of rates including low-income discounts / rates for purposes of determining the level of subsidy from non-rate payer funds (e.g., City’s general fund);
• Cost of service for each rate/fee/charge by customer class, meter size and tier; • Impact of proposed changes versus existing rates;

12.A
Packet Pg. 669
4 of 10
• Funding for capital improvement program projects (e.g. system resiliency projects including rehabilitating the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs); • Fire service. In 2020, the Legislature adopted SB 1386 (Gov. Code Section 53750.5). SB 1386 adopted findings, declaratory of existing law, that propertyrelated water service costs may include, but are not limited to, any costs associated with constructing, maintaining, repairing, upgrading, and replacing hydrants, and costs associated with obtaining, treating, and distributing adequate volumes of water to meet the water demands of properties served by the water service provider, including water supplied for firefighting purposes. As per the cost-of-service allocation in the report, the charges for water service related to hydrants are proportionately allocated among properties receiving water service as part of the fixed meter service charge; and
• Other related factors as identified by the public, City Council, advisory groups and staff as part of the rate study outreach process.

The consultant’s financial analysis considered the cost of service to operate the system, produce and distribute high-quality drinking water, replace and upgrade existing facilities, implement routine capital improvement projects, and fund one-time CIP projects that would maintain infrastructure reliability and resiliency. The financial analysis for the water and wastewater enterprise funds were broken down into three key components:

1. Expenditures, broken down into three categories:
a. Operating & Maintenance (O&M) - Salaries and benefits of Water Resources staff (current and future to support expanded operations from water self-sufficiency projects added in the prior five-year rate study period) as well as all the supplies, contracted services, and water sustainability programs to produce local water and maintain a reliable and resilient water supply for customers. The O&M expenditure also includes debt service taken on to fund water self-sufficiency projects from the prior rate study period (e.g. $78 million water revenue bond in the water fund and $55 million State Revolving Fund loan in the wastewater fund). O&M

12.A
Packet Pg. 670
5 of 10
expenditures typically account for approximately 70-75% of the total water fund expenditures.
b. Routine Capital Projects - Replace aging water mains on a 100-year cycle, upgrade software infrastructure and facilities to function efficiently, reliably, and meet industry standards. Routine capital projects typically account for approximately 20-25% of the total water fund expenditures. c. One-time Capital Projects - Non-routine capital improvement projects to replace or maintain aging assets, including rehabilitating the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs that total 40 million gallons in storage, replacing aging operation facilities (e.g. water operations center and water quality laboratory) and re-drilling and replacing aging groundwater production wells.

2. Revenues - the primary source of revenue generated by the established water and wastewater rates.

3. Reserves - to ensure continuity of water and wastewater service due to unforeseen events. The water and wastewater enterprise fund’s current reserve policy include:
a. Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve = 3% of capital assets. b. Operating Reserve = maintain minimum of 60 days of operating budget and target a 90-day operating reserve.
c. Rate Stabilization Reserve = intended for unexpected decrease in revenues or increase in expenditures (e.g. higher than forecasted increase for charges from regional wastewater collection/treatment provider). A rate stabilization reserve of $1 million has been set by City Council previously.

At the City Council Study Session held on March 25, 2025, City Council directed staff to proceed with Water Rate Option 1 that balances rate increases with outside funding/financing support to minimize financial impacts on the rate payers. Under Water Rate Option 1, staff will pursue grants and financing options (e.g. federal/state loans or water revenue bond) to fund rehabilitation of the City’s potable water storage reservoirs and replacement of the water operations center and water quality laboratory.

12.A
Packet Pg. 671
6 of 10
Discussion
Water Enterprise Fund
The City’s Water Fund supports production, treatment, and distribution of high-quality drinking water to meet the City’s water demands. Over the past five years since the last five-year water rates were adopted in January 2020, revenues have been lower than originally projected in each year as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. decline in water use in commercial and multi-family residential customers) and climate change impacts on water usage (severe drought conditions followed by extreme wet winter periods). Between FY 2019-20 and FY 2023-24, the Water Fund had experienced a total revenue shortfall of approximately $18.5 million. In addition, revenues for FY 2024- 25 are forecasted to have a shortfall of nearly $5 million and will need to dip into the Water Fund reserves to mitigate the shortfall. Expenditures for both operation and construction during and post pandemic have also exceeded original projections due to higher than anticipated market inflation rates (e.g. 3-4% prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and 4-9% general inflation after; ~4% in the water sector prior to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and 6-16% after) caused by supply chain shortages and increases in material costs.

Despite the revenue shortfalls and high market escalation rates experienced over the past five years, the Water Resources Division was still able to successfully deliver the majority of the local water supply and water efficiency projects outlined in the 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (Attachment D). These projects included the Olympic Well Field Restoration, Arcadia Water Treatment Plant Production Efficiency Enhancement and Expansion Project, Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project, and Groundwater Resiliency Projects (two new groundwater production wells and two new groundwater recharge wells). Staff managed to bridge the funding gap for these water self-sufficiency projects by securing a $10 million grant from the California Department of Water Resources and a $78 million water revenue bond as well as deferring selected routine CIP projects (e.g. annual water main replacement).

For the current five-year rate cycle (FY 2025-30), expenditures (O&M, routine capital, and one-time capital projects) are forecasted to outpace revenues by nearly $6-$7

12.A
Packet Pg. 672
7 of 10
million in FY 2025-26 alone and the gap will continue to grow without a rate adjustment to replenish reserves and keep pace with market escalation rates. In addition, several critical projects are planned for this five-year rate cycle to address resiliency and aging infrastructure. Therefore, a water rate adjustment is necessary to:
• Rehabilitate the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs (total capacity of 40 million gallons or roughly four days of the city’s total water supply) that range from 60 to over 100 years old. These four storage reservoirs are critical in providing water to meet peak daily/seasonal and emergency fire demands. • Replace the City’s drinking water operations center and water quality laboratory that are both over 60 years old. The two aging facilities are the brain of the City’s water system which monitor and control the entire drinking water treatment and distribution network throughout the city.
• Maintain routine operation and maintenance expenditures of the water system, including salaries and benefits of Water Resources staff, contracted services, and water sustainability programs.
• Fund routine capital projects to maintain water supply resiliency and emergency preparedness.
• Maintain reserve levels to ensure operational continuity.

In addition to the water rate adjustment, the Rate Study also included the following key elements:
• Drought Rate Structure - A drought rate structure was developed and would be implemented in the event of a statewide drought mandate to conserve water and approved by the Council. Having the drought rate structure in place would ensure sufficient funds are maintained to safeguard reliable operations in the event of a drought event. The drought rate structure is included in the Rate Study Report (Attachment A) and also in the Proposition 218 Notices (Attachment B). • Low Income Subsidy - The current low-income subsidy would be maintained and adjusted to match the updated water tier breakpoints. The current low income subsidy reduces the Tier 1 water rate by $1 per HCF (hundred cubic feet) for qualifying customers. The customer would qualify for the low-income assistance

12.A
Packet Pg. 673
8 of 10
program by providing proof that they either qualify for the Southern California Gas Company or Southern California Edison’s low-income assistance programs.

Cost of service requirements under Proposition 218 require that the discount provided to qualified low-income customers be covered by the City’s General Fund to prevent it from being subsidized by other ratepayers. The average annual General Fund transfer to the Water Fund is currently around $115,000, which benefits approximately 360+ customer accounts.
• Recycled Water Rate - The uniform recycled water rate has been updated to reflect current cost of service. The uniform recycled water rate is lower than the Tier 1 water volumetric charge to incentivize customers to use recycled water and reduce potable water consumption.

Community Outreach
Throughout the rate study period, staff presented at the City’s neighborhood groups, civic/business groups and one open house event to educate the community about the rate study and potential impacts of rate adjustments, and answer questions about the rate study.

In addition to input received from City Council during the March 25, 2025 Study Session, staff also solicited feedback from the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment (Commission) on March 17, 2025, where the recommended rate increase was supported by the Commission.

A public hearing is required as part of the Proposition 218 process to allow the community to provide comments, the City Clerk to tally Proposition 218 protests received, and the Council to vote on the recommended rate increases. Separate public hearings are being held for the Water and Wastewater Funds to comply with Proposition 218 requirements. Proposition 218 notices (Attachment B) were mailed out the week of April 14, 2025, to inform all affected property owners of the proposed rate increases.

The Proposition 218 notices include a summary of the new rate and tier structures.

Environmental Review

12.A
Packet Pg. 674
9 of 10
The City’s water and wastewater rate study is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, purchasing for leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The intent of the rate study is to adjust water and wastewater rates to maintain system reliability and resiliency while ensuring the rates are proportional to the cost of service provided to each parcel or customer. Therefore, adjustment of rates is exempt from CEQA.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
May 14, 2024
(Attachment E)
Award Professional Services Contract to NBS Government
Finance Group, dba NBS, to Analyze the Existing
Water/Wastewater Rate Structure and Establish a New Five-Year Rate Structure for Potable Water, Recycled Water, and
Wastewater Commodity Charges; Fire Line Rates; and Capital Facility Fee for Calendar Years 2025 to 2029
March 25, 2025
(Attachment F)
Five-Year Water and Wastewater Rate Study Session
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The recommended rate increases in the Water and Sewer Rate Study will provide the necessary revenue to provide high-quality drinking water to the community, maintain a modern and reliable water system, and invest in reliability and resiliency. The proposed rate increases over the next five years (FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30) would allow the Water Fund to collect sufficient revenues to meet the projected operating expenditures, maintain adequate fund reserve levels, and replace aging infrastructure.

Revenues budgeted for the FY 2025-27 Proposed Biennial Budget and the Water Fund’s five-year forecast reflect the impact of the rate changes.

12.A
Packet Pg. 675
10 of 10
Prepared By: Sunny Wang, Water Resources Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL
B. Prop 218 Notice
C. Resolution - Water and Recycled Water Service Rates
D. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update
E. Award Contract to NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS (Web Link) F. Five-Year Water and Wastewater Rate Study Session (Web Link) G. Written Comments
H. PowerPoint Presentation

12.A
Packet Pg. 676
nbsgov.com
Water, Sewer and Recycled Water Rate Study Report
Draft Final Report

May 2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins))

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Overview of the Study ............................................................................................ 1

2. Water Rate Study ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Key Water Rate Study Issues................................................................................... 6

2.2 Financial Plan / Water Utility Revenue Requirements............................................ 6

2.3 Capital Improvement Program and Financing....................................................... 10

2.4 Cost-of-Service Analysis........................................................................................ 10

2.4.1 Costs Allocated to Customer Classes.......................................................................... 14

2.5 Current vs. Proposed Water Rate Structures........................................................ 18

2.6 Drought Rate Analysis........................................................................................... 22

3. Sewer Rate Study ........................................................................................................... 24

3.1 Key Sewer Rate Study Considerations................................................................... 24

3.2 Financial Plan / Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements .......................................... 25

3.3 Characteristics of Sewer Customers by Class........................................................ 28

3.4 Rate Design Analysis............................................................................................. 30

3.4.1 Fixed Charges.............................................................................................................. 30

3.4.2 Variable Charges......................................................................................................... 31

3.5 Current and Proposed Wastewater Rates............................................................. 31

4. Recommendations and Next Steps ................................................................................. 33

4.1 Consultant Recommendations.............................................................................. 33

4.2 Next steps............................................................................................................. 33

4.3 NBS’ Principal Assumptions and Considerations................................................... 33 Technical Appendices ............................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A. Water Rate Study Tables and Figures................................................................. 35 Appendix B. Sewer Rate Study Tables and Figures................................................................. 36

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins))

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Primary Components of a Rate Study.................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Summary of Water Revenue Requirements........................................................................................ 9 Figure 3. Summary of Water Reserve Funds...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Allocation Percentages of Revenue Requirements........................................................................... 12 Figure 5. Single Family Meter Size Characteristics........................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Water Consumption by Customer Class............................................................................................ 13 Figure 7. Capacity Factors by Customer Class.................................................................................................. 14 Figure 8. Number of Meters by Customer Class............................................................................................... 14 Figure 9. Cost Allocation Methodology ............................................................................................................ 15 Figure 10. Capacity Related Costs (fixed share), Customer & Fire Protection Costs Allocation ...................... 16 Figure 11. Meter Equivalency Factors.............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 12. Volumetric Related Costs Allocation ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 13. Summary of Proposed Tier Breakpoints.......................................................................................... 18 Figure 14. Calculation of FY 2025/26 Standard Fixed Meter Charges for SFR Customers ............................... 20 Figure 15. Calculation of FY 2025/26 Standard Fixed Meter Charges for non-SFR Customers........................ 20 Figure 16. Calculation of FY 2025/26 Private Fire Protection Meter Fixed Charges........................................ 20 Figure 17. Calculated Variable Charges for FY 2025/26 ................................................................................... 21 Figure 18. Current and Proposed Water Rates ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 19. FY 2025/26 Calculation of Commodity Costs at Various Levels of Conservation............................ 23 Figure 20. Proposed Drought Rates.................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 21. Summary of Revenue Requirements............................................................................................... 26 Figure 22. Summary of Sewer Reserve Funds.................................................................................................. 28 Figure 23. Development of the Volume Allocation Factor and Discharge Factors .......................................... 29 Figure 24. Development of the Strength Allocation Factor ............................................................................. 29 Figure 25. Development of the Customer Allocation Factor............................................................................ 30 Figure 26. Development of Fixed and Variable Charges .................................................................................. 31 Figure 27. Proposed Wastewater Rates – Fixed Charges................................................................................. 32 Figure 28. Proposed Wastewater Rates – Volumetric Charges........................................................................ 32 Figure 29. Proposed Recycled Water Rates – Volumetric Charges.................................................................. 32

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose
The City of Santa Monica (City) retained NBS to conduct a comprehensive water and sewer rate study (Study) for its water and sewer enterprise funds. The City had several objectives and goals in mind for this study including meeting revenue requirements to maintain reliable water and sewer services, reviewing the rising costs of providing water and sewer services to the community, funding capital improvements to maintain a reliable and resilient infrastructure and changes in costs, and complying with certain legal requirements (e.g., California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6, which is commonly referred to as Proposition 218 [Prop 218]). The City’s broader objectives in this study include ensuring adequate funding for operating and capital costs, maintaining reasonable reserves, and ensuring revenue stability in utility rates. The rates resulting from this study were developed in a manner that is consistent with industry standard cost-of-service principles. In addition to documenting the rate study methodology, this report is provided with the intent to assist the City in its continuing effort to maintain transparent communications with the residents and community it serves.

Throughout the course of the rate study, NBS worked cooperatively with City staff in developing rate alternatives. Based on input from City Staff, NBS has recommended the water and sewer rates proposed in this study. The purpose of this report is to summarize NBS’ findings resulting from the water, sewer and recycled water rate study. Appendices are included for the purpose of further documenting the analysis and results, and includes the Financial Plan, Cost-of-Service Analysis and Rate Design Tables for the water and sewer utilities, respectively.

1.2 Overview of the Study
Comprehensive rate studies, such as this one, typically include three components: (1) preparation of a financial plan that identifies the net revenue requirements for the utility; (2) analysis of the cost to serve each customer class, and (3) the rate structure design. These steps are shown in Figure 1 and are intended to follow industry standards and reflect the fundamental principles of cost-of-service rate making embodied in the American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, 1 also
referred to as Manual M1, and the Water Environment Federation’s Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems (Manual of Practice No. 27).2
Rate studies also address requirements under Prop 218 that rates not exceed the cost of providing the service and be proportionate to the cost of providing service for all customers. In terms of the chronology of the study, the three steps shown in Figure 1 represent the order in which they were performed. 1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, Manual of Water Supply Practices, Manual M1, American Water Works Association (AWWA), 7
th Edition, 2017.
2 Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems, Manual of Practice No. 27, Water Environment Federation, Fourth Edition, 2018.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 2
Figure 1. Primary Components of a Rate Study
1 FINANCIAL
PLAN 2
COST-OFSERVICE

ANALYSIS
3 RATE DESIGN

ANALYSIS
Compares current sources and
uses of funds and determines the
revenue needed from rates and
projects rate adjustments.

Proportionally allocates revenue
requirements to the customer
classes in compliance with industry
standards and State Law.

Considers the rate structure that
best meets the City’s need to collect
rate revenue from various types of
customers.

As a part of this rate study, NBS projected revenues, expenditures, and net revenue requirements, performed cost-of-service rate analyses, and recommended new utility rates. Rate increases -- or more accurately, increases in the total revenue collected from rates -- are recommended for both the water and sewer utilities. The following sections in this report present an overview of the methodologies, assumptions, and data used along with the financial plan and rates developed during this study. Detailed tables and figures documenting the development of the proposed rates are provided in the Appendices.

The City provided NBS with the data necessary to conduct the study, including historical, current, and projected revenues and expenditures, number of customer accounts, and water consumption data along with other operational and capital cost information.

FINANCIAL PLAN
As a part of the rate study, NBS projected revenues and expenditures on a cash-flow basis for the next five (5) years. The amount of rate revenue required, that will allow reserves to be maintained at the recommended levels, is known as the net revenue requirement. As current rate revenue falls short of the net revenue requirement, rate adjustments – or more accurately, adjustments in the total revenue collected from rates – are recommended. This report presents an overview of the methodologies, assumptions, and data used along with the financial plan and proposed rates developed in this study.3

COST-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS
The basic purpose of the cost-of-service analysis (COSA) is to fairly and equitably allocate costs to customer classes. The cost-of-service analysis consists of two major components: (1) the classification of expenses, and (2) the allocation of costs to customer classes. For example, a key task is the “classification” of the water revenue requirements into the following categories:
• Commodity related costs
• Groundwater related costs
• Purchased water related costs
3 The complete financial plans are available in the Appendix A and Appendix B.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 3
• Conservation related costs
• Capacity related costs
• Customer-service related costs
• Fire protection related costs
For the sewer utility, the normal classification of sewer revenue requirements uses the following categories:
• Flow-related costs
• Strength related costs
• Customer-service related costs
Further details are discussed below and documented in Appendix A and Appendix B.

RATE DESIGN ANALYSIS
During the rate design phase of the study, NBS and City staff worked together to develop rate alternatives that will meet the City’s objectives. It is important for the City to send proper price signals to its customers about the actual cost of providing service. This objective is typically addressed through both the magnitude of the rate adjustments and the rate structure design. In other words, both the amount of revenue collected and the way in which the revenue is collected from customers are important.

Several criteria are typically considered in setting rates and developing sound rate structures. The fundamentals of this process have been well documented in several rate-setting manuals, such as AWWA’s Manual M1. The foundation for evaluating rate structures is generally credited to James C. Bonbright in Principles of Public Utility Rates,
4 which outlines pricing policies, theories, and economic concepts along with various rate designs. The following is a simplified list of the attributes of a sound rate structure:
• Rates should be easy to understand from the customer’s perspective. • Rates should be easy to administer from the utility’s perspective. • Rates should be equitable and non-discriminating (i.e., cost-based). • Rates should promote the efficient allocation of the resource. • There should be continuity in the rate making philosophy over time. • Rates should address other utility policies (e.g., conservation and economic development). • Rates should provide month-to-month and year-to-year revenue stability.

RATE STRUCTURE TERMINOLOGY
This section covers basic rate design criteria that NBS and City staff considered as a part of their review of the rate structure alternatives. One of the most fundamental points in considering rate structures is the relationship between fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs, such as debt service and personnel costs, typically do not vary with the amount of water consumed. In contrast, variable costs, such as the cost of purchased water, chemicals, and electricity, tend to change with the quantity of water sold. Most rate structures contain a fixed, or minimum, charge in combination with a volumetric charge. 4 James C. Bonbright, Albert L. Danielsen, and David R. Kamerschen, Principles of Public Utility Rates, Arlington, VA: Public Utilities Report, Inc., Second Edition, 1988, pp. 383-384.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 4
Fixed Charges – Fixed charges can be called base charges, minimum monthly charges, customer charges, fixed meter charges, etc. Fixed charges for water utilities are typically based on meter size. For example, a customer with a 2" meter may have a fixed meter charge that is four to five times greater than a 3/4” meter charge based on the meter’s safe operating capacity5. Because a large portion of water utilities’ costs are typically related to meeting capacity requirements, reflecting individual demands for capacity is an important factor in establishing rates for customers.

Volumetric (Consumption-Based) Charges – In contrast, variable costs such as the cost of electricity used in pumping water and chemicals for treatment tend to change with the quantity of water produced or the purchase of imported water. For a water utility, variable charges are generally based on metered consumption and charged on a dollar-per-unit cost (e.g., per 100 cubic feet, or hcf).

Uniform (Single-Tier) Water Rates – There are significant variations in the basic philosophy of variable charge rate structure alternatives. Under a uniform (single tier) rate structure, the cost per unit does not change with consumption, and provides a simple and straightforward approach from the perspective of customer understanding and rate administration/billing.

Tiered Water Charges – The 2015 San Juan Capistrano court decision held that water agencies may only charge tiered rates if they can show that the tiered rates are proportionate to the agency’s higher costs to serve those customers, meaning that caution must be used to ensure that customers are appropriately allocated costs that meet legal requirements.

KEY FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS
The NBS rate study was undertaken to address the unique challenges currently facing the water and sewer utilities (e.g., climate change, market volatility, and rising inflation). It is appropriate to conduct an in-depth review of the current rates and rate structure design for both the water and the sewer utility to ensure that the new proposed rates collect sufficient revenues to meet all financial obligations during the five-year rate period.

The following are the key financial assumptions used in the water rate analyses:

Funding of Water Utility Capital Projects – The City will fund planned capital costs using a combination of cash in reserves, additional revenue from the proposed rate increases and new debt issuances. The capital projects listed in the financial plan are from the City’s capital improvement program aimed to maintain a modern water and sewer infrastructure to serve the community.

Reserve Targets – Reserves for operations and capital needs are set at target levels that are consistent with industry standards for utility fund management. Reserve targets used in the analysis are as follows:
• Operating & Maintenance Reserve – target 90 days of operating and maintenance expenses and maintain a minimum of 60 days of operating and maintenance expenses. • Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve – approximately 3% of net assets. • Rate Stabilization Reserve – target reserve of $1 million and is to remain unchanged from current City policy.

Inflation and Growth Projections:
5 American Water Works Association, “Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges” – M1 Manual, p. 202.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 5
Revenue and expenses for FY 2023/24 through FY 2028/29 were based on the City of Santa Monica’s water fund forecast as provided during FY 2023/2024. For subsequent years following FY 2028/29, the following inflation and growth projections were provided by the City of Santa Monica for use in the rate study:
• Customer growth is estimated at 0.42% annually.
• General cost inflation is estimated at 2.40% annually. • Salary inflation is estimated at 3.00% annually.
• Workers’ compensation insurance is estimated at 8.00% annually. • Medical inflation for miscellaneous employees is estimated between 5.90% to 9.00% annually. • General medical inflation costs are estimated at 1.50% annually. • Dental inflation is estimated at 3.00% annually.
• Employee health contribution is estimated to be between 6.86% to 7.00% annually. • Retirement costs are estimated to increase between 24.17% to 29.84% annually. • General insurance costs are estimated to increase 5.00% annually. • Property insurance costs are estimated to increase 10.00% annually. • Energy costs are estimated to increase by 2.40% annually. • Fuel costs are estimated to increase by 3.00% annually.

The following are the key assumptions used in the sewer rate analyses:

Funding of Sewer Utility Capital Projects – The City will fund planned capital costs using a combination of cash in reserves and additional revenue from the proposed rate increases. The capital projects listed in the financial plan are from the City’s capital improvement program.

Reserve Targets – Reserves for operations and capital needs are set at NBS recommended levels, which are consistent with industry standards for utility fund management. Reserve targets used in the analysis are as follows:
• Operating & Maintenance Reserve – 90 days of operating and maintenance expenses. • Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve – approximately 3% of net assets. • Rate Stabilization Reserve – target reserve of $1 million and is to remain unchanged from current City policy.

Inflation and Growth Projections:

Revenue and expenses for FY 2023/24 through FY 2028/29 were based on the City of Santa Monica’s water fund forecast as provided during FY 2023/24. For subsequent years following FY 2028/29, the following inflation and growth projections were provided by the City of Santa Monica for use in the rate study:
• Customer growth is estimated at 0.42% annually.
• General cost inflation is estimated at 2.00% annually. • Salary inflation is estimated at 4.00% annually.
• General benefits inflation is estimated at 6.00% annually. • Energy costs are estimated to increase by 5.00% annually. • Chemical costs are estimated to increase by 3.00% annually. • Fuel costs are estimated to increase by 3.00% annually.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 6

2. Water Rate Study

2.1 Key Water Rate Study Issues
The City’s water rate analysis was undertaken with a few specific objectives, including:
• Generating sufficient revenue to meet anticipated operating and maintenance costs and fund necessary capital improvement projects for the next five years. • Continuing to encourage water conservation with a tiered rate structure. • Provide greater revenue stability for the utility, due to level of capital investment planned over the next five years.
• Verifying the cost-of-service linkage between the current rate structure and the proposed water rates.
• Maintaining adequate reserve levels to ensure continuity in operations. • Complying with the legal requirements of Prop 218 to ensure the cost of providing service is properly allocated amongst user classifications. This was the basis for eliminating tiered water rates.

NBS developed various water rate alternatives as requested by City staff over the course of this study. All rate structure alternatives relied on industry standards, cost-of-service principles, and the requirements of Prop 218. The new rates that will be implemented are ultimately the decision of the City Council.

The following are the basic components included in this analysis:

Developing Cost Allocations – The water revenue requirements were “functionalized” into categories; and then these functionalized costs were then used to develop unit costs based on various factors, such as water consumption, peaking factors, and number of accounts by meter size.

Determining Revenue Requirements by Customer Class – The total revenue that needs to be collected from each customer class was determined using the functional costs and allocation factors. For example, customer costs are allocated based on the number of meters, while volume-related costs are allocated based on the water consumption of each customer class. Once the costs are allocated and the net revenue requirement for each customer class is determined, collecting the revenue requirements from each customer class is addressed within the rate design.

Evaluating Rate Design (Fixed vs. Variable Charges) – The revenue requirements for each customer class are collected from both fixed monthly service charges and variable commodity charges. The City decided to recommend adjusting the existing rate structure that collects 15% fixed/85% variable rate revenue to one with 20% fixed/80% variable rate revenue collection in order to increase revenue stability while also maintaining the City’s commitment to water conservation and sustainability.

2.2 Financial Plan / Water Utility Revenue Requirements It is important for municipal utilities to not only collect sufficient revenues every year, but to also maintain reasonable reserves to handle emergencies, fund working capital, maintain a good credit rating, and generally follow sound financial management practices. Rate adjustments are governed by the need to

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 7
meet operating and capital costs as well as maintain reasonable reserve levels. The current state of the City’s water utility, regarding these objectives, is as follows:

Meeting Net Revenue Requirements6: For FY 2025/26 through FY 2029/30, the projected net revenue requirement (i.e., total annual expenses plus debt service and rate-funded capital costs, less non-rate revenues) increases from approximately $50.2 million to $71.3 million. If no rate adjustments are implemented, the water utility is projected to run an estimated $25.4 million deficit by FY 2029/30. Rate increases of 20% in FY 2025/26, 16% in FY 2026/27, 9% in FY 2027/28 and FY 2028/29, and 6% in FY 2029/30 are recommended in order to fund operating expenses, planned capital projects and meet debt service obligations. These recommended rate increases ensure that the water utility will meet the minimum debt coverage target of 1.25, for both the existing debt service as well as the projected new debt issuance.

Maintaining Reserve Funds: Reserve funds provide a basis for a utility to cope with fiscal emergencies, such as revenue shortfalls, asset failure, and natural disasters, among other events. Reserve policies provide guidelines for sound financial management, with an overall long-range perspective to maintain financial solvency and mitigate financial risks associated with revenue instability, volatile capital costs, and unexpected emergencies.

Building and Maintaining Reserve Funds: The City should maintain sufficient reserves for the Water Utility.

NBS recommends that the City adopt and maintain the following target reserve fund balances:
• Operating Reserve should normally be 90 days of the Utility’s budgeted annual operating expenses, which is equal to a three-month (or 25%) cash reserve for normal operations. The City’s minimum operating reserve target is set equal to 60 days of reserves. An Operating Reserve is intended to promote financial viability in the event of any short-term fluctuation in revenues and/or expenditures, such as those caused by weather patterns, the natural inflow and outflow of cash during billing cycles, natural variability in demand-based revenue streams (e.g., volumetric charges), and – particularly in periods of economic distress – changes or trends in age of receivables. • Capital System Replacement Reserve should typically equal at least 3% of net depreciable capital assets, which equates to a 33-year replacement cycle for capital assets. This target serves as a starting point for addressing long-term capital system replacement needs. • Rate Stabilization Reserve has a target reserve of $1 million and is to remain unchanged from current City policy. This reserve is intended to provide additional financial security to the Utility should any unforeseen revenue shortages or capital emergency occur.

Funding Capital Improvement Projects: The City must also be able to fund necessary capital improvements for the Utility in order to maintain current service levels. City staff has identified a total of roughly $249 million in capital improvements for the City’s water system for the five years. The preferred rate adjustments will be able to fund 100% of the identified capital improvement project needs, with these project costs planned to be funded with a combination of rate revenue, reserve cash on hand, and secure outside financing support (e.g., issuing bonds or apply for federal low interest loan programs aimed to support water and wastewater infrastructure projects) for large, non-routine capital projects such as rehabilitating the City’s water storage reservoirs and replacing the water operations center. Without the 6 A more detailed breakdown of the revenue requirements is provided in Tables 1 and 2 of the Technical Appendix.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 8
rate increases recommended in this study, the City will not be able to sufficiently fund the identified necessary capital improvements.

Inflation and Growth Projections: Cost inflation and growth assumptions are necessary to project future revenues and expenses for the study period. Customer growth is estimated to be 0.42% annually. This factor was used in the analysis for rate revenues while inflation factors, including the Consumer Price Index,7 were used in projecting expenses. Inflation and growth projections are based on the City’s budgeting fund forecast for the water utility.

Pollution Remediation Liability: During FY2022-2023 Year End Budget Process, the Water Resources Division loaned $15 million from the unrestricted Gillette/Boeing Settlement Funds to the City's General Fund to pay a portion of the $122.5 million settlement agreement against sexual abuse claims against a former City employee and volunteer approved by City Council on April 24, 2023. The General Fund would repay the $15 million loan starting in FY2029-2030. The $15 million loan is from future year remediation costs that will be repaid by the General Fund starting in FY2029-30. The repayment schedule is as follows:
$1.25 million each fiscal year from FY2029-30 through FY2034-35, $1.5 million in FY2035-36, and minimum transfers of $600,000 each year from FY 2036-37 through FY 2046-47. For additional details, please refer to the October 24, 2023 Staff Report for the FY2022-2023 Year-End Budget Review.

Maintaining Adequate Bond Coverage: The City is required by its bond covenant to maintain a debt service coverage ratio of at least 1.25 for the outstanding Water Revenue Bonds. The analysis assumes that the same will be required for the new Revenue Bonds planned to be issued during the projected five-year rate implementation period. The benefit of maintaining at least the minimum coverage ratio is that it strengthens the City’s credit rating, which can help lower the interest rates for debt-funded capital projects, and in turn reduces annual debt service payments. It is projected that, with the proposed rate increases, the City’s revenues will be sufficient to meet the 1.25 debt coverage ratio for existing and planned new debt.

Figure 2 summarizes the sources and uses of funds, net revenue requirements, and the annual percent adjustments in total rate revenue recommended for the next five years. 7 Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the Los Angeles area. Source: Website: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 9
Figure 2. Summary of Water Revenue Requirements
Figure 3 summarizes the projected reserve fund balances and reserve targets.8 A summary of the utility’s proposed 10-year financial plan is included in Table 1 of Appendix A. This Appendix tables include revenue requirements, reserve funds, revenue sources, proposed rate increases, operating revenue and expenses, the City’s capital improvement program, and debt obligations.

Figure 3. Summary of Water Reserve Funds
8 A more detailed breakdown of the reserve funds is provided in the Technical Appendices.

FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Sources of Water Funds
Water Rate Revenue
Water Sales Revenue Under Current Rates $ 41,567,286 $ 41,567,286 $ 41,741,869 $ 41,917,184 $ 42,093,237 $ 42,270,028 Revenue from Rate Increases 1
- 8,313,457 16,362,812 21,682,921 27,522,040 31,832,092 Subtotal: Rate Revenue After Rate Increases $ 41,567,286 $ 49,880,743 $ 58,104,681 $ 63,600,106 $ 69,615,276 $ 74,102,120 Non-Rate Revenue
Reimbursement from other funds $ 450,000 $ 463,500 $ 477,405 $ 491,727 $ 507,986 $ 520,177 Water Neutrality Fee Revenue 1,328,296 1,354,862 1,381,959 1,409,598 1,437,790 1,472,297 Charges for Service (other than Rate Revenue) 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,001 767,001 Investment Income 750,000 221,468 177,395 147,340 173,573 173,573 Other Revenues 555,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,002 470,000 Subtotal: Non-Rate Revenue $ 3,850,296 $ 3,336,830 $ 3,333,759 $ 3,345,666 $ 3,416,352 $ 3,403,048 Total Sources of Funds $ 45,417,582 $ 53,217,573 $ 61,438,440 $ 66,945,772 $ 73,031,628 $ 77,505,169 Uses of Water Funds
Operating Expenses
Salaries and Benefits $ 9,457,601 $ 11,873,093 $ 12,362,633 $ 12,777,742 $ 13,359,453 $ 14,558,417 Water Purchases2 5,207,080 5,727,788 6,300,567 6,930,623 7,623,686 7,806,654 Supplies and Expenses 16,503,494 16,733,036 17,082,869 17,374,298 17,747,400 18,052,432 Retirement and OPEB 49,169 51,627 54,209 56,919 59,766 215,663 Interfund Transfers 1,411,672 1,456,843 1,503,367 1,551,285 1,605,655 1,655,982 Subtotal: Operating Expenses $ 32,629,016 $ 35,842,387 $ 37,303,644 $ 38,690,868 $ 40,395,959 $ 42,289,148 Other Expenditures
Debt Service (Interfund Loan Repayment) $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 Debt Service (Water Revenue Bond) 3,553,187 3,554,587 3,553,587 3,551,863 3,550,175 3,550,362 New Debt Service - - - - 8,361,556 8,361,556
Rate-Funded Capital Expenses 13,337,857 13,438,671 18,676,718 21,436,970 19,042,343 19,803,897 Subtotal: Other Expenditures $ 17,597,411 $ 17,699,625 $ 22,936,672 $ 25,695,199 $ 31,660,440 $ 32,422,182 Total Uses of Water Funds $ 50,226,427 $ 53,542,012 $ 60,240,316 $ 64,386,067 $ 72,056,400 $ 74,711,330 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $ (4,808,845) $ (324,439) $ 1,198,124 $ 2,559,704 $ 975,229 $ 2,793,838 $ 46,376,131 $ 50,205,182 $ 56,906,557 $ 61,040,401 $ 68,640,048 $ 71,308,282 Projected Annual Rate Revenue Adjustment 0.00% 20.00% 16.00% 9.00% 9.00% 6.00%

0.00% 20.00% 39.20% 51.73% 65.38% 75.31%
Debt Coverage After Rate Increase 18.10 24.60 34.17 40.00 3.60 3.88

1. Revenue from rate increases assumes an implementation date of July 1, 2025 and then July 1 each year thereafter.

2. Net of water purchases and Arcadia AOP/UV System that is funded with the Gillette-Boeing Settlement Funds (shown in restricted reserves section of Table 2).

RATE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Budget
Net Revenue Req't. (Total Uses less Non-Rate
Cumulative Increase from Annual Revenue Increases
Projected
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Operating Reserve
Ending Balance $ 7,951,659 $ 7,627,220 $ 8,825,344 $ 9,672,717 $ 10,098,990 $ 10,572,287 Recommended Minimum Target (90-days O&M) 8,157,254 8,960,597 9,325,911 9,672,717 10,098,990 10,572,287 Capital Rehabilitation & Replacement Reserve
Ending Balance $ 1,339,000 $ 1,339,000 $ 1,339,000 $ 3,051,332 $ 3,600,287 $ 5,920,828 Recommended Minimum Target (3% Net Assets) 1,339,000 1,943,200 2,735,100 3,613,200 4,376,200 4,430,400 Rate Stabilization Reserve
Ending Balance $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Recommended Minimum Target 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Ending Balance $ 10,290,659 $ 9,966,220 $ 11,164,344 $ 13,724,049 $ 14,699,277 $ 17,493,116 Total Recommended Minimum Target $ 10,496,254 $ 11,903,797 $ 13,061,011 $ 14,285,917 $ 15,475,190 $ 16,002,687 Surplus/(Deficit) $ (205,595) $ (1,937,577) $ (1,896,667) $ (561,868) $ (775,913) $ 1,490,428 Beginning Reserve Fund Balances and
Recommended Reserve Targets
Projected

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 10

2.3 Capital Improvement Program and Financing
City staff has identified a total of approximately $249 million in capital improvements for the City’s water system for the five-year implementation period. The preferred rate adjustments will be able to fund 100% of the identified capital improvement project needs, with these project costs planned to be funded with a combination of rate revenue, reserve cash on hand, and outside financing (e.g., revenue bonds or federal low interest loans). Without the rate increases recommended in this study, the City will not be able to sufficiently fund the identified necessary capital improvements Tables 11 through 15 in Appendix A provides a complete list of capital projects that were factored into the financial plan and the cost of each project.

Project costs are listed in current and future values; future values reflect the estimated cost of each project in the year the project is planned, including estimated cost inflation of 3% per year, per the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Inflation Index.
9 The City is planning to secure loan funding in the amount of $139 million to help fund the planned capital improvement program costs during the rate implementation period. The $139 million program includes rehabilitating the City’s four potable water storage reservoirs and replacing the aging water operation center and water quality laboratory. This analysis assumes a conservative debt financing approach for the anticipated State Revolving Fund (SRF) or United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan that uses an interest rate of 4.00%, issuance costs of

2.00% of the net proceeds and a debt coverage requirement equal to the annual debt-service payment plus a 25% cushion (i.e., a “1.25 coverage ratio”), which is consistent with the outstanding water revenue bonds coverage requirement. The City also intends to explore the potential of issuing a revenue bond instead of pursuing low interest loans from the State or Federal government to support the $139 million program.

2.4 Cost-of-Service Analysis
Once the net revenue requirements are determined, the cost-of-service analysis (COSA) proportionately distributes the revenue requirements to each of the customer classes. The COSA consists of two major components: (1) the classification of expenses, and (2) the allocation of costs to each customer class. Costs are classified according to the function they serve. All costs in the City’s budget are allocated to each component of the rate structure in proportion to the level of service required by customers.

The level of service is related to the volume and strength of the water treated, infrastructure capacity, and customer service. These costs are based on allocation factors, such as water consumption, number of meters, and customer class. Ultimately, a COSA is intended to result in rates that are proportional to the cost of providing service to each customer class.

FUNCTIONALIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS
Most costs are not typically allocated 100% to fixed or variable categories and, therefore, are allocated to multiple functions of water service. The classification (i.e., functionalization) of costs provides the basis for allocating the classified costs to the following cost causation components:
9 See Table 10 and 11 in Appendix A for the detailed capital projects costs which include projected cost inflation and Table 14 for the cost inflation factors applied to the project costs.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 11
• Base Commodity related costs are those that change as the volume of water produced and delivered changes. These commonly include the costs of water quality testing, energy related to pumping for transmission and distribution, and source of supply. • Groundwater-related costs are allocated to the lower tiered commodity costs that are incurred for managing the City’s groundwater supply.
• Purchased Water related costs are the costs incurred from purchasing water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and are allocated to the highest tiered commodity costs only.
• Conservation related costs are the costs associated with efforts made by the City to permanently reduce water usage.
• Capacity related costs are associated with sizing facilities to meet the maximum, or peak demand. This includes both operating costs and capital infrastructure costs incurred to accommodate peak system capacity events.
• Customer related costs are associated with having a customer on the water system, such as meter reading, postage, billing and other administrative duties. • Fire Protection related costs are associated with providing sufficient capacity in the system for fire meters and other operations and maintenance costs of providing water to properties for private fire service protection.

Once costs have been organized in the City’s budget categories, they are allocated to these cost causation components that are used as the basis for establishing new water rates and translate to fixed and variable charges. Tables in the Technical Appendices show how the City’s expenses were classified and allocated to these cost causation components.

FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS
Fixed costs generally consist of costs that a utility incurs to serve customers irrespective of the amount of water they use.
10 These include (1) the infrastructure (capacity-related facilities) required to provide service to customers, (2) costs associated with the peaking requirements, or maximum demand which affects the maximum size and operations and maintenance costs of water supply, treatment and delivery system, and (3) administrative and billing costs associated with meter reading, postage and billing.

Variable costs are those that change as the volume of water produced and delivered changes. These commonly include the costs of chemicals used in the treatment process, energy related to pumping for transmission and distribution, and source of supply.

Ideally, utilities should recover all of their fixed costs from fixed charges and all of their variable costs from volumetric charges; when this is the case, fluctuations in water sales revenues would be directly offset by reductions or increases in variable expenses. Because of this, this rate design provides greater revenue stability. However, other factors are often considered when designing water rates such as community values, water conservation goals, ease of understanding, and ease of administration.11 10 American Water Works Association, “Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges” – M1 Manual, p. 137-139. 11 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, Manual of Water Supply Practices, M1, American Water Works Association, Sixth Edition, see pp. 5 and 96.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 12
NBS evaluated the functionalization of costs into categories that can be more generally grouped into the fixed and variable costs discussed above. This analysis resulted in a cost distribution that is approximately 50% fixed and 50% variable (volumetric).
12 Given the City’s water self-sufficiency goals, the City has historically collected a majority of the water rate revenue from their volumetric charges. The City’s current rate structure collects 85% percent of rate revenue from variable charges, except for the fixed fire meter rates. The City Council has decided that revenue stability is an important factor in this rate setting process and has selected a rate structure that will collect 20 percent (20%) of revenue from fixed charges and 80 percent (80%) from variable rates. This adjustment moves the City closer to the cost-of-service analysis results and will provide more financial stability for the City, while maintaining a tiered rate structure that will encourage conservation. However, a share of the City’s capacity costs, will need to be collected from the variable rates in order to achieve this.

Thus, most capacity-related costs (which are normally considered fixed) will be collected from both fixed and variable rates.

Figure 4 summarizes how the net revenue requirements are allocated to each classification component and used to establish new water rates.

Figure 4. Allocation Percentages of Revenue Requirements

COSTS ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSES
Customer classes are typically determined by grouping customers with similar demand characteristics into categories that reflect the cost differentials to serve each type of customer. This process is limited by the desire to not overcomplicate the City’s rate structure.

For the City, the customer classes are split between single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, municipal, irrigation and fire protection. Single-family residential customers are separated from other customers for the purpose of the rate calculation because non-single-family customers:

1. Are using more water on average per account.
12 This analysis is presented in more detail in Appendix A.

Variable Costs
Base Commodity $ 13,510,220 27.1%
Groundwater 1,910,679 3.8%
MWD Purchased Water 7,261,431 14.6%
Conservation 2,320,563 4.7%
Fixed Costs
Capacity $ 22,581,241 45.3%
Customer 1,779,399 3.6%
Fire Protection 517,211 1.0%
Net Revenue Requirement $ 49,880,743 100%
Cost of Service Net Revenue
Requirements (FY 25/26)
Proposed Rates
Customer Classes

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 13

2. Water usage varies greatly among these customers based on the specific type of customer and meter size.

As shown in Figure 5, consumption by single-family customers of meter size from ¾ inch to 1 inch are sufficiently similar to consider those meters a single class for the sake of the rate calculation (they will all pay the same fee). 1.5-inch and 2-inch meters will have a slightly higher fixed charge for single-family customers with larger meters. The similarities are apparent in the capacity factors shown in this figure.

Figure 5. Single Family Meter Size Characteristics
The amount of consumption, the capacity factors and the number of meters by size are used in the cost-ofservice analysis to allocate costs to customer classes and determine the appropriate rate structures for each. The City’s most recent consumption is summarized in Figure 6, capacity factors in Figure 7 and number of customers by customer class is shown in Figure 8.

Commodity related costs are costs associated with the total annual consumption of water by customer class, as shown in Figure 6. This figure shows the actual consumption in FY 2023/24 and the projected consumption for FY 2025/26.

Figure 6. Water Consumption by Customer Class
Capacity factors for each customer class are shown in Figure 7. A “capacity factor” is the relationship of each customer class’s average use to peak (generally summer) use. A capacity factor is indicative of a customers’ maximum water demand and the impact each customer class places on the City’s water system.

Average
Bi-Monthly
Con./Acct (hcf)
Peak
Bi-Monthly
Con./Acct (hcf)
FY 2023/24 FY 2023/24
3/4 inch 3,105 17.2 20 1.15
1 inch 3,285 27.8 34 1.22

1.5 inch 1,117 45.7 57 1.25
2 inch 73 67.4 101 1.50
Total 7,580 26.5 32 1.21

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24 Meter Size
Number of
Meters
Peaking
Factor
Customer Class
Consumption,
Actual
(hcf)
FY2023/24
Consumption,
Projected
(hcf)
FY2025/26
FY 2023/24
Percent of
Total Volume,
Actual
FY 2025/26
Percent of
Total Volume,
Projected
Single Family 1,205,301 1,145,036 26.1% 26.1%
Multi Family 1,867,992 1,774,592 40.4% 40.4%
Commercial 1,356,790 1,288,951 29.4% 29.4%
Municipal 128,057 121,654 2.8% 2.8%
Irrigation 64,322 61,106 1.4% 1.4%
Total 4,622,086 4,390,523 100.0% 100.0%
Recycled Water 5,285 5,285 0.1% 0.1%

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 14
Figure 7. Capacity Factors by Customer Class
The number of customers for each customer class (also known as customer allocation factors) are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Number of Meters by Customer Class

2.4.1 Costs Allocated to Customer Classes
Costs are allocated to each customer class based on the customer characteristics of each class in order to reflect the cost differentials to serve each type of customer. Figure 9 summarizes how the costs for each cost causation component from Figure 4 are allocated to each customer class.

Customer Class
Peak Bi-Monthly
Use FY2023/24
(hcf)
Average BiMonthly Use
FY2023/24
(hcf)
Bi-Monthly
Peaking
Factor
FY 2023/24
Bi-Monthly Max
Capacity Factor
Single Family 243,441 201,383 1.21 27.0%
Multi Family 333,610 312,168 1.07 37.0%
Commercial 259,773 226,775 1.15 28.8%
Municipal 31,368 21,782 1.44 3.5%
Irrigation 32,844 12,322 2.67 3.6%
Total 901,230 774,370 1.16 100.0%
Recycled Water 7,950 1,458 5.45 82.4%

1. Based on bi-monthly billing data (peak day data not available).

Customer Class Number of Meters Percent of
Total
Single Family 7,580 41.2%
Multi Family 6,507 35.4%
Commercial 2,160 11.7%
Municipal 191 1.0%
Irrigation 662 3.6%
Fire 1,297 7.1%
Total 18,397 100.0%
Recycled Water 29 0.2%

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 15
Figure 9. Cost Allocation Methodology
The costs allocated to each causation component are assigned to each customer class using the cost allocation methodology described in Figure 9. This process is shown in the following sections.

Capacity Related Costs (fixed share) and Fire Protection The capacity-related costs (fixed share) allocation is summarized in Figure 10. Capacity related costs are those costs associated with constructing and operating the water system to ensure there is sufficient capacity in the system to meet the demand of each meter connected. Per CA Govt Code § 53750.5 (2024), hydrants and the water distributed through them are included as part of the property-related water service provided to all property owners served by a water service provider. Through hydrants, water is immediately available to those properties to aid in extinguishing a fire that directly threatens them. The cost associated with this aspect of water service is proportionately allocable among properties that may receive a reasonably similar level of service from the immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires that directly or indirectly threaten those properties.

These capacity-related costs are first allocated to customer classes based on bi-monthly peak capacity factors and then by hydraulic capacity. It should be noted that all meter sizes for single-family residential customers are combined. For non-single-family residential customers, costs are allocated by meter size. Larger meters have the potential to use more of the system’s capacity, compared to smaller meters. The potential capacity demanded is proportional to the maximum safe meter capacity each meter size as established by the AWWA13. The meter capacity factors used in this study are shown in Figure 11. 13 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, Manual of Water Supply Practices, M1, AWWA, seventh edition, 2017, p. 338. •Allocated based on peak water consumption by customer class •Then, allocated based on the hydraulic capacity of each meter size Capacity Related Costs
(fixed share)
•Allocated based on the total number of accounts Customer Related Costs
•Allocated based on the hydraulic capacity of fire meters Fire Protection Related Costs
•Allocated based on water consumption by customer class Commodity Related Costs
•Allocated to Tier 1 and Tier 2 water rates as the number one source of supply Ground Water Related Costs
•Allocated to Tier 3 water rates as the additional source of supply from MWD Purchased Water Costs
•Recovered from Tier 2 and Tier 3 water rates to encourage conservation Conservation Related Costs
•Allocated to Tier 3 water rates Water Self-Sufficiency Related Costs
•Allocated based on peak consumption by customer class Capacity Related Costs (volumetric share)

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 16
A “hydraulic capacity factor” is calculated by dividing the maximum capacity or flow of large meters by the capacity of the base meter size, which is typically the most common residential meter size (in this case a 1- inch meter). For example, Figure 11 shows the hydraulic capacity of a two-inch meter is 3.20 times that of a 1-inch meter and therefore, the capacity component of the fixed meter charge is 3.20 times that of the 1-inch meter.

The actual number of meters by size is multiplied by the corresponding capacity ratios to calculate the total number of equivalent meters. The number of equivalent meters is used as a proxy for the potential demand that each customer can place on the water system and the percentage of capacity related costs (fixed share) distributed to each meter size by the percent of total hydraulic capacity.

The fire protection cost allocation is also summarized in Figure 10. Only Fire Protection meters are allocated this cost component. A direct allocation is made in the functionalization and classification step in the cost-ofservice analysis to represent their share of system capacity and other related operations and maintenance costs and then allocate to Fire Protection meters through hydraulic capacity. Unlike the potable users, cost recovery for fire protection is 100% collected through fixed charges.

Customer Related Costs
The customer-related cost allocation is also summarized in Figure 10. Customer related costs are comprised of those costs related to reading and maintaining meters, customer billing and collection, and other customer service-related costs. The customer service costs do not differ among the various meter sizes; therefore, these costs are spread equally among all meters. Each customer class is allocated customer related costs based upon the percentage of total meters that are in that class.

Figure 10. Capacity Related Costs (fixed share), Customer & Fire Protection Costs Allocation Single Family $ 6,099,653 $ 733,154 $ -
Multi Family $ 8,358,944 $ 629,372 -
Commercial $ 6,508,877 $ 208,920 -
Municipal $ 785,954 $ 18,474 -
Irrigation $ 822,929 $ 64,030 -
Fire $ 4,883 $ 125,449 517,211
Total Net Revenue Requirement $ 22,581,241 $ 1,779,399 $ 517,211 Customer Classes
Fire Protection
Classification Components (Fixed Costs)
Capacity Customer

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 17
Figure 11. Meter Equivalency Factors
Commodity Related Costs
Commodity related costs are those costs related to the amount of water sold and commonly include the costs of chemicals used in the treatment process, energy related to pumping for transmission and distribution, and source of supply. Each customer class is allocated commodity related costs based upon the percentage of total consumption by that class. The commodity-related costs (volumetric share) allocation is summarized in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Volumetric Related Costs Allocation
NBS recommends that the current tiered rate structure be maintained. Tier breakpoints were established based on the City’s current available water supply, and expected consumption in each tier was determined based on customer class. The justification when setting the tier breakpoints includes:
3/4 inch 30 1.00 30 1.00
1 inch 50 1.00 50 1.00

1.5 inch 100 2.00 100 2.00
2 inch 160 3.20 160 3.20
3 inch 320 6.40 350 7.00
4 inch 500 10.00 700 14.00
6 inch 1,000 20.00 1,600 32.00
8 inch 2,800 56.00 2,800 56.00
10 inch 4,200 84.00 4,200 84.00

1. Meter flow rates are from AWWA M-1 (Seventh Edition) Table B-2.

2. Fire Service meter flow rates are from AWWA M-6 Table 5-3.

Meter Size Meter
Capacity (gpm)
Equivalency
to 1-inch
Meter Capacity
(gpm)
Equivalency to 1-
inch
Standard Meters Fire Service Meters
Displacement Meters Displacement Meters
Compound Class I Meters Fire Service Type I & II
Turbine Class II Meters Turbine Class I Meters
Single Family $ 3,523,059 $ 498,248 $ 1,893,563 $ 605,133 Multi Family $ 5,460,085 $ 772,191 $ 2,934,669 $ 937,844 Commercial $ 3,965,858 $ 560,870 $ 2,131,557 $ 681,190
Municipal $ 374,306 $ 52,936 $ 201,181 $ 64,292
Irrigation $ 188,012 $ 26,590 $ 101,052 $ 32,294
Fire $ (1,101) $ (156) $ (592) $ (189)
Total Net Revenue Requirement $ 13,510,220 $ 1,910,679 $ 7,261,431 $ 2,320,563 Customer Classes Base
Commodity Groundwater
MWD Purchased
Water
Conservation
Classification Components (Variable Costs)

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 18

1. Tier 1 breakpoint is updated to assumed indoor water use based on 47 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), per the indoor residential water use standard outlined in State of California’s “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life, Implementing Executive Order B-37-16”, from 2025-2029 Single family residential water use is based on 2.56 persons per home and multi-family residential water use is based on 1.78 persons per home. This is per City staff in the Water Resources Division’s water conservation team that estimates of residential occupancy rates and used for Water Neutrality calculations. The planning department provided these estimates to the Water Resources Division for this study. Tier breakpoints for non-residential start at the SFR equivalent and are scaled based on meter size.

2. Tier 2 breakpoint is set to the total volume of Santa Monica groundwater minus the Tier 1 usage for each customer class.

3. Tier 3 water is set to include all purchased water from MWD, as this is the highest current cost for water.

Figure 13 summarizes the new proposed tier breakpoints by customer class and meter size.

Figure 13. Summary of Proposed Tier Breakpoints

2.5 Current vs. Proposed Water Rate Structures
The process of evaluating the water rate structure provides the opportunity to incorporate a number of rate-design objectives and policies, including revenue stability, equity among customer classes, and compliance with Prop 218. NBS discussed several water rate alternatives and methodologies with City Staff over the course of this study, such as the percentage of revenue collected from fixed vs. variable charges and differentiating rates by customer class. Based on input provided by all stakeholders, the proposed rates were developed. The following sections describe this process.

NBS recommends that the City make the following modifications to the water rate structure:

1. Increase the fixed revenue recovery modestly from 15% to 20%.

Customer Class and Meter Size Equivalency
to 1-inch # of Meters
# of 1-inch
Equivalent
Meters
% of
Equivalent
Meters
Tier 1 Breakpoint 1 Tier 2 Breakpoint 2 Tier 3 Breakpoint 3 Single Family
All Customers 1.00 3,105 3,105 11% 0 - 10 hcf 11 - 18 hcf 19+ hcf Subtotal: Single Family 7,580 8,858 31%
Multi Family
All Customers 1.00 1,699 1,699 6% 0 - 7 hcf 8 - 13 hcf 14+ hcf Subtotal: Multi Family 6,507 10,944 38%
Non-Residential
3/4 inch 1.00 2,094 2,094 7% 0 - 10 hcf 11 - 18 hcf 19+ hcf 1 inch 1.00 716 716 3% 0 - 10 hcf 11 - 18 hcf 19+ hcf

1.5 inch 2.00 718 1,436 5% 0 - 20 hcf 21 - 36 hcf 37+ hcf 2 inch 3.20 513 1,642 6% 0 - 32 hcf 33 - 58 hcf 59+ hcf 3 inch 6.40 161 1,030 4% 0 - 64 hcf 65 - 115 hcf 116+ hcf 4 inch 10.00 77 770 3% 0 - 100 hcf 101 - 180 hcf 181+ hcf 6 inch 20.00 26 520 2% 0 - 200 hcf 201 - 360 hcf 361+ hcf 8 inch 84.00 5 420 1% 0 - 560 hcf 561 - 1,008 hcf 1,009+ hcf Subtotal: Non-Residential 4,310 8,628 30%
Total 18,397 28,429 100%

1. Tier 1 breakpoint set to assumed indoor consumption for a typical SFR customer using 47 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) with 2.56 people per SFR,

1.78 people per MFR and allocated to non-residential based on 47 GPCD and equivalent meters. Tier breakpoints for non-residential start at the SFR equivalent and are scaled based on meter size.

2. Tier 2 breakpoint set to volume of Santa Monica groundwater source minus the Tier 1 usage for each customer class.

3. Tier 3 water is set to include all purchased water from MWD.

Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Meter

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 19

2. Update the volumetric rates for all customers as follows to establish new tier breakpoints based on recent consumption statistics, state requirements, and cost of service analysis.

The following sections describe how the proposed water rates were developed.

FIXED MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES
Meter sizes have different fixed charges based on the capacity requirements of each size meter connected to the system. This is because larger meters have the potential to use more of the system’s capacity, or said differently, they have higher peaking factors compared to smaller meters. The potential capacity demanded (peaking) is proportional to the maximum hydraulic flow through each meter size as established by the AWWA hydraulic capacity ratios14. As an example, a 2-inch meter has a greater capacity, or potential peak demand than a 3/4-inch meter; therefore, the fixed charge for a 2-inch meter is larger than a 3/4-inch meter based on their proportionate capacity requirements15. A “hydraulic capacity factor” is calculated by dividing the maximum capacity or flow of large meters by the capacity of the base meter size, which is typically the most common residential meter size (in this case a 3/4-inch meter).

The actual number of meters by size is multiplied by the corresponding capacity ratios to calculate equivalent meters. The number of equivalent meters is used as a proxy for the potential demand that each customer can place on the water system. A significant portion of a water system’s peak capacity, and in turn, the utility’s fixed operating and capital costs, are related to meeting system capacity requirements.

The City’s existing rates have different fixed charges for commercial fire meters than for standard water service customers, and the new rates will maintain this same structure. Fire service customers differ from other water service customers because their service is more of a standby nature, where a readiness-toserve charge is appropriate. Except in the event of a fire, these users are not intended to use water on a regular basis. However, the City still needs to provide sufficient capacity for fire meters and recover other operations and maintenance costs of providing water to such properties for private fire service protection.

Based on the cost-of-service analysis and the standby nature of fire meters, the overall cost to serve these users is less than that of a standard service; therefore, the fixed charges are less.

Figure 14 and Figure 15 shows how fixed bi-monthly service charges were calculated for standard water meters and Figure 16 shows the same for private fire meters. The customer component of the rate does not vary by meter size because it represents costs to the utility for having connections to the water system.

Capacity costs vary by meter size and are based on their hydraulic capacity. 14 See: American Water Works Association, Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges: Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 326, (6th ed. 2012) and American Water Works Association, Water Meters – Selection, Installation, Testing and Maintenance M6, 65 (5th ed. 2012).
15 This is reflected in the fixed charge calculations by using the AWWA hydraulic capacity factors to represent the maximum volume each meter size is capable of delivering.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 20
Figure 14. Calculation of FY 2025/26 Standard Fixed Meter Charges for SFR Customers Figure 15. Calculation of FY 2025/26 Standard Fixed Meter Charges for non-SFR Customers Figure 16. Calculation of FY 2025/26 Private Fire Protection Meter Fixed Charges

VOLUMETRIC RATES
Based on input from City of Santa Monica staff, the proposed volumetric rate structure is designed to implement the new tier breakpoints for each customer class based on the updated cost-of-service analysis while maintaining the existing three-tiered volumetric rate structure.

Figure 17 shows the calculation per unit volumetric charge for each consumption tier. It should be noted that these costs are spread evenly across all customer classes, but each customer class has independent tier breakpoints, as shown in Figure 13.

Number of Meters by
Class and Size
3/4 inch 1 inch 1.5 inch 2 inch
Single Family 3,105 3,285 1,117 73
Total Meters/Accounts 3,105 3,285 1,117 73
Hydraulic Capacity Factor 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.20
Total Equivalent Meters 3,105 3,285 2,234 234
Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 Capacity Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $33.94 $33.94 $67.88 $108.62 Total Bi-Monthly Meter Charge $50.06 $50.06 $84.00 $124.74 Number of Meters by
Class and Size
3/4 inch 1 inch 1.5 inch 2 inch 3 inch 4 inch 6 inch 8 inch Multi Family 1,699 1,825 2,380 496 61 31 13 2
Commercial 580 492 542 349 117 54 22 4
Municipal 30 9 28 69 36 15 4 -
Irrigation 214 200 148 87 8 4 1 -
Total Meters/Accounts 2,523 2,526 3,098 1,001 222 104 40 6 Hydraulic Capacity Factor 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.20 6.40 10.00 20.00 56.00 Total Equivalent Meters 2,523 2,526 6,196 3,203 1,421 1,040 800 336 Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 Capacity Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $54.46 $54.46 $108.93 $174.29 $348.57 $544.64 $1,089.29 $3,050.01 Total Bi-Monthly Meter Charge $70.58 $70.58 $125.05 $190.41 $364.69 $560.76 $1,105.41 $3,066.13 Number of Meters by
Class and Size

1.5 Inch 2 Inch 3 Inch 4 Inch 6 Inch 8 Inch 10 Inch
Fire 1,270 15 8 4 - - -
Total Meters/Accounts 1,270 15 8 4 - - -
Hydraulic Capacity Factor 2.00 3.20 7.00 14.00 32.00 56.00 84.00 Total Equivalent Meters 2,540 48 56 56 - - -
Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 Capacity Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $64.20 $102.73 $224.72 $449.43 $1,027.27 $1,797.73 $2,696.59 Total Bi-Monthly Meter Charge $80.32 $118.85 $240.84 $465.55 $1,043.39 $1,813.85 $2,712.71

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 21
Figure 17. Calculated Variable Charges for FY 2025/26

CURRENT AND PROPOSED WATER RATES
Figure 18 provides a comparison of the current and proposed rate structure for FY 2025/26 through 2029/30. Projected rates for FY 2025/26
16 reflect adjustments based on the cost-of-service analysis; rates after FY 2025/26 assume an across-the-board rate increase to these rates based on the recommended percent increases in rate revenue each year, as shown previously in Figure 2. Increasing rates by the percentage change in rate revenue as described in this study will allow the Utility to continue meeting its annual revenue requirements and fund the priority planned capital improvements over the next five years.

More detailed tables on the development of the proposed water rates are documented in Appendix A. 16 Rate adjustments are scheduled to be effective July 1st of each fiscal year.

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
GW - Basic
Water Use
Ground Water Purchased
Water
Sources of Supply (hcf) 1,207,618 1,712,622 1,471,099 4,391,340 % of Total Consumption 28% 39% 34% 100%
% of Groundwater 41% 59% -- 100%
% of Tier 2 and 3 Water -- 54% 46% 100%
Costs Allocated to Volumetric Charges:

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Total
Base Commodity
$ 3,715,310 $ 5,268,986 $ 4,525,924 $ 13,510,220
Ground Water 477,670 1,433,009 - 1,910,679
Purchased Water - - 7,261,431 7,261,431
Conservation - 1,160,282 1,160,282 2,320,563
Water Self-Sufficiency Projects - - 373,033 373,033
Capacity (Allocated to Variable Rate) 3,988,770 5,656,800 4,859,047 $ 14,504,617 Total $ 8,181,750 $ 13,519,077 $ 18,179,716 $ 39,880,543 21% 34% 46% 100%
$6.78 $7.89 $12.36
% of Variable Revenue
Cost Per Unit of Water
Calculation of Cost Per Tier Total

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 22
Figure 18. Current and Proposed Water Rates

2.6 Drought Rate Analysis
Should conservation increase beyond currently expected levels, the City is still obligated to meet its annual net revenue requirements to keep the utility operating and functional. At the request of the City, drought rates have been developed so that if total consumption should decrease further due to an increase in conservation required by the state, another regulatory agency, or if the City Council declares that it is in more severe drought stages, the City’s Water Utility would still be kept whole, financially. In the event that consumption decreases beyond projected baseline consumption levels, some costs will also decrease, and the proposed drought rates have taken this reduced revenue need into consideration. Drought rates will offset the loss of variable revenue, if needed and implemented by the City in different stages of drought severity.

Figure 19 shows the calculation of the updated commodity costs for each percentage of conservation the City is looking to achieve with the drought rates for FY 2025/26. From here, the updated commodity cost is used in the variable rate calculation shown for the water rates in Figure 18. This calculation is performed for all levels of conservation and summarized in Figure 20 for the next five fiscal years. For a more detailed look at how drought rates are calculated, please refer to the Appendix.

FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30
Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Single Family Residential
3/4 inch $19.40 $50.06 $58.07 $63.30 $69.00 $73.14
1 inch $19.40 $50.06 $58.07 $63.30 $69.00 $73.14

1.5 inch $27.35 $84.00 $97.45 $106.22 $115.78 $122.72
2 inch $36.89 $124.74 $144.69 $157.72 $171.91 $182.22
All Other Customers
3/4 inch $23.46 $70.58 $81.88 $89.25 $97.28 $103.12
1 inch $23.46 $70.58 $81.88 $89.25 $97.28 $103.12

1.5 inch $35.48 $125.05 $145.06 $158.11 $172.34 $182.68 2 inch $49.89 $190.41 $220.87 $240.75 $262.42 $278.16
3 inch $88.33 $364.69 $423.04 $461.12 $502.62 $532.78
4 inch $131.58 $560.76 $650.49 $709.03 $772.84 $819.21
6 inch $251.71 $1,105.41 $1,282.27 $1,397.68 $1,523.47 $1,614.88 8 inch $684.18 $3,066.13 $3,556.71 $3,876.81 $4,225.73 $4,479.27 Fire Service Charges

1.5 inch $74.49 $80.32 $93.18 $101.56 $110.70 $117.35
2 inch $112.32 $118.85 $137.86 $150.27 $163.80 $173.62
3 inch $232.10 $240.84 $279.37 $304.51 $331.92 $351.83
4 inch $452.75 $465.55 $540.04 $588.64 $641.62 $680.12
6 inch $1,020.13 $1,043.39 $1,210.33 $1,319.27 $1,438.00 $1,524.28 8 inch $1,776.63 $1,813.85 $2,104.06 $2,293.43 $2,499.84 $2,649.83 10 inch $2,659.22 $2,712.71 $3,146.74 $3,429.95 $3,738.64 $3,962.96 Commodity Charges
All Customers ($/hcf)
Tier 1 $6.61 $6.78 $7.86 $8.57 $9.34 $9.90
Tier 2 $7.67 $7.89 $9.15 $9.98 $10.87 $11.53
Tier 3 $10.93 $12.36 $14.34 $15.63 $17.03 $18.06
Water Rate Schedule Current Rates Proposed Rates

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 23
Figure 19. FY 2025/26 Calculation of Commodity Costs at Various Levels of Conservation Figure 20. Proposed Drought Rates
Percentage of Conservation
Total
Consumption
(hcf)
Base
Commodity
Cost
Impacted
Commodity
Cost
Savings
Updated
Commodity
Cost
a b c d = (-a) * c e = b + c
0% 4,391,340 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ - $ 39,880,543
10% 3,952,206 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ (96,860) $ 39,783,683 20% 3,513,072 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ (193,719) $ 39,686,824 30% 3,073,938 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ (290,579) $ 39,589,964 40% 2,634,804 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ (387,439) $ 39,493,104 50% 2,195,670 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ (484,298) $ 39,396,245 60% 1,756,536 $ 39,880,543 $ 968,597 $ (581,158) $ 39,299,385 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30
Commodity Charges ($/hcf)
10% Tier 1 $6.81 $7.90 $8.62 $9.39 $9.96
Tier 2 $9.17 $10.64 $11.59 $12.64 $13.40
Tier 3 $13.78 $15.98 $17.42 $18.99 $20.13
20% Tier 1 $7.65 $8.87 $9.67 $10.54 $11.17
Tier 2 $10.29 $11.94 $13.01 $14.18 $15.03
Tier 3 $15.46 $17.94 $19.55 $21.31 $22.59
30% Tier 1 $8.72 $10.11 $11.02 $12.02 $12.74
Tier 2 $11.73 $13.61 $14.83 $16.17 $17.14
Tier 3 $17.63 $20.45 $22.29 $24.30 $25.75
40% Tier 1 $10.15 $11.77 $12.83 $13.98 $14.82
Tier 2 $13.65 $15.84 $17.26 $18.82 $19.95
Tier 3 $20.52 $23.80 $25.94 $28.28 $29.97
50% Tier 1 $12.15 $14.09 $15.36 $16.74 $17.74
Tier 2 $16.35 $18.96 $20.67 $22.53 $23.88
Tier 3 $24.56 $28.49 $31.05 $33.85 $35.88
60% Tier 1 $15.15 $17.57 $19.15 $20.87 $22.13
Tier 2 $20.38 $23.64 $25.77 $28.09 $29.78
Tier 3 $30.62 $35.52 $38.72 $42.21 $44.74
Proposed Drought Rates
Mandated Level of
Conservation

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 24

3. Sewer Rate Study

3.1 Key Sewer Rate Study Considerations
The majority of the wastewater generated in the City is conveyed to the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion Treatment Plant for treatment and final disposal. A small portion, up to 1,500,000 gallons per day, of wastewater is diverted to the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) to produce purified water used for non-potable uses (e.g., irrigation) and groundwater recharge. The sewer rate analysis was undertaken with several specific objectives, including:
• Generating sufficient revenue to meet anticipated operating and maintenance costs. • Maintain adequate reserve levels to ensure continuity in operations. • Ensure adequate funding for the utility’s capital projects, due to the level of capital investment planned over the next five years, particularly the planned Water Reclamation Facility. • Comply with Prop 218 requirements to ensure costs are properly allocated between user classifications.

In this study, NBS developed several sewer rate alternatives for consideration by City staff. The rates presented in this report were developed using industry standards and cost-of-service principles. The rate alternative ultimately selected by the City staff maintains the existing rate structure design while increasing the fixed cost recovery component from 15% to 20%.

This rate structure consists of a fixed charge based on the number of dwelling units for residential customers and a fixed charge per account for non-residential customers. There is also a volumetric charge for both residential and non-residential customers based on average winter water consumption. The updated rates were calculated based on the net revenue requirements, number of customer accounts, water consumption (estimated for residential customers because actual consumption for each residential customer is not available), and the amount and strength of the effluent received at the wastewater treatment plant. The following are the basic components included in this analysis:

CUSTOMER CLASSES
Customer classes are determined by grouping customers with similar flow and strength characteristics into different categories in order to reflect the cost differentials to service each type of customer. The City’s existing customer classes have been maintained in the rates developed in this study and proposed in this report.

For the City, the customer classes are split between single family residential, multi-family residential (MFR) (dependent on number of units), commercial (low, medium and high strength), institutional, church/school, industrial and wastewater only customers (these customers are contracted with the City of Los Angeles for water service, and are all single-family residential accounts).

COST ALLOCATION FACTORS
For the purpose of allocating costs to customer classes, the sewer revenue requirements were “functionalized” into four categories: (1) Collection related costs; (2) strength costs related to biochemical

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 25
oxygen demand (BOD); (3) strength costs related to total suspended solids (TSS); and (4) customer servicerelated costs. The effluent strength factors were derived from the Amalgamated System Sewerage Facilities Charge (ASSFC) report for March-April 2018-19 to City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (LASAN). Each of these cost allocation factors have different implications for the costs of serving customers. For example, effluent from customers that contains higher levels of BOD and TSS is more costly to treat at the wastewater treatment plant and, therefore, those customers should be allocated a greater proportion of treatment costs compared to customers with lower-strength effluent. Detailed tables that document these cost allocations are shown in Appendix B.

DETERMINING REVENUE REQUIREMENTS BY CUSTOMER CLASS
The cost allocation factors were used to determine the percentage of the revenue requirements allocated to each customer class. For example, customer costs are allocated based on number of accounts and billable units, flow-related costs are allocated based on the estimated effluent generated by each class, and strength-related costs are allocated based on estimated strength of wastewater discharged by each customer class. Once the costs are allocated and the revenue requirement for each customer class is determined, collecting these revenue requirements from each customer class is addressed in the rate design task. Appendix B shows the amount of revenue that should be collected from each customer class within each functional cost category.

RATE DESIGN
The process of evaluating the sewer rate structure provides the opportunity to incorporate a number of rate-design objectives and policies, including revenue stability, equity among customer classes, and water conservation. NBS discussed several sewer rate alternatives and methodologies with City Staff over the course of this study, such as the percentage of revenue collected from fixed vs. variable charges and differentiating rates by customer class. Based on input provided by all stakeholders, the proposed rates were developed. The following sections describe this process.

NBS recommends that the City make the following modifications to the sewer rate structure:

1. Increase the fixed revenue recovery modestly from 15% to 20%. The increase is to help the City recover its fixed cost, roughly 70% of the total expenditures is fixed, in its operations.

2. Update the volumetric rates for all customers based on recent consumption statistics, state requirements, and cost of service analysis.

The following sections describe how the proposed sewer rates were developed.

3.2 Financial Plan / Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Like the water utility, the revenue requirements, and recommended rate increases, are governed by the need to meet operating and capital costs, maintain adequate debt coverage, and build reserve funds.

Figure 21 summarizes the sources and uses of funds for the next five years.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 26
Figure 21. Summary of Revenue Requirements
The current state of the sewer utility, with regard to its broader objectives, is as follows:

Meeting Revenue Requirements: For Fiscal Years 2025/26 through 2029/30, the net revenue requirement (total annual expenses plus debt service and rate-funded capital costs, less non-rate revenues) is estimated to average $25.9 million. Increases to rate revenue over the next five years will be needed in order to meet the utility’s revenue requirements.

Meeting Capital Improvement Costs: City staff has identified a total of roughly $59.8 million (current year value) in capital improvements for the City’s sewer system for the five years, including required investments for the Moss Avenue Pump Station and the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility. The preferred rate adjustments will be able to fund the identified capital improvement project needs over the five-year rate implementation period. Appendix B provides a complete list of capital projects that were factored into the financial plan and the cost of each project. Project costs are listed in current and future values; future values reflect the estimated cost of each project in the year the project is planned, including estimated cost inflation of 3% per year, per the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Inflation Index. Delaying the rate increases recommended in this study would result in more significant increases in later years.

Budget
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Sources of Wastewater Funds
Wastewater Fund, 51 $ 45,852,598
Rate Revenue:

Revenue Under Current Rates $ 20,700,000 $ 20,786,940 $ 20,874,245 $ 20,961,917 $ 21,049,957 $ 21,138,367 Revenue from Rate Increases 2
- 1,455,086 3,024,678 4,717,333 6,284,372 7,957,714
Subtotal: Rate Revenue After Rate Increases $ 20,700,000 $ 22,242,026 $ 23,898,923 $ 25,679,250 $ 27,334,329 $ 29,096,081 Non-Rate Revenue:

Charges for Services $ 975,448 $ 965,946 $ 956,365 $ 958,118 $ 959,907 $ 961,731 Fines and Forfeitures - - - - - -
Interest Income 860,000 704,928 509,720 457,276 476,331 449,151 Other Revenue 220,000 400,000 398,813 406,789 414,925 423,223 Subtotal: Non-Rate Revenue $ 2,055,448 $ 2,070,874 $ 1,864,898 $ 1,822,183 $ 1,851,162 $ 1,834,105 Total Sources of Funds $ 22,755,448 $ 24,312,899 $ 25,763,821 $ 27,501,433 $ 29,185,491 $ 30,930,186 Uses of Wastewater Funds
Wastewater Fund, 51
Operating Expenses 3
Salaries and Benefits $ 3,484,644 $ 4,288,826 $ 4,578,278 $ 4,748,523 $ 4,914,736 $ 5,144,873 Supplies and Expenses 16,922,501 17,963,599 18,413,185 18,870,710 19,331,984 19,806,515 Retirement and OPEB 17,978 18,877 19,821 20,812 21,852 22,945 Interfund Transactions (3,557,049) (2,544,547) (2,580,637) (2,617,467) (2,655,055) (2,690,034) Subtotal: Operating Expenses: $ 16,868,074 $ 19,726,755 $ 20,430,647 $ 21,022,577 $ 21,613,517 $ 22,284,299 Other Expenditures
Existing Debt Service $ 2,948,946 $ 2,948,946 $ 2,948,946 $ 2,948,946 $ 2,948,946 $ 2,948,946 New Debt Service - - - - - -
Rate-Funded Capital Expenses 5,221,192 14,113,500 - - 848,603 4,147,519 Subtotal: Other Expenditures $ 8,170,138 $ 17,062,445 $ 2,948,946 $ 2,948,946 $ 3,797,549 $ 7,096,464 Total Uses of Funds $ 25,038,212 $ 36,789,201 $ 23,379,593 $ 23,971,522 $ 25,411,065 $ 29,380,763 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $ (2,282,764) $ (12,476,301) $ 2,384,228 $ 3,529,910 $ 3,774,426 $ 1,549,423 Net Revenue Req't. (Total Uses less Non-Rate Revenue) $ 22,982,764 $ 34,718,327 $ 21,514,695 $ 22,149,340 $ 23,559,903 $ 27,546,658 Projected Annual Rate Revenue Adjustment 0.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 6.00% 6.00% Cumulative Increase from Annual Revenue Increases 0.00% 7.00% 14.49% 22.50% 29.85% 37.65% Debt Coverage After Rate Increase (minimum 1.2 ratio) 2.00 1.56 1.81 2.20 2.57 2.93

1. Revenue and expenses for are from PW_51FundForecast-Wastewater Budget values are detailed in Exhibit 1 (O&M).

2. Revenue from rate increases assumes an implementation date of July 1, 2025 and then July 1 each year thereafter.

3. The operating expenses are from the fund forecast. Inflationary factors are applied to these expenses to project costs in FY 2028/29 and beyond.

4. Stormwater fund 52 contributes to the SWIP project.

RATE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 1 Projected

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 27
Building and Maintaining Reserve Funds: It is important for municipal utilities to maintain reasonable reserves in order to handle emergencies, fund working capital, maintain a good credit rating, and generally follow sound financial management practices. NBS recommends that the City maintain reserves in order to meet the following targets:
• An Operating Reserve equal to 90 days of the Utility’s budgeted annual operating expenses, which is equal to a three-month (or 25%) cash reserve for normal operations. The City’s minimum operating reserve target is set equal to 60 days of reserves. An Operating Reserve is intended to promote financial viability in the event of any short-term fluctuation in revenues and/or expenditures. Fluctuations might be caused by weather patterns, the natural inflow and outflow of cash during billing cycles, natural variability in demand-based revenue streams (e.g., variable charges), and – particularly in periods of economic distress – changes or trends in age of receivables.
• A Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve equal to 3% of net capital assets of the utility for capital repair and replacement needs, which serves simply as a starting point for addressing long-term needs. If ratepayers can generate revenues at this level and pace, they will have reserved a partial cash resource that can be applied toward the future replacement and rehabilitation needs of the utility.
• A Rate Stabilization Reserve has a target reserve of $1 million and is to remain unchanged from current City policy. This reserve is intended to provide additional financial security to the Utility should any unforeseen revenue shortages or capital emergency occur. • Maintaining Adequate Bond Coverage: The City is required by its bond covenant to maintain a debt service coverage ratio of at least 1.25 for the outstanding revenue bonds. This analysis assumes the City will be required to maintain the same debt coverage requirement for any existing or anticipated debt (e.g., Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan for the SWIP). However, maintaining a higher coverage ratio strengthens the City’s credit rating, which can help lower the interest rates for debtfunded capital projects in the future and reduce annual debt service payments. It is projected that the City will meet the 1.25 debt coverage ratio for all existing and anticipated debt for the five-year planning period and beyond.

Figure 22 summarizes the projected reserve fund balances and reserve targets. A summary of the proposed sewer utility 10-year financial plan, including revenue requirements, reserve funds, revenue sources, proposed rate increases, and the Utility’s capital improvement program, is included in Appendix B - Sewer Rate Study Summary Tables.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 28
Figure 22. Summary of Sewer Reserve Funds
A more detailed version of the utility’s proposed five-year financial plan is included in Appendix B. The Appendix tables include revenue requirements, reserve funds, revenue sources, proposed rate increases, and the City’s capital improvement program.

3.3 Characteristics of Sewer Customers by Class
The key factors used in allocating costs as a part of the sewer cost-of-service analysis include the estimated effluent (flow) going to the wastewater treatment plant from each customer class as well as the effluent strengths (i.e., biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids). The most recent water consumption data, which is FY 2023/24, was used to estimate flow to the wastewater treatment plant because it is correlated to the amount of flow that goes to the treatment plant.

As shown in Figure 23, the development of the collection (or volume) allocation factor was calculated by taking the lowest consecutive 4-month water usage from FY 2023/24 and annualizing the usage per customer class. From here, the annual usage was adjusted to meet the flow data from the wastewater treatment plant. It should be noted that this is where the discharge factor was also analyzed and calculated to reflect the current cost of service. The discharge factor was calculated by taking the estimated FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30
Operating Reserve
Ending Balance $ 4,931,689 $ 5,107,662 $ 5,255,644 $ 5,403,379 $ 5,571,075 Recommended Minimum Target 4,931,689 5,107,662 5,255,644 5,403,379 5,571,075 Capital Rehabilitation & Replacement Reserve
Ending Balance $ 17,557,700 $ 13,948,287 $ 14,636,063 $ 9,929,391 $ 7,840,127 Recommended Minimum Target 5,921,300 6,033,400 6,141,500 6,302,700 6,458,400 Rate Stabilization Reserve
Ending Balance $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Recommended Minimum Target 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Ending Balance (Unrestricted) $ 23,489,389 $ 20,055,948 $ 20,891,707 $ 16,332,770 $ 14,411,202 Total Recommended Minimum Target $ 11,852,989 $ 12,141,062 $ 12,397,144 $ 12,706,079 $ 13,029,475 Beginning Reserve Fund Balances and
Recommended Reserve Targets
Projected

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 29
wastewater flow and dividing it by the annual metered water use volume per customer class. This discharge factor is the multiplier specific to each customer class that estimates the amount of sewage discharged to the City’s wastewater system.

Figure 23. Development of the Volume Allocation Factor and Discharge Factors

DETERMINING CUSTOMER CLASSES EFFLUENT STRENGTHS
Figure 24 shows the development of the strength allocation factors by customer class. The typical strength factors for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) are derived from the Amalgamated System Sewerage Facilities Charge (ASSFC) report for March-April 2018-19 to Los Angeles Sanitation District (LASAN) and calculated for commercial customers based on weighted averages for each class.

Figure 24. Development of the Strength Allocation Factor Customer Class
Number
of Accounts 1
Number
of EDUs 1
Annual
Volume
(hcf)1
Lowest
4-Months
Water Use
(hcf)1,2
Estimated
Wastewater
Flow
Discharge
Factors
Adjusted
Annual
Volume (hcf) 3
Percentage
of Adjusted
Volume
Calculation Components
Single Family 7,541 7,541 1,205,541 341,641 1,024,922 85% 785,090 24.6% MFR: Duplex + Triplex 1,112 2,674 144,680 43,631 130,894 90% 100,264 3.1% MFR: Fourplex + Larger 3,850 40,480 1,666,254 539,142 1,617,427 97% 1,238,949 38.9% MFR : Individually metered 1,572 1,601 79,047 25,957 77,870 99% 59,649 1.9% MFR : Mixed Use 34 989 58,693 18,664 55,991 95% 42,889 1.3% Commercial - Low 1,665 5,122 696,163 216,951 650,854 93% 498,554 15.6% Commercial - Medium 33 204 27,700 8,697 26,092 94% 19,987 0.6% Commercial - High 301 3,431 466,294 148,321 444,963 95% 340,841 10.7% Institutional 77 457 62,049 17,027 51,082 82% 39,129 1.2% Church/Schools 151 627 85,252 23,156 69,468 81% 53,212 1.7% Misc Industrial 11 78 10,565 3,108 9,323 88% 7,141 0.2% Wastewater Only 34 - - - - 85% - 0.0%
Total 16,381 63,203 4,502,239 1,386,295 4,158,885 92% 3,185,706 100.0% 3,185,706 Flow (hcf/yr.)

0.77 Flow Adj. Factor

1. Consumption, accounts and EDUs from FY 23-24.

2. The four consecutive month period of lowest water usage during Fiscal Year 23/24, for each customer class.

3. NBS adjusted the average winter consumption to the outgoing wastewater flows pumped from the City's Moss Avenue Pump Station to the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant for treatment and disposal.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 30
Figure 25 summarizes the development of the customer allocation factor.

Figure 25. Development of the Customer Allocation Factor

3.4 Rate Design Analysis
The process of evaluating the sewer rate structure provides the opportunity to incorporate a number of ratedesign objectives and policies, including revenue stability, equity among customer classes, and water conservation. NBS discussed several sewerrate alternatives and methodologies with City Staff over the course of this study, such as the percentage of revenue collected from fixed vs. variable charges and differentiating rates by customer class. Based on input provided by City staff, the proposed rates were developed. The following sections describe this process.

NBS recommends that the City make the following modifications to the sewer rate structure:

Customer Class
Adjusted
Annual Flow
(hcf)
Average
Strength
Factor (mg/l)
Calculated
BOD
(lbs./yr.)
Adjusted
BOD
(lbs./yr.)
Percent of
Total
Average
Strength
Factor (mg/l)
Calculated TSS
(lbs./yr.)
Adjusted TSS
(lbs./yr.) Percent of Total
Single Family 785,090 225 1,101,969 1,149,915 18.7% 225 1,101,969 848,382 18.7% MFR: Duplex + Triplex 100,264 225 140,733 146,857 2.4% 225 140,733 108,348 2.4% MFR: Fourplex + Larger 1,238,949 225 1,739,016 1,814,680 29.5% 225 1,739,016 1,338,830 29.5% MFR : Individually metered 59,649 225 83,724 87,367 1.4% 225 83,724 64,457 1.4% MFR : Mixed Use 42,889 225 60,200 62,820 1.0% 225 60,200 46,347 1.0% Commercial - Low 498,554 150 466,521 486,819 7.9% 150 466,521 359,164 7.9% Commercial - Medium 19,987 600 74,810 78,064 1.3% 600 74,810 57,594 1.3% Commercial - High 340,841 1000 2,126,278 2,218,790 36.1% 1000 2,126,278 1,636,974 36.1% Institutional 39,129 140 34,174 35,660 0.6% 125 30,512 23,491 0.5% Church/Schools 53,212 140 46,474 48,496 0.8% 125 41,495 31,946 0.7% Misc Industrial 7,141 290 12,919 13,481 0.2% 550 24,502 18,864 0.4% Wastewater Only - 225 0 - 0.0% 225 0 - 0.0%
Total 3,185,706 5,886,818 6,142,950 100% 5,889,760 4,534,395 100% Target, from WWTP Data 6,142,950 BOD (lbs./yr.) 4,534,395 TSS (lbs./yr.)

1.04 BOD Adj. Factor 0.77 TSS Adj. Factor

1. Consumption, accounts and EDUs from FY 23-24.

2. Typical strength factors for BOD and TSS are derived from the ASSFC Report for March-April 2018-19 and calculated for Commercial customers with weighted averages.

Source files: ASSFC_Report_March-April_2018-19_to_LASAN.xlsx Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Customer Class
Number
of Accounts 1
Percentage
of Accounts
Single Family 7,541 46.0%
MFR: Duplex + Triplex 1,112 6.8%
MFR: Fourplex + Larger 3,850 23.5%
MFR : Individually metered 1,572 9.6%
MFR : Mixed Use 34 0.2%
Commercial - Low 1,665 10.2%
Commercial - Medium 33 0.2%
Commercial - High 301 1.8%
Institutional 77 0.5%
Church/Schools 151 0.9%
Misc Industrial 11 0.1%
Wastewater Only 34 0.2%
Total 16,381 100%

1. Consumption, accounts and EDUs from FY 23-24.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 31

1. Increase the fixed revenue recovery modestly from 15% to 20%

2. Update the discharge factor to reflect current consumption patterns.

3. Update the volumetric charges that will be calculated based on each unit of water consumed and multiplied by the discharge factor.

3.4.1 Fixed Charges
The fixed charge recognizes that the sewer utility incurs fixed costs regardless of whether customers send any wastewater into the City’s collection system. There are three factors used to develop the fixed charge:
the number of dwelling units for Residential customers and number of accounts for non-residential customers, and the annual revenue requirement. The bi-monthly fixed charge is calculated by taking the twenty percent fixed multiplied by the annual revenue requirement, then divided by the number of dwelling units (for residential customers) and accounts (for non-residential customers) and billing periods per year.

The fixed charges for each customer class are shown in Figure 27.

3.4.2 Variable Charges
The variable charges, on the other hand, are calculated by taking the additional eighty percent portion of the revenue requirement divided by the estimated sewage volume produced. This sewage volume is the water consumption multiplied by the updated discharge factors calculated in Figure 23. The volumetric charges for each customer class are summarized in the rate design table shown in Figure 28.

As part of the rate study, the City also updated the commodity rates for recycled water to reflect the cost-ofservice analysis. The commodity charges for recycled water customers are shown below in Figure 29. Further details on the development of the commodity charges for recycled water customers are found in Tables 55 through 57 in Appendix A.

Figure 26. Development of Fixed and Variable Charges
Customer Class
No. of
Accounts 1
No. of
Dwelling
Units 1
Estimated
Sewage
Volume2
Revenue
from Fixed
Charges
Revenue
from
Volumetric
Charges
Discharge
Factor
Bi-Monthly
Fixed Charge 3
Volumetric
Charge Per
hcf4
Residential Per DU
Single Family 7,541 7,541 785,090 $ 1,004,543 $ 5,606,900 85% $22.20 $4.92 MFR: Duplex + Triplex 1,112 2,674 100,264 $ 142,529 $ 763,624 90% $8.88 $4.92 MFR: Fourplex + Larger 3,850 40,480 1,238,949 $ 1,631,737 $ 5,461,228 97% $6.72 $4.92 MFR : Individually metered 1,572 1,601 59,649 $ 105,954 $ 810,923 99% $11.03 $4.92 Subtotal 14,075 52,296 2,183,952 $ 2,884,762 $12,642,675 Non-Residential Per Account
MFR : Mixed Use 34 989 42,889 $ 44,277 $ 160,069 95% $217.04 $4.92 Commercial - Low 1,665 5,122 498,554 $ 620,751 $ 2,065,089 93% $62.14 $4.43 Commercial - Medium 33 204 19,987 $ 27,598 $ 118,124 94% $139.39 $6.27 Commercial - High 301 3,431 340,841 $ 650,324 $ 2,515,194 95% $360.09 $7.73 Institutional 77 457 39,129 $ 46,408 $ 138,153 82% $100.45 $4.29 Church/Schools 151 627 53,212 $ 57,822 $ 212,374 81% $63.82 $4.90 Misc Industrial 11 78 7,141 $ 8,532 $ 35,766 88% $129.27 $5.68 Wastewater Only 34 - - $ 14,108 $ - 85% $135.91 N/A
Subtotal 2,306 10,907 1,001,753 $ 1,469,820 $ 5,244,769 -- -- Total 16,381 63,203 3,185,706 $ 4,354,582 $17,887,444 -- --

1. Consumption, accounts and EDUs from Source File: Customer Data 23_24.

2. Estimated sewage volume is annual water consumption multiplied by the discharge factor.

3. Fixed charges are designed to collect 20% of the total revenue requirement. For residential customers, the charges are per dwelling unit.

For non-residential customers, the charges are per account.

4. Volumetric charges are designed to collect 80% of the total revenue requirement.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 32

3.5 Current and Proposed Wastewater Rates
Figure 27 and Figure 28 collectively provide the current and proposed current and proposed sewer rates for FY 2025/26 through FY 2029/30 for each customer class. More detailed tables on the development of the proposed sewer rates are documented in Appendix B.

Figure 27. Proposed Wastewater Rates – Fixed Charges
Figure 28. Proposed Wastewater Rates – Volumetric Charges Figure 29. Proposed Recycled Water Rates – Volumetric Charges FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30
Residential ($/Dwelling Unit)
Single Family $19.27 $22.20 $23.76 $25.42 $26.94 $28.56 MFR: Duplex + Triplex $7.76 $8.88 $9.51 $10.17 $10.78 $11.43 MFR: Fourplex + Larger $5.85 $6.72 $7.19 $7.69 $8.15 $8.64 MFR : Individually metered $9.41 $11.03 $11.80 $12.63 $13.39 $14.19 Non-Residential ($/Account)
MFR : Mixed Use $188.39 $217.04 $232.24 $248.49 $263.40 $279.21 Commercial - Low $55.06 $62.14 $66.49 $71.14 $75.41 $79.93 Commercial - Medium $117.07 $139.39 $149.14 $159.58 $169.16 $179.31 Commercial - High $294.27 $360.09 $385.30 $412.27 $437.00 $463.22 Institutional $88.78 $100.45 $107.48 $115.00 $121.90 $129.22 Church/Schools $56.62 $63.82 $68.29 $73.07 $77.45 $82.10 Misc Industrial $108.46 $129.27 $138.32 $148.00 $156.88 $166.29 Wastewater Only $128.54 $135.91 $145.43 $155.61 $164.94 $174.84 Fixed Charges ($/bi-monthly)
Wastewater Rate Schedule Current
Rates
Proposed Wastewater Rates
FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30
Residential
Single Family $4.65 85% $4.92 $5.27 $5.63 $5.97 $6.33
MFR: Duplex + Triplex $4.65 90% $4.92 $5.27 $5.63 $5.97 $6.33 MFR: Fourplex + Larger $4.65 97% $4.92 $5.27 $5.63 $5.97 $6.33 MFR : Individually metered $4.65 99% $4.92 $5.27 $5.63 $5.97 $6.33 Non-Residential
MFR : Mixed Use $4.32 95% $4.92 $5.27 $5.63 $5.97 $6.33 Commercial - Low $4.54 93% $4.43 $4.74 $5.07 $5.38 $5.70 Commercial - Medium $4.76 94% $6.27 $6.71 $7.18 $7.61 $8.07 Commercial - High $6.31 95% $7.73 $8.27 $8.85 $9.38 $9.95 Institutional $4.63 82% $4.29 $4.59 $4.91 $5.20 $5.52
Church/Schools $4.46 81% $4.90 $5.24 $5.61 $5.94 $6.30
Misc Industrial $4.39 88% $5.68 $6.07 $6.50 $6.89 $7.30 Wastewater Only -- 85% -- -- -- -- --
Volumetric Charges ($/hcf) of average winter water consumption) Discharge
Factor
Wastewater Rate Schedule Current
Rates
Proposed Wastewater Rates
FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30
Commodity Charges
All Customers ($/hcf)
Uniform Rate $3.49 $5.21 $6.04 $6.59 $7.18 $7.61
Recycled Water Rate Schedule Current Rates Proposed Rates

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 33

4. Recommendations and Next Steps

4.1 Consultant Recommendations
NBS recommends the City take the following actions:
• Approve and Accept This Study: NBS recommends the City Council formally approve and adopt this study and its recommendations and then proceed with the next steps outlined below to implement the recommended rate structure. This will provide documentation of the rate study analyses and the basis for analyzing potential changes to future rates. • Implement Recommended Levels of Rate Increases and Proposed Rates: Based on successfully meeting the Proposition 218 procedural requirements, the City Council should proceed with implementing the five-years of recommended rates and rate increases previously shown in Figure 18 (water) and Figure 27 and Figure 28 (sewer). This will help ensure the continued financial health of the City’s water and sewer utilities.
• Adopt Reserve Fund Targets: NBS recommends the City Council adopt the consultant-proposed reserve fund targets described in this study. The City should periodically evaluate reserve fund levels and attempt to maintain the recommended levels for the Operating, Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement, and Debt Reserves.

4.2 Next steps
Annually Review Rates and Revenue – Any time an agency adopts new utility rates or rate structures, those new rates should be closely monitored over the next several years to ensure the revenue generated is sufficient to meet the annual revenue requirements. Changing economic and water consumption patterns underscore the need for this review, as well as potential and unseen changing revenue requirements — particularly those related to environmental regulations that can significantly affect capital improvements and repair and replacement costs.

Note: The attached Technical Appendices provide more detailed information on the analysis of the financial plan, revenue requirements, cost-of-service, and the rate design analyses summarized in this report.

4.3 NBS’ Principal Assumptions and Considerations
In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on several principal assumptions and considerations regarding financial matters, conditions, and events that may occur in the future. This information and these assumptions, including the City’s budgets, capital improvement costs, customer accounts and consumption, and information from City staff were provided by sources we believe to be reliable, although NBS has not independently verified this data.

While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this report and its recommendations, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 34
to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others.

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study
– City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS– May 2025 35
Technical Appendices
These Appendices contain: • Appendix A: Water Rate Study Tables and Figures • Appendix B: Sewer Rate Study Tables and Figures

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) Water and Sewer Rate Study – City of Santa Monica
Prepared by NBS – May 2025 36
Appendix A. Water Rate Study Tables and Figures

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service Rates (10 mins)) CITY OF SANTA MONICA Financial Plan & Reserve Summary
WATER RATE STUDYFinancial Plan and Reserve Projections
3 Alternative 31 Alternative 1 0.00% 8.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 2 Alternative 2 0.00% 11.00% 9.00% 7.00% 6.00% 6.00%3 Alternative 3 0.00% 20.00% 16.00% 9.00% 9.00% 6.00%4 Alternative 4 0.00% 70.00% 40.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% TABLE 1 : FINANCIAL PLAN AND SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Sources of Water Funds
Water Rate Revenue
Water Sales Revenue Under Current Rates $ 41,567,286 41,567,286 $ 41,741,869 $ 41,917,184 $ 42,093,237 $ 42,270,028 $ Revenue from Rate Increases 1 8,313,457 - 16,362,812 21,682,921 27,522,040 31,832,092 Subtotal: Rate Revenue After Rate Increases 41,567,286 $ 49,880,743 $ 58,104,681 $ 63,600,106 $ 69,615,276 $ 74,102,120 $ Non-Rate Revenue
Reimbursement from other funds $ 463,500 450,000 $ 477,405 $ 491,727 $ 507,986 $ 520,177 $ Water Neutrality Fee Revenue 1,354,862 1,328,296 1,381,959 1,409,598 1,437,790 1,472,297 Charges for Service (other than Rate Revenue) 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,001 767,001 Investment Income 221,468 750,000 177,395 147,340 173,573 173,573 Other Revenues 530,000 555,000 530,000 530,000 530,002 470,000 Subtotal: Non-Rate Revenue 3,850,296 $ 3,336,830 $ 3,333,759 $ 3,345,666 $ 3,416,352 $ 3,403,048 $ Total Sources of Funds 45,417,582 $ 53,217,573 $ 61,438,440 $ 66,945,772 $ 73,031,628 $ 77,505,169 $ Uses of Water Funds
Operating Expenses
Salaries and Benefits $ 11,873,093 9,457,601 $ 12,362,633 $ 12,777,742 $ 13,359,453 $ 14,558,417 $ Water Purchases2 5,727,788 5,207,080 6,300,567 6,930,623 7,623,686 7,806,654 Supplies and Expenses 16,733,036 16,503,494 17,082,869 17,374,298 17,747,400 18,052,432 Retirement and OPEB 51,627 49,169 54,209 56,919 59,766 215,663 Interfund Transfers 1,456,843 1,411,672 1,503,367 1,551,285 1,605,655 1,655,982 Subtotal: Operating Expenses $ 35,842,387 32,629,016 $ 37,303,644 $ 38,690,868 $ 40,395,959 $ 42,289,148 $ Other Expenditures
Debt Service (Interfund Loan Repayment) $ 706,367 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ Debt Service (Water Revenue Bond) 3,554,587 3,553,187 3,553,587 3,551,863 3,550,175 3,550,362 New Debt Service - - - - 8,361,556 8,361,556
Rate-Funded Capital Expenses 13,438,671 13,337,857 18,676,718 21,436,970 19,042,343 19,803,897 Subtotal: Other Expenditures 17,597,411 $ 17,699,625 $ 22,936,672 $ 25,695,199 $ 31,660,440 $ 32,422,182 $ Total Uses of Water Funds 50,226,427 $ 53,542,012 $ 60,240,316 $ 64,386,067 $ 72,056,400 $ 74,711,330 $ Annual Surplus/(Deficit) (4,808,845) $ (324,439) $ 1,198,124 $ 2,559,704 $ 975,229 $ 2,793,838 $ $ 50,205,182 46,376,131 $ 56,906,557 $ 61,040,401 $ 68,640,048 $ 71,308,282 $ Projected Annual Rate Revenue Adjustment 0.00% 20.00% 16.00% 9.00% 9.00% 6.00%

0.00% 20.00% 39.20% 51.73% 65.38% 75.31%
Debt Coverage After Rate Increase 24.60 18.10 34.17 40.00 3.60 3.88

1. Revenue from rate increases assumes an implementation date of July 1, 2025 and then July 1 each year thereafter.2. Net of water purchases and Arcadia AOP/UV System that is funded with the Gillette-Boeing Settlement Funds (shown in restricted reserves section of Table 2).

RATE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY BudgetNet Revenue Req't. (Total Uses less Non-Rate Cumulative Increase from Annual Revenue Increases Projected
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Financial Plan, 1 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 716
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Financial Plan & Reserve Summary
WATER RATE STUDYFinancial Plan and Reserve ProjectionsTABLE 2 : RESERVE FUND SUMMARY Budget
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Total Beginning Cash 1 $ 10,290,659 15,376,561 $ 9,966,220 $ 11,164,344 $ 13,724,049 $ 14,699,277 $ Operating ReserveBeginning Reserve Balance $ 12,760,504 $ 7,627,220 7,951,659 $ 8,825,344 $ 9,672,717 $ 10,098,990 $ Plus: Net Cash Flow (After Rate Increases) (4,808,845) (324,439) 1,198,124 2,559,704 975,229 2,793,838 Plus: Transfer in of Settlement Funds to reach targets - - - - - - Transfer Out/In to Capital R&R Reserve - - - (1,712,332) (548,956) (2,320,541) Ending Operating Reserve Balance $ 7,627,22 7,951,659 $ 8,825,344 0 $ 9,672,717 $ 10,098,99 $ 10,572,287 0 $ Target Ending Balance (90-days of O&M) 2 $ 8,960,597 8,157,254 $ 9,325,911 $ 9,672,717 $ 10,098,990 $ 10,572,287 $ Capital Rehabilitation & Replacement Reserve Beginning Reserve Balance $ 1,616,057 $ 1,339,000 1,339,000 $ 1,339,000 $ 3,051,332 $ 3,600,287 $ Plus: Transfer of Operating Reserve Surplus - - - 1,712,332 548,956 2,320,541 Less: Use of Reserves for Capital Projects (277,057) - - - - - Ending Capital Rehab & Replacement Reserve Balance $ 1,339,00 1,339,000 $ 1,339,00 0 $ 3,051,332 0 $ 3,600,287 $ 5,920,82 $ 8 Capital R&R Reserve (3.0% of Net Assets) 1,339,000 $ 1,943,200 $ 2,735,100 $ 3,613,200 $ 4,376,200 $ 4,430,400 $ Rate Stabilization Reserve Beginning Reserve Balance $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ Less: Use of Reserves for Operating Expenses - - - - - - Ending Rate Stabilization Reserve Balance $ 1,000,00 1,000,000 $ 1,000,00 0 $ 1,000,00 0 $ 1,000,00 0 $ 1,000,00 0 $ 0 Rate Stabilization Reserve ($1 million) 1 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ Ending Balance $ 9,966,220 10,290,659 $ 11,164,344 $ 13,724,049 $ 14,699,277 $ 17,493,116 $ Minimum Target Ending Balance $ 11,903,797 10,496,254 $ 13,061,011 $ 14,285,917 $ 15,475,190 $ 16,002,687 $ Ending Surplus/(Deficit) Compared to Targets (205,595) $ (1,937,577) $ (1,896,667) $ (561,868) $ (775,913) $ 1,490,42 $ 8 Days Cash On Hand 113 10 107 0 127 10 124 8

SUMMARY OF CASH ACTIVITYUN-RESTRICTED RESERVES
Projected
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Financial Plan, 2 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 717
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Financial Plan & Reserve Summary
WATER RATE STUDYFinancial Plan and Reserve ProjectionsTABLE 3 : RESERVE FUND SUMMARY, CONTINUED Restricted ReservesConnection Fee ReserveBeginning Reserve Balance 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,001 $ Plus: Reserve Funding from New Connection Fees 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,001 1,500,001 Plus: Interest Income - - - - - -
Less: Use of Connection Fees for CIP (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,001) Ending Debt Reserve Balance 1,500,00 $ 1,500,00 0 $ 1,500,00 0 $ 1,500,00 0 $ 1,500,001 0 $ 1,500,001 $ Target Ending Balance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Reserved for Olympic Sub-basin RemediationBeginning Reserve Balance 3 $ 193,365 $ 3,025,447 1,851,359 $ 4,648,073 $ 4,516,528 $ 4,323,811 $ Plus: Funding from Gillette/Boeing Settlement 4 - - -
Plus: Transfer in from General Fund 4 1,200,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 - - - Plus: Interest Income - - - - - -
Less: Use of Settlement Funds for CIP 4 (1,666,162) (1,564,616) (1,735,616) (1,808,141) (1,916,111) - Less: Borrow Settlement Funds for CIP (interest free) - - - - - - 740,610 740,610 740,610 740,610 740,610 -
Less: Use of Settlement Funds for O&M 4 899,640 882,000 917,633 935,985 982,785 - Less: Transfer to O&M to reach Reserve Targets - - - - - - Plus: Loan RepaymentEnding Olympic Sub-Basin Remediation Fund 1,851,359 $ 3,025,447 $ 4,648,073 $ 4,516,52 $ 4,323,811 8 $ 4,323,811 $ Annual Interest Earnings Rate 5 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Plus: Borrow Settlement Funds for City Yard Master
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Financial Plan, 3 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 718
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDY Rate Adjustment Charts and Report TablesCHART 1 $.0 Mil
$10.0 Mil$20.0 Mil$30.0 Mil$40.0 Mil$50.0 Mil$60.0 Mil$70.0 Mil$80.0 Mil$90.0 Mil 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Annual Obligations
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
Water Revenue Requirements vs.

Revenue Under Existing and Increased Rates
Cash Funded Capital ExpensesDebt ServiceO&M ExpensesRevenues under Existing RatesRevenues under Adjusted Rates Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Charts and Tables, 4 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 719
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDY Rate Adjustment Charts and Report TablesCHART 2 $.0 Mil
$2.0 Mil$4.0 Mil$6.0 Mil$8.0 Mil
$10.0 Mil$12.0 Mil$14.0 Mil$16.0 Mil$18.0 Mil$20.0 Mil
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
Un-Restricted Cash Balances vs.

Recommended Reserve Targets
Ending Cash Balance (Un-Restricted)Minimum Target Reserve Balance (60 day O&M)Recommended Target Reserve Balance (90 day O&M) Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Charts and Tables, 5 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 720
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDY Rate Adjustment Charts and Report TablesCHART 3

20.00%

16.00%

9.00% 9.00%

6.00%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
Projected Adjustments to Rate Revenue
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Charts and Tables, 6 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 721
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and ExpensesTABLE 4 : OPERATING REVENUE FORECAST Budget 1 Budget 1 DESCRIPTION Basis FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Water Fund, 50
Charges for Service
Water - Commercial Sales 1 41,666,985 $ $ 41,567,286 $ 41,741,869 41,567,286 $ 41,917,184 $ 42,093,237 $ 42,270,028 $ Water - Meter Services/Install 15 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 Reimbursement from other funds 2 450,000 450,000 463,500 477,405 491,727 507,986 520,177 Damage Repair Work 15 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,001 17,001 Water Capital Facilities Fee 15 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Water Demand Mitigation Fee 15 - - - - - 1 1
Admin Fee Water Neutrality 2 208,000 214,864 219,161 223,545 228,015 232,576 238,158 In Lieu Fee Water Neutrality 2 780,000 1,000,000 1,020,000 1,040,400 1,061,208 1,082,432 1,108,411 Plan Check Fee Water Neutrality 2 104,000 107,432 109,581 111,772 114,008 116,288 119,079 Inspection Fee Water Neutrality 2 3,099 6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,495 6,650 Subtotal: Charges for Service 45,479,084 $ 45,612,582 $ 45,652,648 $ 45,868,233 $ 46,085,510 $ 46,306,015 $ 46,529,505 $ Interest Income
Internal Dep./Investment 15 750,000 750,000 221,468 177,395 147,340 173,573 173,573 Unrealized Gain (Loss) 15 - - - - - - -
Accrued Investment Income 15 - - - - - - -
Subtotal: Interest Income 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 221,468 $ 177,395 $ 147,340 $ 173,573 $ 173,573 $ Other Revenues
MWD SoCal Water smart Rebate 15 - - - - - 1 320,000
Other Revenues - Misc 15 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 - Alt Fuel Tax Credit 15 - - - - - 1 150,000
Water - Misc Non-Operating 15 365,000 365,000 365,000 365,000 365,000 365,000 - Baysaver Fees 15 175,000 175,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - Subtotal: Other Revenues 555,000 $ 555,000 $ 530,000 $ 530,000 $ 530,000 $ 530,002 $ 470,000 $ TOTAL: REVENUE 1 $ 46,917,582 46,784,084 $ 46,404,116 $ 46,575,628 $ 46,762,850 $ 47,009,589 $ 47,173,078 $ (Draft 5-year Forecast) 2
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 7 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 722
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and ExpensesTABLE 5 : REVENUE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Water Fund, 50
Rate Revenue 41,666,985 $ 41,567,286 $ 41,567,286 $ 41,741,869 $ 41,917,184 $ 42,093,237 $ 42,270,028 $ Connection Fee Revenue 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,001 1,500,001 Reimbursement from other funds 450,000 450,000 463,500 477,405 491,727 507,986 520,177 Water Neutrality Fee Revenue 1,095,099 1,328,296 1,354,862 1,381,959 1,409,598 1,437,790 1,472,297 Charges for Service (other than Rate Revenue) 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,000 767,001 767,001 Investment Income 750,000 750,000 221,468 177,395 147,340 173,573 173,573 Other Revenues 555,000 555,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,002 470,000 TOTAL: WATER OPERATING REVENUE 1 $ 46,917,582 46,784,084 $ 46,404,116 $ 46,575,628 $ 46,762,850 $ 47,009,589 $ 47,173,078 $

1. Revenue and expenses from PW_50FundForecast-Water-24-25.2. Source file for Budget: PW_50FundForecast-Water_24-25.

Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 8 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 723
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and ExpensesTABLE 6 : OPERATING EXPENSE FORECAST DESCRIPTION Basis FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Water Fund, 50
Permanent Employees 3 5,911,102 $ 6,125,331 $ 6,247,838 $ 6,372,794 $ 6,500,250 $ 6,630,255 $ $ 6,829,163 Vacation Lump Sum Pays 15 - - - - - - -
Council/Board Allowance 15 2,572 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,623Standby Pay 3 27,562 28,113 28,676 29,249 29,834 30,431 31,344Overtime 3 164,663 167,956 171,315 174,741 178,236 181,801 187,255Temporary Employees 15 - - - - - - - Medicare Employer Contribution 5 83,234 85,747 86,990 88,252 89,531 90,830 99,004Workers' Comp Insurance 4 193,248 200,405 207,561 214,718 229,033 244,303 263,847Medical - Misc. Employee 5 1,009,623 1,080,297 1,188,327 1,307,159 1,437,875 1,581,663 1,724,012 Medical Trust - Misc. Employee 3 114,533 116,812 119,148 121,531 123,962 126,441 130,234 Dental 7 60,868 61,956 63,071 64,206 65,362 66,539 68,535Vision 6 7,436 7,488 7,563 7,639 7,715 7,792 7,909Employee Health Contribution 8 (80,784) (86,437) (95,066) (104,573) (115,030) (126,533) (135,390)Retirement - Misc. Employee 9 1,472,660 1,588,838 1,993,060 2,103,022 2,184,084 2,400,152 3,102,869 Retirement - As Needed 15 - - - - - - -
Unemployment 15 27,244 28,089 28,651 29,224 29,808 30,404 30,404EAP 15 1,007 1,007 1,017 1,027 1,038 1,048 1,048DCAP 15 1,855 1,855 1,855 1,855 1,855 1,855 1,855Life Insurance and AD&D 10 8,897 9,165 9,348 9,535 9,726 9,920 10,417Disability Insurance 6 37,206 38,356 39,507 40,692 41,913 43,170 43,818 EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE Water Quality Sup 3- 232,344 239,314 246,494 253,889 248,473 EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE AMI Supervisor 3- 211,798 218,152 224,696 231,437 235,092 EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE Water Conservatio 3- 208,085 214,328 220,757 227,380 245,443 EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE SCADA Supervisor (50/50 Split with WW Fund) 114,059 110,737 117,481 121,005 124,635 Equity Adjustment for ALL POSITIONS (10%) 3- 1,008,645 1,113,084 1,150,498 1,203,047 1,305,827 Salaries and Benefits - SUBTOTAL 9,042,926 $ 9,457,601 $ 11,873,093 $ 12,362,633 $ 12,777,742 $ 13,359,453 $ 14,558,417 $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 9 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 724
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and ExpensesTABLE 7 : OPERATING EXPENSE FORECAST, CONTINUED DESCRIPTION Basis FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Supplies and Expenses
50500001.521000 - ADVERTISING 12 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 50500001.521810 - VEHICLES - FUELS / LUBRICATIO 12 25,009 27,510 28,170 28,846 29,539 30,248 30,974 50500001.521820 - CNG/LNG FUEL 12 62,915 94,373 96,638 98,957 101,332 103,764 106,255 50500001.523330 - UTILITIES BILLING SERVICES 15 333,820 345,013 351,913 358,952 366,131 373,453 373,45350500001.523340 - PROPERTY TAXES 2 95,000 96,900 98,838 100,815 102,831 104,888 107,40550500001.523370 - METERED POSTAGE 2 25,859 26,376 26,904 27,442 27,990 28,550 29,23550500001.523420 - INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION 12 2,044,223 2,107,594 2,181,360 2,257,707 2,336,727 2,418,513 2,476,557 50500001.524000 - MEMBERSHIPS AND DUES 2 13,578 13,850 14,127 14,410 14,698 14,992 15,35150500001.524700 - RENT 2- - - - - - - 50500001.524702 - OTHER OPERATING RENTS 2 231,087 235,709 240,423 245,232 250,136 255,139 261,262 50500001.524710 - REIMBURSE ENGINEERING OFF 2- - - - - - - 50500001.525000 - OFFICE SUPPLIES AND EXPENSE 2 16,189 16,513 16,843 17,180 17,524 17,874 18,303 50500001.525001 - DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE 2- - - - - - -
50500001.525002 - DISCOUNTS LOST 2- - - - - - -
50500001.525080 - SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIE 2 1,334,125 1,360,808 1,388,024 1,415,785 1,444,100 1,472,982 1,508,334 50500001.525190 - RIDESHARE AND PARKING PRO 2 9,400 9,588 9,588 9,588 9,588 9,588 9,81850500001.525200 - UNIFORM / PROTECTIVE CLOTH 2 42,824 43,680 44,554 45,445 46,354 47,281 48,415 50500001.525320 - UNIFORM RENTAL 2- - - - - - -
50500001.528000 - UTIL - LIGHT / POWER 2 921,174 1,050,138 1,071,141 1,092,564 1,114,415 1,136,703 1,163,984 50500001.528010 - UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS 2 2,120 3,180 3,244 3,308 3,375 3,442 3,52550500001.528020 - UTILITIES - WATER 2 5,160 5,882 6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,52050500001.528030 - WATER PURCHASES 2 4,124,588 5,727,788 5,207,080 6,300,567 6,930,623 7,623,686 7,806,65450500001.528040 - UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 2 99,226 101,211 103,235 105,300 107,406 109,554 112,183 50500001.529040 - VEHICLE MGMT FUND-MAINTE 2 290,401 307,572 314,954 322,513 330,253 338,179 346,295 50500001.529230 - COMPUTER EQUIP/SOFTWARE 2 180,642 159,805 163,001 166,261 169,586 172,978 177,13050500001.529540 - CSB WATER PRODUCTION-O&M 2 100,000 102,000 104,040 106,121 108,243 110,408 113,05850500001.531010 - CONFERENCES/MEETINGS/TRA 2 14,893 15,191 15,495 15,805 16,121 16,443 16,838 50500001.531011 - FOOD PURCHASES 2 2,160 2,203 2,247 2,292 2,338 2,385 2,44250500001.531020 - TRAINING COSTS 2- - - - - - - 50500001.531030 - TRAINING 2 25,566 26,077 26,599 27,131 27,673 28,227 28,90450500001.534000 - BANK FEES 2 5,348 5,455 5,564 5,675 5,789 5,905 6,04650500001.534550 - GENERAL LIABILITY / AUTO 2 342,301 388,755 444,844 483,526 502,867 522,982 535,533 50500001.534570 - PROPERTY INSURANCE 2 476,193 554,384 639,674 710,749 746,286 783,600 802,40750500001.535000 - INTEREST EXPENSE 2- - - - - - - 50500001.535010 - INTEREST EXPENDITURE - BON 2 2,246,130 2,291,053 2,059,579 1,998,588 1,926,863 1,926,864 1,973,108 50500001.536030 - WASTE DISPOSAL (BRINING) 2 700,000 714,000 728,280 742,846 757,703 772,857 791,405 50500001.536050 - REGULATORY AGENCY FEES 2 116,819 119,155 121,538 123,969 126,448 128,977 132,073 50500001.536550 - LEGAL EXPENSE 2- - - - - - -
50500001.536551 - LEGAL EXPENSE CONFIDENTIAL 2 57,000 - - - - - - 50500001.537000 - SCADA O & M 2 60,964 62,183 63,427 64,695 65,989 67,309 68,92450500001.537030 - TRANSFER STATION FEE 2 1,095 1,117 1,139 1,162 1,185 1,209 1,238 Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 10 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 725
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and Expenses
50500001.550010 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2 1,211,073 927,543 946,094 965,016 984,316 1,004,002 1,028,098 50500001.550200 - EMPLOYEE MEDICAL EXAMS 2 7,886 8,044 8,205 8,369 8,536 8,707 8,91650500001.552010 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2 605,874 617,178 629,522 642,112 654,954 668,053 684,08750500001.552015 - PROF SVCS - WATER CONSERVA 2 90,000 91,800 93,636 95,509 97,419 99,367 101,752 50500001.553150 - EOC - SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES 2- - - - - - - 50500001.555750 - WATER CONSERVATION REBAT 2- - - - - 1 1 50500001.555751 - LAUNDROMAT REBATES 2- - - - - - -
50500001.555752 - LANDSCAPE REBATES 2 220,000 224,400 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 256,00050500001.555753 - LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT 2- - - 50500001.555754 - DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM 2- - - - - - - 50500001.555755 - MWD WTR CONSERV REBATES 2 37,434 38,183 38,947 39,726 40,520 41,331 42,32250500001.555756 - SMMUSD PROGRAM 2- - - - - - - 50500001.555780 - WATER DEMAND MITIGATION 2- - - - - - - 50500001.555790 - BAYSAVER - INDOOR PLUMBIN 2- - - - - 1 1 50500001.555800 - UNRESERVED-PRIVATE OUTDO 2- - - - - - - 50500001.575020 - FURNITURE & FURNISHINGS 2- - - - - - - 50500001.575030 - COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 2- - - - - 1 150500001.575090 - MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT 2- - - - - - - x25671.566380 - DEBRIS REMOVAL 2- - - - - - -
Supplies and Expenses - SUBTOTAL 16,178,076 $ 17,401,503 $ 18,065,572 $ 18,900,278 $ 19,732,100 $ 20,706,809 $ 21,194,809 $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 11 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 726
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and ExpensesTABLE 8 : OPERATING EXPENSE FORECAST, CONTINUED DESCRIPTION Basis FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Supplies and Expenses, cont.
50500002.525080 - SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIE 15 50,000 51,000 52,020 53,060 54,122 55,204 55,204 50500002.525081 - CHEMICALS (Charnock) 15 85,000 86,700 88,434 90,203 92,007 93,847 93,847 50500002.525084 - FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT 15 100,000 569,732 581,127 592,749 604,604 616,696 616,69650500002.527501 - FIELD EQUIP & TOOLS 15 - - - - - - - 50500002.527502 - ANALYTICAL INSTR CONSUMAB 15 - - - - - - - 50500002.528000 - UTIL - LIGHT / POWER 15 1,111,497 1,267,107 1,292,449 1,318,298 1,344,664 1,371,557 1,371,557 50500002.536030 - WASTE DISPOSAL (BRINING) 15 66,808 68,144 69,507 70,897 72,315 73,761 73,761 50500002.536050 - REGULATORY AGENCY FEES 15 10,953 11,172 11,395 11,623 11,856 12,093 12,093 50500002.550010 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15 1,100,000 866,286 883,612 901,284 919,310 937,696 937,696 50500002.552010 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15 - - - - - - - Supplies and Expenses - SUBTOTAL 2,524,258 $ 2,920,141 $ 2,978,544 $ 3,038,115 $ 3,098,877 $ 3,160,855 $ 3,160,855 $ Supplies and Expenses
50500003.525080 - SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIE 15 32,086 $ 32,728 $ 33,383 $ 34,050 $ 34,731 $ 35,426 $ 35,426 50500003.525081 - CHEMICALS (Arcadia WTP) 15 449,126 458,109 467,271 476,617 486,149 495,872 495,872 50500003.525082 - MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT 15 - - - - - - - 50500003.525083 - CARTRIDGE FILTER REPLACEME 15 - - - - - - - 50500003.525084 - FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT 15 - - - - - - - 50500003.528000 - UTIL - LIGHT / POWER 15 498,544 568,340 579,707 591,301 603,127 615,189 615,18950500003.536030 - WASTE DISPOSAL (BRINING) 15 77,292 78,838 80,415 82,023 83,664 85,337 85,337 50500003.550010 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15 245,995 250,915 255,933 261,052 266,273 271,598 271,598 50500003.552010 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15 - - - - - - - Supplies and Expenses - SUBTOTAL 3 $ 1,388,930 1,303,043 $ 1,416,709 $ 1,445,043 $ 1,473,944 $ 1,503,422 $ 1,503,422 $ All Other Transactions
50800004.51100C - MOU CONTINGENCY 2- - - - - - 168,802
50800004.513003 - RETIREMENT - MISC. EMPL 15 - - - - - - -50800004.513008 - PERS PAYDOWN SAVINGS - - - - - 1 -50800004.514001 - OPEB PAYMENT ARC 10 85,496 89,771 94,260 98,973 103,921 109,117 85,53150800004.514002 - REIMBURSEMENT FROM OPEB 10 (38,669) (40,602) (42,632) (44,764) (47,002) (49,352) (38,669) Retirement and OPEB - SUBTOTAL 3 $ 49,169 46,827 $ 51,627 $ 54,209 $ 56,919 $ 59,766 $ 215,663 $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 12 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 727
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 1
WATER RATE STUDYOperating Revenue and ExpensesTABLE 9 : OPERATING EXPENSE FORECAST, CONTINUED DESCRIPTION Basis FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Environmental Reimbursement 2 900,874 $ 940,385 $ 968,597 $ 997,654 $ 1,027,584 $ 1,061,560 $ $ 1,087,038 MWD Recycled Water Rebate 2 9,696 9,929 10,167 10,411 10,661 10,917 11,179Reimbursement General Fund SCADA 2 91,119 94,518 97,354 100,274 103,282 106,697 109,258Transfer Out - Engineering Reimb. 2 256,525 266,905 274,912 283,160 291,654 301,298 308,529Transfer Out - Water/Wastewater Reimbursment 2 302,051 313,541 322,947 332,636 342,615 353,943 362,438Transfer Out - GIS Analyst for PW 3 43,527 28,528 29,384 30,265 31,173 32,204 33,170Transfer Out - Admin Analysis Reimb 3 3,466 3,590 3,698 3,809 3,923 4,053 4,174Transfer Out - WTR Res Prot Spec Xfer 3 73,877 76,970 79,279 81,657 84,107 86,888 89,495Transfer Out - ADA Coord Reimb 3 73,877 76,970 79,279 81,657 84,107 86,888 89,495Transfer-In Water/Wastewater Transfer 15 (287,109) (303,664) (312,774) (322,157) (331,822) (342,793) (342,793) Transfer-In from General Fund - Low Income Disc. 15 (96,000) (96,000) (96,000) (96,000) (96,000) (96,000) (96,000) Interfund Transactions - SUBTOTAL 3 $ 1,411,672 1,371,903 $ 1,456,843 $ 1,503,367 $ 1,551,285 $ 1,605,655 $ 1,655,982 $ TOTAL : WATER OPERATING EXPENSES 1, 2, 3 $ 32,629,016 30,467,033 $ 35,842,387 $ 37,303,644 $ 38,690,868 $ 40,395,959 $ 42,289,148 $ TABLE 10 : FORECASTING ASSUMPTIONSINFLATION FACTORS 4 Basis FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Customer Growth 5 1 -- -- 0.00% 0.42% 0.42% 0.42% 0.42% General Cost Inflation 2 -- -- 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40%Salary Inflation 3 -- -- 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Workers' Comp Insurance 4 -- 0.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%Medical, Misc. Employees 5 -- 5.90% 7.95% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00%Medical Inflation 6 -- 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50%Dental Inflation 7 -- 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Employee Heath Contribution 8 -- 6.86% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00%Retirement 9 -- 24.17% 25.97% 27.17% 28.59% 29.28%Insurance 10 -- -- 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%Property Insurance 11 -- 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%Energy 12 -- -- 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40%Chemicals 13 -- -- 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40%Fuel 14 -- -- 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%No Escalation 15 -- -- 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1. Revenue and expenses from PW_50FundForecast-Water-24-25.2. Source file for Budget: PW_50FundForecast-Water_24-25.3. Not Used.4. Inflation factors estimated by City.5. Customer growth estimated in 2015 Urban Water Master Plan. Source file: Item 22-UWMP_Final_2015.pdf, Page 13 of pdf.

Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 1 (O&M), 13 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 728
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan ExpendituresTABLE 11 : CAPITAL FUNDING SUMMARY CAPITAL FUNDING FORECAST Budget
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Grants $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Use of SRF/WIFIA Loan Proceeds - 19,965,408 18,974,012 58,248,855 7,486,151 37,078,807Use of New Revenue Loan Proceeds - - - - - -Use of Settlement Funds 2 1,666,162 1,564,616 1,735,616 1,808,141 1,916,111 - Use of Capital Rehabilitation and Replacement Reserve 277,057 - - - - -Use of Connection Fee Reserve 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,001Rate Revenue 13,337,857 13,438,671 18,676,718 21,436,970 19,042,343 19,803,897Total Sources of Capital Funds 16,679,530 $ 36,570,242 $ 40,886,347 $ 82,993,966 $ 29,944,605 $ 58,382,705 $ Uses of Capital Funds
Total Project Costs $ 36,570,242 16,679,530 $ 40,886,347 $ 82,993,966 $ 29,944,605 $ 58,382,705 $ Capital Funding Surplus (Deficiency) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ New SRF/WIFIA Loan Proceeds $ 19,965,408 - $ 18,974,012 $ 58,248,855 $ 7,486,151 $ 37,078,807 $ Future Revenue Bond Proceeds Settlement Funds 2 $ 1,564,616 $ 1,666,162 $ 1,735,616 $ 1,808,141 $ 1,916,111 $ - Policy Choice 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
1 No Loan Funding $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2 $105 million Loan Funding 14,430,464 - 11,669,900 50,000,485 - 29,977,507 3 $139 million Loan Funding 18,974,012 19,965,408 58,248,855 7,486,151 37,078,807 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING OPTIONSPolicy Choice 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 1 100% CIP Funding $ 16,679,530 $ 36,570,242 $ 40,886,347 $ 82,993,966 $ 29,944,605 $ 58,382,705 2 75% CIP Funding 12,509,648 31,035,297 33,582,235 74,745,596 22,458,454 51,281,406 3 50% CIP Funding 8,339,765 25,500,353 26,278,123 66,497,226 14,972,303 44,180,106 4 25% CIP Funding 4,169,883 19,965,408 18,974,012 58,248,855 7,486,151 37,078,807 1 $ 1
Capital Improvement Program Funding Choice 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Effective Annual Funding Amount $ 36,570,242 16,679,530 $ 40,886,347 $ 82,993,966 $ 29,944,605 $ 58,382,705 $ Funding Sources
Plan CIP Alternative
Projected
Plan Loan Funding Alternative
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 14 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 729
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan ExpendituresCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMTABLE 12 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS (IN CURRENT-YEAR DOLLARS) Project Description 1 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
C259075.589000 (No Tyler Account) - BOOSTER PUMP STATION FOR 500-FC5004600.689000 - ANNUAL STREET/PARK PARKING LOT 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 C5004840.689000 - VALVE STUDY/REPLACEMENT 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 C5004840.689000 - WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 7,500,000 2,500,000 8,800,000 9,000,000 9,550,000 C5004850.689000 - CITY FORCES-WATER MAIN REPL PR 322,841 307,468 338,983 355,933 373,729 C5004870.689000 - NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN EXPANSI 1,500,000 1,306,298 1,500,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 C5004870.689520 - NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN EXPANSIC5004870.689740 - NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN EXPANSIC5005010.689000 - WATERRESOURCESTENANTIMPROVEC5005030.689000 - HANSEN8SOFTWAREUPGRADEC5005050.689000 - SCADASYSTEMSUPGRADEC5005070.689000 - CALIFINCLINECONSTRUCTIONC5005170.689000 - AUTOMETERREADINGPILOTPROJC5005250.689000 - WATERSYSTEMIMPROVEMENTC5005320.689000 - SANVICBOOSTERSTEMERGENC5005330.689000 - UTILITYBILLINGSOFTWARE 422,607C5005350.689000 - CHARNOCKWELLFIELDRESTORATIONC5005350.689000 - GMPC5005410.689000 - CITY YARDS PROJECTC5005650.689000 - COLORADOAVEESP-WATERMAINC5005710.689000 - EXPOWATERBETTERMENTSC5005840.689000 - WATERSYSTEMSDATAINTEGRATIONC5005850.689000 - BOOSTERPUMPCHARNOCKH2OFACC5005870.689000 - WATERMAINREPLACE-OLYLOOPC5005880.689410 - OLYMPIC SUB-BASIN REMEDIATION 700,000 664,976 700,000 700,000 700,000 C5006050.689410 - OLYMPIC SUB-BASIN WELL HYDROLOC5006120.689000 - CLIMATEACTIONPLANC5006130.689000 - SUSTAINABLEURBANWATERMASTERC5006140.689000 - GROUNDWATERMANAGEMENTPLAN 265,022 C5006390.689000 - IRRIGATIONCONTROLLERREPLAMNTC5006400.689000 - TURFANDIRRIGATIONIMPROVEMNTC5006840.689000 - EPAWATERMAINREPLACEMENTC5006940.689000 - ARCADIA WATER PLANT MEMBRANE R 1,500,000 1,500,000 C5007180.689000 - COASTAL SUBBASIN BORINGSC5007260.689000 - Redrill Santa Monica Well #3 223,280 C5007260.689410 - REDRILL SANTA MONICA WELL #3-GC5007330.689000 - SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTUC5007330.689740 - SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTU Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 15 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 730
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan Expenditures
C5007350.689000 - WATER FACILITY CONTROLLER ANDC5007370.689000 - ARCADIA REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) RC5007410.689000 - ARCADIA VAPOR PHASE GRANULAR AC5007460.689410 - CITY/USGS MONITORING WELL & NUC5007620.689000 - RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS 2,731,382 5,600,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 C5007630.689000 - CITY/USGS NUMERICAL FLOW MODEL 1,200,000 400,000 800,000 C5007650.689000 - ARCADIA ENHANCED RO RECOVERYC5007660.689000 - DINSAR STUDYC5007740.689000 - ARCADIA CAPACITY EXPANSION ANDC5007740.689740 - ARCADIA CAPACITY EXPANSION ANDC5007750.689000 - OLYMPIC WELLFIELD RESTORATIONC5007750.689410 - OLYMPIC WELLFIELD RESTORATIONC5007750.689740 - OLYMPIC WELLFIELD RESTORATIONC5007760.689000 - GROUNDWATER RESILIENCY WELLC5007760.689740 - GROUNDWATER RESILIENCY WELLC5007940.689000 - ROOFTOP FALL PROTECTION AND ACC5008010.689520 - CITYWIDE MUNICIPAL DRINKING WAC5008040.689000 - CONSTRUCTION MGMT SOFTWARE 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 C5008050.689000 - GREEN SAND MEDIA REPLACEMENT 500,000C5008060.689000 - OLYMPIC WELLS EQUIPPINGC5008060.689520 - WATER DEMAND MITIGATION FEEC5008060.689740 - OLYMPIC WELLS EQUIPPINGC5008080.689000 - SM GROUNDWATER BASIN SUSTAINABC5008200.689740 - AMI SMART WATER METERSC5008530.689000 - ARCADIA PLANT FENCING 606,000 1,000,000 C5008540.689000 - ELECTRICAL-ARCADIA & CHARNOCK 1,000,000 1,000,000C5008550.689000 - GREEN SAND FILTER SCAFFOLDING 1,000,000 1,000,000C5008560.689000 - GROUNDWATER WELL SM11I (100% Funded by Grant)C5008570.689000 - GROUNDWATER WELL SM12I 5,600,000 1,332,787C5008580.689000 - GROUNDWATER PLAN SUST IMPL. 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 200,000C5008590.689000 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION/ASSETC5008600.689000 - WATER & WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN 1,000,000 C5008780.689000 - Roof and HVAC AWTP 700,000 C5009790.689000 - Water TI City Yards 300,000 750,000 I5000010.689000 - FLEETVEHICLEREPLACEMENTPROG 652,700 632,400 655,050 665,750 699,038I5000020.689000 - TELECOMMUNICATIONSSERVICES 61,282 59,501 63,116 65,005 68,255 I5000030.689000 - COMPUTEREQUIPMENTREPLACPROG 80,474 68,169 86,169 92,316 96,932 NEW CIP - Airport Wells 2 & 3, Civil Work & Pipeline to ArcadiaNew CIP - Olympic Wellfield Management (Professional Services)NEW CIP - Retrofit Vault (Booster Pump Arcadia)NEW CIP - SWIP $11M shortage (shifted all to Wastewater) New CIP - AMI Smart Water Meters (split 50/50 with wastewater fund) Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 16 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 731
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan Expenditures
C5009050.689000 - GROUNDWATER WELL IMPROVEMENTS 700,000 3,500,000 1,000,000 5,500,000 New CIP - Charnock 18 ReplacementNew CIP - Reservoir Improvements (Mt. Olivette, San Vincente, and Riviera)New CIP - Bond Funded Projects (refer to Revenue Bond Tab) (.689740) - BALANCE unbudgeted so farC5009040.689000 - ARCADIA OPS BUILDING REPLACEME 800,000 1,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000New CIP - Nonpotable Water Main Expansion C5009020.689000 - ONE WATER PLANSalt Nutrient Management Plan /CIPIDEA0001259 50,000 100,000Network Upgrades /CIPIDEA0001261C5009070.689410 - OLYMPIC AWTF REMEDIATION 917,633 899,640 935,985 954,705 1,002,440 Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 17 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 732
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan ExpendituresTABLE 13 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS (IN CURRENT-YEAR DOLLARS) Project Description 1 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Future CIP Costs 24,502,573CIPS Funded through Pay-Go or WIFIA Loan (note the amounts in in addition to the green highlighted items from the CIP list above) C5007620.689000 - RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS
Riviera 12,010,159
Mt Olivette 20,999,443
San Vincente 25,858,861
Arcadia WTP Improvements
Arcadia WTP - New Lab (in addition to C5009040.689000 - Arcadia OPS Building Replaceme 5,000,000 5,000,000 Arcadia Reservoir Replacement 9,758,084
Direct Potable Reuse (Pipeline, Pump Station, 3 mgd Ozone) 6,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000 Total: CIP Program Costs (Current-Year Dollars) $ 21,494,930 16,679,530 $ 27,539,303 $ 30,193,709 $ 26,605,394 $ 24,502,573 $ Total: CIP Loan Funded Program Costs (Current-Year Dollars) $ 14,010,159 - $ 11,000,000 $ 45,757,527 $ - $ 25,858,861 $ Total: CIP All Program Costs (Current-Year Dollars) $ 35,505,089 16,679,530 $ 38,539,303 $ 75,951,236 $ 26,605,394 $ 55,861,434 $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 18 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 733
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan ExpendituresTABLE 14 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS (IN FUTURE-YEAR DOLLARS) Project Description 1 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
C259075.589000 (No Tyler Account) - BOOSTER PUMP STATIO $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5004600.689000 - ANNUAL STREET/PARK PARKING LOT 250,000 $ 257,500 $ 265,225 $ 273,182 $ 281,377 $ - $ C5004840.689000 - VALVE STUDY/REPLACEMENT 150,000 $ 154,500 $ 159,135 $ 163,909 $ 168,826 $ - $ C5004840.689000 - WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 2,500,000 $ 7,725,000 $ 9,335,920 $ 9,834,543 $ 10,748,609 $ - $ C5004850.689000 - CITY FORCES-WATER MAIN REPL PR 307,468 $ 332,526 $ 359,627 $ 388,938 $ 420,635 $ - $ C5004870.689000 - NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN EXPANSI 1,306,298 $ 1,545,000 $ 1,591,350 $ 2,731,818 $ 3,376,526 $ - $ C5004870.689520 - NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN EXPANSI - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5004870.689740 - NON-POTABLE WATER MAIN EXPANSI - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005010.689000 - WATERRESOURCESTENANTIMPROVE - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005030.689000 - HANSEN8SOFTWAREUPGRADE - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005050.689000 - SCADASYSTEMSUPGRADE - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005070.689000 - CALIFINCLINECONSTRUCTION - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005170.689000 - AUTOMETERREADINGPILOTPROJ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005250.689000 - WATERSYSTEMIMPROVEMENT - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005320.689000 - SANVICBOOSTERSTEMERGEN 422,607 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005330.689000 - UTILITYBILLINGSOFTWARE - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005350.689000 - CHARNOCKWELLFIELDRESTORATION - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005350.689000 - GMP - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005410.689000 - CITY YARDS PROJECT - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005650.689000 - COLORADOAVEESP-WATERMAIN - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005710.689000 - EXPOWATERBETTERMENTS - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005840.689000 - WATERSYSTEMSDATAINTEGRATION - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005850.689000 - BOOSTERPUMPCHARNOCKH2OFAC - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005870.689000 - WATERMAINREPLACE-OLYLOOP - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5005880.689410 - OLYMPIC SUB-BASIN REMEDIATION 664,976 $ 721,000 $ 742,630 $ 764,909 $ 787,856 $ - $ C5006050.689410 - OLYMPIC SUB-BASIN WELL HYDROLO - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006120.689000 - CLIMATEACTIONPLAN - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006130.689000 - SUSTAINABLEURBANWATERMASTER - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006140.689000 - GROUNDWATERMANAGEMENTPLAN 265,022 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006390.689000 - IRRIGATIONCONTROLLERREPLAMNT - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006400.689000 - TURFANDIRRIGATIONIMPROVEMNT - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006840.689000 - EPAWATERMAINREPLACEMENT - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5006940.689000 - ARCADIA WATER PLANT MEMBRANE R - $ 1,545,000 $ - $ - $ 1,688,263 $ - $ C5007180.689000 - COASTAL SUBBASIN BORINGS - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007260.689000 - Redrill Santa Monica Well #3 $ - 223,280 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007260.689410 - REDRILL SANTA MONICA WELL #3-G - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007330.689000 - SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTU - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007330.689740 - SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTU - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007350.689000 - WATER FACILITY CONTROLLER AND - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 19 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 734
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan Expenditures
C5007370.689000 - ARCADIA REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) R - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007410.689000 - ARCADIA VAPOR PHASE GRANULAR A - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007460.689410 - CITY/USGS MONITORING WELL & NU - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007620.689000 - RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS 2,731,382 $ 2,060,000 $ 5,941,040 $ 1,092,727 $ - $ - $ C5007630.689000 - CITY/USGS NUMERICAL FLOW MODEL - $ 412,000 $ 1,273,080 $ 874,182 $ - $ - $ C5007650.689000 - ARCADIA ENHANCED RO RECOVERY - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007660.689000 - DINSAR STUDY - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007740.689000 - ARCADIA CAPACITY EXPANSION AND - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007740.689740 - ARCADIA CAPACITY EXPANSION AND - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007750.689000 - OLYMPIC WELLFIELD RESTORATION - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007750.689410 - OLYMPIC WELLFIELD RESTORATION - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007750.689740 - OLYMPIC WELLFIELD RESTORATION - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007760.689000 - GROUNDWATER RESILIENCY WELL - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007760.689740 - GROUNDWATER RESILIENCY WELL - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5007940.689000 - ROOFTOP FALL PROTECTION AND AC - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008010.689520 - CITYWIDE MUNICIPAL DRINKING WA - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008040.689000 - CONSTRUCTION MGMT SOFTWARE 10,000 $ 10,300 $ 10,609 $ 10,927 $ 16,883 $ - $ C5008050.689000 - GREEN SAND MEDIA REPLACEMENT - $ - $ 530,450 $ - $ - $ - $ C5008060.689000 - OLYMPIC WELLS EQUIPPING - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008060.689520 - WATER DEMAND MITIGATION FEE - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008060.689740 - OLYMPIC WELLS EQUIPPING - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008080.689000 - SM GROUNDWATER BASIN SUSTAINAB - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008200.689740 - AMI SMART WATER METERS - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008530.689000 - ARCADIA PLANT FENCING 606,000 $ 1,030,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008540.689000 - ELECTRICAL-ARCADIA & CHARNOCK 1,000,000 $ 1,030,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008550.689000 - GREEN SAND FILTER SCAFFOLDING 1,000,000 $ 1,030,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008560.689000 - GROUNDWATER WELL SM11I (100% Fund $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008570.689000 - GROUNDWATER WELL SM12I 1,332,787 $ - $ 5,941,040 $ - $ - $ - $ C5008580.689000 - GROUNDWATER PLAN SUST IMPL. 150,000 $ 154,500 $ 159,135 $ 163,909 $ 225,102 $ - $ C5008590.689000 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION/ASSET - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5008600.689000 - WATER & WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN - $ - $ - $ 1,092,727 $ - $ - $ C5008780.689000 - Roof and HVAC AWTP 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5009790.689000 - Water TI City Yards 300,000 $ 772,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ I5000010.689000 - FLEETVEHICLEREPLACEMENTPROG 632,400 $ 672,281 $ 694,943 $ 727,483 $ 786,773 $ - $ I5000020.689000 - TELECOMMUNICATIONSSERVICES 59,501 $ 63,120 $ 66,960 $ 71,033 $ 76,822 $ - $ I5000030.689000 - COMPUTEREQUIPMENTREPLACPROG 68,169 $ 82,888 $ 91,417 $ 100,876 $ 109,098 $ - $ NEW CIP - Airport Wells 2 & 3, Civil Work & Pipeline to Arcadia $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ New CIP - Olympic Wellfield Management (Professional Service$ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ NEW CIP - Retrofit Vault (Booster Pump Arcadia) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ NEW CIP - SWIP $11M shortage (shifted all to Wastewater) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ New CIP - AMI Smart Water Meters (split 50/50 with wastewat $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5009050.689000 - GROUNDWATER WELL IMPROVEMENTS - $ 721,000 $ 1,060,900 $ 3,824,545 $ - $ 6,376,007 $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 20 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 735
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan Expenditures
New CIP - Charnock 18 Replacement - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ New CIP - Reservoir Improvements (Mt. Olivette, San Vincente $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ New CIP - Bond Funded Projects (refer to Revenue Bond Tab) ( $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5009040.689000 - ARCADIA OPS BUILDING REPLACEME 1,000,000 $ 824,000 $ - $ 9,834,543 $ 10,129,579 $ - $ New CIP - Nonpotable Water Main Expansion - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5009020.689000 - ONE WATER PLAN - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Salt Nutrient Management Plan /CIPIDEA0001259 100,000 $ 51,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Network Upgrades /CIPIDEA0001261 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ C5009070.689410 - OLYMPIC AWTF REMEDIATION 899,640 $ 945,162 $ 992,986 $ 1,043,232 $ 1,128,255 $ - $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 21 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 736
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan ExpendituresTABLE 15 : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS (IN FUTURE-YEAR DOLLARS) Project Description 1 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Future CIP Costs - - - - - 28,405,198 0 - - - - - - CIPS Funded through Pay-Go or WIFIA Loan (note the amounts - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - C5007620.689000 - RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS - - - - - - 0 - 12,370,464 - - - - 0 - - - 22,946,658 - -
0 - - - - - 29,977,507 0 - - - - - - Arcadia WTP Improvements - - - - - - 0 - - 5,304,500 5,463,635 - - 0 - - - 10,662,922 - -
- 2,060,000 6,365,400 10,927,270 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - -
- - - - - -
0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - Future CIP Costs 2 - - - - - - Reduction in CIP - - - - - -
Total: CIP Program Costs (Current-Year Dollars) $ 22,139,778 16,679,530 $ 29,216,447 $ 32,993,481 $ 29,944,605 $ 28,405,198 $ Total: CIP Loan Funded Program Costs (Current-Year Dollars) $ 14,430,464 - $ 11,669,900 $ 50,000,485 $ - $ 29,977,507 $ Total: CIP All Program Costs (Current-Year Dollars) $ 36,570,242 16,679,530 $ 40,886,347 $ 82,993,966 $ 29,944,605 $ 64,758,712 $ 00000000
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 22 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 737
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 2
WATER RATE STUDYCapital Improvement Plan ExpendituresTABLE 16 : FORECASTING ASSUMPTIONS Economic Variables 2 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Cumulative Construction Cost Multiplier from 2025 1.03 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16

1. FY 2018/19 - 2028/29 given from City and assumed for future years. Source file: Item 17-FYE2019_CIP_Budget.pdf, Pages 147-148 in Water Fund 50 and 50(25)Fund Forecast - Water (May 2019) - Final-5-15-19.xlsx, "Capital (CIP)" tab. Updates made to CIP on 04.30.2019 per source file: Santa Monica Water Rate Model (20190430).xlsx

2. Construction inflator is based on the most current 10 year average of the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index. Source: www.enr.com/economics Annual Construction Cost Inflation, Per Engineering News Record Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 2 (CIP), 23 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 738
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 3
WATER RATE STUDYDebt ServiceTABLE 17 : INTERFUND LOAN DEBT OBLIGATIONS Budget
FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 Interfund Loan (City Yards Master Plan, Injection Well & Non-potable Water Main Expansion)1 Principal Payment $ 706,367 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ Subtotal: Annual Debt Service 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ Coverage Requirement ($-Amnt above annual payment) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Reserve Requirement (total fund balance) $ 706,367 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ 706,367 $ Water Revenue Bonds (Series 2021) Principal Payment $ 1,495,000 1,435,000 $ 1,555,000 $ 1,625,000 $ 1,685,000 $ 1,750,000 $ Interest Payment 2,059,587 2,118,187 1,998,587 1,926,863 1,865,175 1,800,362 Subtotal: Annual Debt Service 3,553,187 $ 3,554,587 $ 3,553,587 $ 3,551,863 $ 3,550,175 $ 3,550,362 $ Coverage Requirement ($-Amnt above annual payment) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Reserve Requirement (total fund balance) $ 3,554,587 3,554,587 $ 3,553,587 $ 3,551,863 $ 3,550,175 $ - $ TABLE 18 : SUMMARY OF INTERFUND LOAN DEBT OBLIGATIONSExisting Annual Debt Service $ 4,260,954 4,259,554 $ 4,259,954 $ 4,258,229 $ 4,256,542 $ 4,256,729 $ Existing Annual Coverage Requirement 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Existing Debt Reserve Target $ 4,260,954 4,260,954 $ 4,259,954 $ 4,258,229 $ 4,256,542 $ 706,367 $ Annual Repayment Schedules Projected
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 3 (Debt), 24 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 739
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXHIBIT 3
WATER RATE STUDYDebt ServiceFUTURE DEBT FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS Long-Term Debt Terms Private Debt SRF/WIFIA Loan
Issuance Cost 2.00% 2.00%Annual Interest Cost (%) 5.00% 4.00% *Project operational before repayment starts Term 30 30 Start Year 3 of the Rate PeriodDebt Reserve Funded? No NoCoverage Requirement (% above annual pmt) 125% 120% FUTURE DEBT OBLIGATIONSAnnual Repayment Schedules 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030SRF/WIFIA Loan Repayment Schedule Principal Payment $ - - $ - $ - $ 2,578,024 $ 2,681,145 $ Interest Payment - - - - 5,783,532 5,680,411
Subtotal: Annual Debt Service $ - - $ - $ - $ 8,361,556 $ 8,361,556 $ Principal Payment 2 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Interest Payment 2 - - - - - -
Subtotal: Annual Debt Service $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Grand Total: Future Annual Debt Service $ - - $ - $ - $ 8,361,556 $ 8,361,556 $ Grand Total: New Annual Coverage Requirement $ - - $ - $ - $ 10,033,867 $ 10,033,867 $ Grand Total: Future Debt Reserve Target $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 3 (Debt), 25 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 740
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYCurrent Rate ScheduleTABLE 19 : CURRENT WATER RATE SCHEDULECurrent Water Rate Schedule FY 2019/20
Overall Increase in Rate Revenue 20.00%
Bi-Monthly Fixed Service ChargesSingle Family Residential 3/4 inch $11.101 inch $11.101.5 inch $15.642 inch $21.10 All Other Customers
3/4 inch $13.42
1 inch $13.421.5 inch $20.292 inch $28.543 inch $50.534 inch $75.276 inch $143.988 inch $391.36 Fire Service Charges

1.5 inch $42.612 inch $64.253 inch $132.764 inch $258.986 inch $583.528 inch $1,016.2510 inch $1,521.10 Commodity Charges
All Customers ($/hcf)
Tier 1 $3.78Tier 2 $4.39Tier 3 $6.25
Water Rate Schedule
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Exhibit 4 (Current Rates), 26 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 741
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service AnalysisTABLE 20 : CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES FY 2025/26 COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP Water Fund, 50Salaries and Benefits
Permanent Employees $ 1,187,089 6,247,838 $ 312,392 $ 312,392 $ 937,176 $ 3,123,919 $ 312,392 $ 62,478 $ 19.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Vacation Lump Sum Pays $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Council/Board Allowance $ 525 2,623 $ 105 $ 131 $ 393 $ 1,312 $ 131 $ 26 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Standby Pay $ 5,735 28,676 $ 1,147 $ 1,434 $ 4,301 $ 14,338 $ 1,434 $ 287 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Overtime $ 34,263 171,315 $ 6,853 $ 8,566 $ 25,697 $ 85,658 $ 8,566 $ 1,713 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Temporary Employees $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Medicare Employer Contribution $ 17,398 86,990 $ 3,480 $ 4,350 $ 13,049 $ 43,495 $ 4,350 $ 870 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Workers' Comp Insurance $ 41,512 207,561 $ 8,302 $ 10,378 $ 31,134 $ 103,781 $ 10,378 $ 2,076 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Medical - Misc. Employee $ 237,665 1,188,327 $ 47,533 $ 59,416 $ 178,249 $ 594,163 $ 59,416 $ 11,883 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Medical Trust - Misc. Employee $ 23,830 119,148 $ 4,766 $ 5,957 $ 17,872 $ 59,574 $ 5,957 $ 1,191 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%Dental $ 12,614 63,071 $ 2,523 $ 3,154 $ 9,461 $ 31,536 $ 3,154 $ 631 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%Vision $ 1,513 7,563 $ 303 $ 378 $ 1,134 $ 3,781 $ 378 $ 76 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%Employee Health Contribution $ (19,013) (95,066) $ (3,803) $ (4,753) $ (14,260) $ (47,533) $ (4,753) $ (951) $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Retirement - Misc. Employee $ 398,612 1,993,060 $ 79,722 $ 99,653 $ 298,959 $ 996,530 $ 99,653 $ 19,931 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%Retirement - As Needed $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%Uniform/Tool Allowance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Unemployment $ 5,730 28,651 $ 1,146 $ 1,433 $ 4,298 $ 14,325 $ 1,433 $ 287 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% EAP $ 203 1,017 $ 41 $ 51 $ 153 $ 509 $ 51 $ 10 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%DCAP $ 371 1,855 $ 74 $ 93 $ 278 $ 928 $ 93 $ 19 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Life Insurance and AD&D $ 1,870 9,348 $ 374 $ 467 $ 1,402 $ 4,674 $ 467 $ 93 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Disability Insurance $ 7,901 39,507 $ 1,580 $ 1,975 $ 5,926 $ 19,753 $ 1,975 $ 395 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE Water Quality Superviso $ 46,469 232,344 $ 9,294 $ 11,617 $ 34,852 $ 116,172 $ 11,617 $ 2,323 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE AMI Supervisor $ 42,360 211,798 $ 8,472 $ 10,590 $ 31,770 $ 105,899 $ 10,590 $ 2,118 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE Water Conservation Coo $ 41,617 208,085 $ 8,323 $ 10,404 $ 31,213 $ 104,043 $ 10,404 $ 2,081 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% EBB Budget Request: Add 1 FTE SCADA Supervisor (50/5 $ 22,147 110,737 $ 4,429 $ 5,537 $ 16,611 $ 55,369 $ 5,537 $ 1,107 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Equity Adjustment for ALL POSITIONS (10%) $ 201,729 1,008,645 $ 40,346 $ 50,432 $ 151,297 $ 504,323 $ 50,432 $ 10,086 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Salaries and Benefits - SUBTOTAL $ 2,312,140 11,873,093 $ 537,402 $ 593,655 $ 1,780,964 $ 5,936,546 $ 593,655 $ 118,731 $ 19.5% 4.5% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Fire Protection Basis of Classification Budget Categories Total Revenue Reqt. Base Commodity Groundwater Capacity Customer Purchased Water Conservation Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 27 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 742
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service AnalysisTABLE 21 : CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES, CONTINUED FY 2025/26 COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP Water Fund, 50Supplies and Expenses
50500001.521000 - ADVERTISING $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.521810 - VEHICLES - FUELS / LUBRICATION $ 5,634 28,170 $ 1,127 $ 1,409 $ 4,226 $ 14,085 $ 1,409 $ 282 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.521820 - CNG/LNG FUEL $ 19,328 96,638 $ 3,866 $ 4,832 $ 14,496 $ 48,319 $ 4,832 $ 966 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.523330 - UTILITIES BILLING SERVICES $ - 351,913 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 351,913 $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%50500001.523340 - PROPERTY TAXES $ 19,768 98,838 $ 3,954 $ 4,942 $ 14,826 $ 49,419 $ 4,942 $ 988 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.523370 - METERED POSTAGE $ 5,381 26,904 $ 1,076 $ 1,345 $ 4,036 $ 13,452 $ 1,345 $ 269 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.523420 - INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $ 436,272 2,181,360 $ 87,254 $ 109,068 $ 327,204 $ 1,090,680 $ 109,068 $ 21,814 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.524000 - MEMBERSHIPS AND DUES $ 2,825 14,127 $ 565 $ 706 $ 2,119 $ 7,064 $ 706 $ 141 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.524700 - RENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.524702 - OTHER OPERATING RENTS $ 48,085 240,423 $ 9,617 $ 12,021 $ 36,063 $ 120,212 $ 12,021 $ 2,404 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.524710 - REIMBURSE ENGINEERING OFFICE $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.525000 - OFFICE SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES $ 3,369 16,843 $ 674 $ 842 $ 2,526 $ 8,422 $ 842 $ 168 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.525001 - DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.525002 - DISCOUNTS LOST $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.525080 - SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES $ 277,605 1,388,024 $ 55,521 $ 69,401 $ 208,204 $ 694,012 $ 69,401 $ 13,880 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.525190 - RIDESHARE AND PARKING PROGRAM $ 1,918 9,588 $ 384 $ 479 $ 1,438 $ 4,794 $ 479 $ 96 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.525200 - UNIFORM / PROTECTIVE CLOTHING $ 8,911 44,554 $ 1,782 $ 2,228 $ 6,683 $ 22,277 $ 2,228 $ 446 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.525320 - UNIFORM RENTAL $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.528000 - UTIL - LIGHT / POWER $ 214,228 1,071,141 $ 42,846 $ 53,557 $ 160,671 $ 535,570 $ 53,557 $ 10,711 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.528010 - UTILITIES - NATURAL GAS $ 649 3,244 $ 130 $ 162 $ 487 $ 1,622 $ 162 $ 32 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.528020 - UTILITIES - WATER $ 1,200 6,000 $ 240 $ 300 $ 900 $ 3,000 $ 300 $ 60 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.528030 - WATER PURCHASES $ - 5,727,788 $ - $ 5,727,788 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500001.528040 - UTILITIES - TELEPHONE $ 20,647 103,235 $ 4,129 $ 5,162 $ 15,485 $ 51,618 $ 5,162 $ 1,032 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.529040 - VEHICLE MGMT FUND-MAINTENANC $ 62,991 314,954 $ 12,598 $ 15,748 $ 47,243 $ 157,477 $ 15,748 $ 3,150 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.529230 - COMPUTER EQUIP/SOFTWARE MAIN $ 32,600 163,001 $ 6,520 $ 8,150 $ 24,450 $ 81,501 $ 8,150 $ 1,630 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.529540 - CSB WATER PRODUCTION-O&M $ (20,808) 104,040 $ 104,040 $ 5,202 $ 15,606 $ - $ - $ - $ -20.0% 100.0% 5.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500001.531010 - CONFERENCES/MEETINGS/TRAVEL $ 3,099 15,495 $ 620 $ 775 $ 2,324 $ 7,747 $ 775 $ 155 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.531011 - FOOD PURCHASES $ 449 2,247 $ 90 $ 112 $ 337 $ 1,124 $ 112 $ 22 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.531020 - TRAINING COSTS $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.531030 - TRAINING $ 5,320 26,599 $ 1,064 $ 1,330 $ 3,990 $ 13,299 $ 1,330 $ 266 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.534000 - BANK FEES $ 1,113 5,564 $ 223 $ 278 $ 835 $ 2,782 $ 278 $ 56 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.534550 - GENERAL LIABILITY / AUTO $ 88,969 444,844 $ 17,794 $ 22,242 $ 66,727 $ 222,422 $ 22,242 $ 4,448 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.534570 - PROPERTY INSURANCE $ 127,935 639,674 $ 25,587 $ 31,984 $ 95,951 $ 319,837 $ 31,984 $ 6,397 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.535000 - INTEREST EXPENSE $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.535010 - INTEREST EXPENDITURE - BONDS $ 411,916 2,059,579 $ 82,383 $ - $ 411,916 $ 1,029,789 $ 102,979 $ 20,596 $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.536030 - WASTE DISPOSAL (BRINING) $ 174,787 728,280 $ 182,070 $ - $ 145,656 $ 182,070 $ 36,414 $ 7,283 $ 24.0% 25.0% 0.0% 20.0% 25.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.536050 - REGULATORY AGENCY FEES $ 24,308 121,538 $ 4,862 $ 6,077 $ 18,231 $ 60,769 $ 6,077 $ 1,215 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.536550 - LEGAL EXPENSE $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.536551 - LEGAL EXPENSE CONFIDENTIAL $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500001.537000 - SCADA O & M $ 12,685 63,427 $ 2,537 $ 3,171 $ 9,514 $ 31,713 $ 3,171 $ 634 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.537030 - TRANSFER STATION FEE $ 228 1,139 $ 46 $ 57 $ 171 $ 570 $ 57 $ 11 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.550010 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $ 189,219 946,094 $ 37,844 $ 47,305 $ 141,914 $ 473,047 $ 47,305 $ 9,461 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.550200 - EMPLOYEE MEDICAL EXAMS $ 1,641 8,205 $ 328 $ 410 $ 1,231 $ 4,102 $ 410 $ 82 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.552010 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 125,904 629,522 $ 25,181 $ 31,476 $ 94,428 $ 314,761 $ 31,476 $ 6,295 $ 20.0% 4.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.552015 - PROF SVCS - WATER CONSERVATION $ - 93,636 $ - $ - $ 93,636 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500001.553150 - EOC - SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50500001.555750 - WATER CONSERVATION REBATES $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25.0% 4.0% 0.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.555751 - LAUNDROMAT REBATES $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25.0% 4.0% 0.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.555752 - LANDSCAPE REBATES $ 62,500 250,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ 37,500 $ 125,000 $ 12,500 $ 2,500 $ 25.0% 4.0% 0.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Conservation Fire Protection Basis of Classification Customer Budget Categories Total Revenue Reqt. Base Commodity Groundwater Capacity MWD Purchased Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 28 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 743
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service Analysis
50500001.555753 - LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%50500001.555754 - DIRECT INSTALL PROGRAM $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25.0% 4.0% 0.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.555755 - MWD WTR CONSERV REBATES $ - 38,947 $ - $ - $ 38,947 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500001.555756 - SMMUSD PROGRAM $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500001.555780 - WATER DEMAND MITIGATION REBAT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.555790 - BAYSAVER - INDOOR PLUMBING $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.555800 - UNRESERVED-PRIVATE OUTDOOR PL $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.575020 - FURNITURE & FURNISHINGS $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.575030 - COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500001.575090 - MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% x25671.566380 - DEBRIS REMOVAL $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 29 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 744
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service AnalysisTABLE 22 : CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES, CONTINUED FY 2025/26 COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP Water Fund, 50Supplies and Expenses, cont.
50500002.525080 - SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES $ 9,884 52,020 $ 2,601 $ - $ 10,404 $ 26,010 $ 2,601 $ 520 $ 19.0% 5.0% 0.0% 20.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500002.525081 - CHEMICALS (Charnock) $ 43,333 88,434 $ 44,217 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 884 $ 49.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%50500002.525084 - FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT $ 168,527 581,127 $ 29,056 $ - $ - $ 348,676 $ 29,056 $ 5,811 $ 29.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500002.527501 - FIELD EQUIP & TOOLS $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500002.527502 - ANALYTICAL INSTR CONSUMABLES $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500002.528000 - UTIL - LIGHT / POWER $ 439,433 1,292,449 $ 129,245 $ - $ - $ 646,225 $ 64,622 $ 12,924 $ 34.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500002.536030 - WASTE DISPOSAL (BRINING) $ 30,583 69,507 $ 34,753 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,475 $ 695 $ 44.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500002.536050 - REGULATORY AGENCY FEES $ - 11,395 $ - $ - $ - $ 11,395 $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%50500002.550010 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $ 44,181 883,612 $ - $ - $ - $ 830,595 $ - $ 8,836 $ 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 0.0% 1.0%50500002.552010 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 0.0% 1.0% 50500003.525080 - SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES $ - 33,383 $ - $ - $ 33,383 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50500003.525081 - CHEMICALS (Arcadia WTP) $ 228,963 467,271 $ 233,636 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,673 $ 49.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%50500003.525082 - MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 49.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%50500003.525083 - CARTRIDGE FILTER REPLACEMENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 49.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%50500003.525084 - FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 29.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500003.528000 - UTIL - LIGHT / POWER $ 110,144 579,707 $ 28,985 $ 28,985 $ 86,956 $ 289,853 $ 28,985 $ 5,797 $ 19.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 50.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500003.536030 - WASTE DISPOSAL (BRINING) $ 19,300 80,415 $ 20,104 $ - $ 16,083 $ 20,104 $ 4,021 $ 804 $ 24.0% 25.0% 0.0% 20.0% 25.0% 5.0% 1.0%50500003.550010 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $ - 255,933 $ - $ - $ - $ 240,577 $ 12,797 $ 2,559 $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 5.0% 1.0% 50500003.552010 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 0.0% 1.0% Supplies and Expenses - SUBTOTAL $ 3,465,019 22,460,824 $ 1,249,546 $ 6,197,545 $ 2,196,794 $ 8,105,989 $ 1,084,934 $ 160,997 $ 15.4% 5.6% 27.6% 9.8% 36.1% 4.8% 0.7% Groundwater Conservation Fire Protection Basis of Classification MWD Budget Categories Purchased Total Revenue Requirements Base Commodity Capacity Customer Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 30 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 745
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service AnalysisTABLE 23 : CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES, CONTINUED FY 2025/26 COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP Water Fund, 50Retirement and OPEB
50800004.51100C - MOU CONTINGENCY - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 5.0% 1.0%50800004.513003 - RETIREMENT - MISC. EMPL - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 5.0% 1.0%50800004.514001 - OPEB PAYMENT ARC - 94,260 - - - 88,604 4,713 943 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 5.0% 1.0%50800004.514002 - REIMBURSEMENT FROM OPEB TRUST - (42,632) - - - (40,074) (2,132) (426) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 5.0% 1.0% Retirement and OPEB - SUBTOTAL $ - 51,627 $ - $ - $ - $ 48,530 $ 2,581 $ 516 $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 5.0% 1.0% Conservation MWD Purchased Fire Protection Basis of Classification Total Revenue Requirements Base Commodity Capacity Customer Budget Categories Groundwater Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 31 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 746
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service AnalysisTABLE 24 : CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES, CONTINUED FY 2025/26 COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP Water Fund, 50Environmental Reimbursement $ - 968,597 $ - $ - $ - $ 968,597 $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% MWD Recycled Water Rebate $ - 10,167 $ - $ - $ 10,167 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Reimbursement General Fund SCADA $ - 97,354 $ - $ - $ - $ 96,380 $ - $ 974 $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0% 0.0% 1.0% Transfer Out - Engineering Reimb. $ 137,456 274,912 $ - $ - $ - $ 137,456 $ - $ - $ 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfer Out - Water/Wastewater Reimbursment $ 161,474 322,947 $ - $ - $ - $ 161,474 $ - $ - $ 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%Transfer Out - GIS Analyst for PW $ - 29,384 $ - $ - $ - $ 29,090 $ - $ 294 $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0% 0.0% 1.0% Transfer Out - Admin Analysis Reimb $ 1,849 3,698 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,849 $ - $ - $ 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfer Out - WTR Res Prot Spec Xfer $ 39,640 79,279 $ - $ - $ - $ 39,640 $ - $ - $ 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%Transfer Out - ADA Coord Reimb $ - 79,279 $ - $ - $ - $ 77,694 $ - $ 1,586 $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% Transfer-In Water/Wastewater Transfer $ - (312,774) $ - $ - $ (312,774) $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfer-In from General Fund - Low Income Disc. $ - (96,000) $ - $ - $ - $ (95,040) $ - $ (960) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0% 0.0% 1.0% Interfund Transactions - SUBTOTAL $ 340,418 1,456,843 $ - $ - $ (302,607) $ 1,417,138 $ - $ 1,893 $ 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% -20.8% 97.3% 0.0% 0.1% Total Operating Expenses $ 6,117,577 35,842,387 $ 1,786,948 $ 6,791,199 $ 3,675,152 $ 15,508,204 $ 1,681,170 $ 282,137 $ 17.1% 5.0% 18.9% 10.3% 43.3% 4.7% 0.8% Groundwater Conservation MWD Purchased Fire Protection Basis of Classification Budget Categories Total Revenue Requirements Base Commodity Capacity Customer Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 32 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 747
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service CITY OF SANTA MONICA Function and Classification
WATER RATE STUDYCost of Service AnalysisTABLE 25 : CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES, CONTINUED FY 2025/26 COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FP Debt Service PaymentsDebt Service (Interfund Loan Repayment) $ - 706,367 $ - $ - $ - $ 706,367 $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% New Debt Service - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Total Debt Service Payments $ - 706,367 $ - $ - $ - $ 706,367 $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Capital ExpendituresRate Funded Capital Expenses $ 6,517,756 13,438,671 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,719,336 $ - $ 201,580 $ 48.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 1.5%TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS $ 12,635,333 49,987,425 $ 1,786,948 $ 6,791,199 $ 3,675,152 $ 22,933,906 $ 1,681,170 $ 483,717 $ 25.3% 3.6% 13.6% 7.4% 45.9% 3.4% 1.0%Less: Non-Rate Revenues Water Fund, 50
Water - Commercial SalesWater - Meter Services/Install $ - (750,000) $ - $ - $ - $ (750,000) $ - $ - $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Reimbursement from other funds - (463,500) - - - (463,500) - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Damage Repair Work - (17,000) - - - - (17,000) - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Water Capital Facilities FeeWater Demand Mitigation FeeAdmin Fee Water Neutrality - (219,161) - - (219,161) - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% In Lieu Fee Water Neutrality - (1,020,000) - - (1,020,000) - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Plan Check Fee Water Neutrality - (109,581) - - (109,581) - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Inspection Fee Water Neutrality - (6,120) - - (6,120) - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Internal Dep./Investment - (221,468) - - - (221,468) - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Unrealized Gain (Loss) - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Accrued Investment Income - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%MWD SoCal Water smart Rebate - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Other Revenues - Misc - (15,000) - - - (15,000) - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Alt Fuel Tax Credit - - - - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Water - Misc Non-Operating - (365,000) - - - (365,000) - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%Baysaver Fees - (150,000) - - (150,000) - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS $ 12,635,333 46,650,595 $ 1,786,948 $ 6,791,199 $ 2,170,290 $ 21,118,938 $ 1,664,170 $ 483,717 $ Allocation of Revenue Requirements 100.0% 27.1% 3.8% 14.6% 4.7% 45.3% 3.6% 1.0% TABLE 26 : ADJUSTMENTS TO CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES
Adjustment for Current Rate Level Total COM GW PW CONSV CAP CA FPFY 2025/26 Target Rate Rev. After Rate Increases 49,880,743 $ Projected Rate Revenue at Current Rates 41,567,286 $ FY 2025/26 Projected Rate Increases 20%Adjusted Net Revenue Req'ts 49,880,743 $ 13,510,220 $ 1,910,679 $ 7,261,431 $ 2,320,563 $ 22,581,241 $ 1,779,399 $ 517,211 $ Percent of Revenue 100.0% 27.1% 3.8% 14.6% 4.7% 45.3% 3.6% 1.0% Groundwater Conservation MWD Purchased Fire Protection Basis of Classification Budget Categories Total Revenue Requirements Base Commodity Capacity Customer Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Funct. & Classification, 33 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 748
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service AnalysisTABLE 27 : SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL METER CHARACTERISTICS Average
Bi-Monthly
Con./Acct (hcf)
Peak
Bi-Monthly
Con./Acct (hcf)
FY 2023/24 FY 2023/24
3/4 inch 3,105 17.2 20 1.151 inch 3,285 27.8 34 1.221.5 inch 1,117 45.7 57 1.252 inch 73 67.4 101 1.50Total 7,580 26.5 32 1.21

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24 TABLE 28 : MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL METER CHARACTERISTICS Average
Bi-Monthly
Con./Acct (hcf)
Peak
Bi-Monthly
Con./Acct (hcf)
Average
Bi-Monthly
Con./Unit (hcf)
Peak
Bi-Monthly
Con./Unit (hcf)
FY 2023/24 FY 2023/24 FY 2023/24 FY 2023/24
3/4 inch 1,699 3,216 13 14 6.9 7.4 1.07
1 inch 1,825 5,706 22 23 6.9 7.2 1.05

1.5 inch 2,380 18,462 56 61 7.2 7.9 1.09
2 inch 496 9,070 133 148 7.3 8.1 1.113 inch 61 2,753 311 334 6.9 7.4 1.07 4 inch 31 2,791 487 594 5.4 6.6 1.22
6 inch 13 2,716 1,026 1,245 4.9 6.0 1.21
8 inch 2 422 1,376 1,668 6.5 7.9 1.21
Total 6,507 45,136 48 44 6.9 7.6 1.10

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24 Peaking
Factor
Number of Units
Meter Size Number of Meters Peaking
Factor
Meter Size Number of Meters
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Allocation Factors, 34 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 749
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service AnalysisTABLE 29 : WATER USAGE BY CUSTOMER CLASS Customer Class
Consumption, Actual
(hcf)
FY2023/24
Consumption,
Projected
(hcf)
FY2025/26
FY 2023/24
Percent of
Total Volume,
Actual
FY 2025/26
Percent of
Total Volume,
Projected Conservation
Factor
Single Family 1,205,301 1,145,036 26.1% 26.1% 27% 0.95Multi Family 1,867,992 1,774,592 40.4% 40.4% 37%Commercial 1,356,790 1,288,951 29.4% 29.4% 29%Municipal 128,057 121,654 2.8% 2.8% 3%Irrigation 64,322 61,106 1.4% 1.4% 4%Total 4,622,086 4,390,523 100.0% 100.0%Recycled Water 5,285 5,285 0.1% 0.1%

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24 TABLE 30 : PEAK BI-MONTHLY WATER USAGE
Customer Class
Peak Bi-Monthly
Use FY2023/24
(hcf)
Average BiMonthly Use
FY2023/24
(hcf)
Bi-Monthly
Peaking
Factor
FY 2023/24
Bi-Monthly Max
Capacity Factor
Single Family 243,441 201,383 1.21 27.0%Multi Family 333,610 312,168 1.07 37.0%Commercial 259,773 226,775 1.15 28.8%Municipal 31,368 21,782 1.44 3.5%Irrigation 32,844 12,322 2.67 3.6%Total 901,230 774,370 1.16 100.0%Recycled Water 7,950 1,458 5.45 82.4%

1. Based on bi-monthly billing data (peak day data not available).

Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Allocation Factors, 35 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 750
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service AnalysisTABLE 31 : NUMBER OF METERS BY CUSTOMER CLASS Customer Class Number of Meters Percent of Total
Single Family 7,580 41.2%Multi Family 6,507 35.4%Commercial 2,160 11.7%Municipal 191 1.0% Irrigation 662 3.6%
Fire 1,297 7.1%
Total 18,397 100.0%Recycled Water 29 0.2%

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 24 Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Allocation Factors, 36 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 751
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service Analysis/Rate DesignTABLE 32 : METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS 3/4 inch 30 1.00 30 1.00
1 inch 50 1.00 50 1.00

1.5 inch 100 2.00 100 2.00
2 inch 160 3.20 160 3.203 inch 320 6.40 350 7.004 inch 500 10.00 700 14.006 inch 1,000 20.00 1,600 32.008 inch 2,800 56.00 2,800 56.00 10 inch 4,200 84.00 4,200 84.00

1. Meter flow rates are from AWWA M-1 (Seventh Edition) Table B-2.2. Fire Service meter flow rates are from AWWA M-6 Table 5-3.

Displacement Meters Displacement Meters
Compound Class I Meters Fire Service Type I & II
Turbine Class II Meters Turbine Class I Meters
Meter Size Meter
Capacity (gpm)
Equivalency
to 1-inch
Meter Capacity
(gpm)
Equivalency to 1-
inch
Standard Meters Fire Service Meters
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Proposed Fixed Charges, 37 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 752
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service Analysis/Rate DesignTABLE 33 : ALLOCATION OF WATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Variable Costs
Base Commodity $ 13,510,220 27.1%Groundwater 1,910,679 3.8% MWD Purchased Water 7,261,431 14.6%
Conservation 2,320,563 4.7%
Fixed Costs
Capacity 22,581,241 $ 45.3%
Customer 1,779,399 3.6%
Fire Protection 517,211 1.0%
Net Revenue Requirement 49,880,743 $ 100%
TABLE 34 : ALLOCATION OF NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Single Family 6,099,653 $ 733,154 $ - $ 3,523,059 $ 498,248 $ 1,893,563 $ 605,133 $ 13,352,810 $ 26.8% Multi Family 8,358,944 $ 629,372 $ - 5,460,085 $ 772,191 $ 2,934,669 $ 937,844 $ 19,093,104 $ 38.3% Commercial 6,508,877 $ 208,920 $ - 3,965,858 $ 560,870 $ 2,131,557 $ 681,190 $ 14,057,273 $ 28.2% Municipal 785,954 $ 18,474 $ - 374,306 $ 52,936 $ 201,181 $ 64,292 $ 1,497,144 $ 3.0%Irrigation 822,929 $ 64,030 $ - 188,012 $ 26,590 $ 101,052 $ 32,294 $ 1,234,907 $ 2.5%Fire 4,883 $ 125,449 $ 517,211 (1,101) $ (156) $ (592) $ (189) $ 645,505 $ 1.3%Total Net Revenue Requirement 22,581,241 $ 1,779,399 $ 517,211 $ 13,510,220 $ 1,910,679 $ 7,261,431 $ 2,320,563 $ 49,880,743 $ 100% Groundwater MWD Purchased
Water
% of COS Net
Revenue
Req'ts Conservation
Classification Components (Variable Costs)
Cost of Service
Net Rev. Req'ts Customer Classes
Customer Classes
Base
Commodity Fire Protection
Classification Components (Fixed Costs)
Capacity Customer
Cost of Service Net Revenue
Requirements (FY 25/26)
Proposed Rates
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Proposed Fixed Charges, 38 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 753
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service Analysis/Rate DesignTABLE 35 : SUMMARY OF FIXED REVENUE REQUIREMENTS C.O.S.

Rev. Req't
% of C.O.S.

Rev. Req't.
% Fixed
Revenue
% Variable
Revenue
Revenue from
Volumetric
Charges
Revenue from
Hydraulic Capacity
Charges
Revenue from
Customer Costs
Single Family 13,352,810 $ 26.8% 19% 81% $ 1,803,879 10,815,776 $ 733,154 $ Multi Family $ 38.3% 19,093,104 19% 81% $ 2,998,318 15,465,414 $ 629,372 $ Commercial $ 28.2% 14,057,273 19% 81% $ 2,461,962 11,386,391 $ 208,920 $ Municipal $ 3.0% 1,497,144 19% 81% $ 265,983 1,212,687 $ 18,474 $ Irrigation $ 2.5% 1,234,907 19% 81% $ 170,602 1,000,275 $ 64,030 $ Fire $ 1.3% 645,505 100% 0% $ 520,056 - $ 125,449 $
Total 49,880,743 $ 100% 20.0% 80.0% 39,880,543 $ 8,220,802 $ 1,779,399 $ TABLE 36 : CALCULATION OF SINGLE FAMILY BI-MONTHLY FIXED METER SERVICE CHARGESProposed Fixed Charges Number of Meters by
Class and Size 3/4 inch 1 inch 1.5 inch 2 inch Total
Single Family 3,105 3,285 1,117 73 7,710
Total Meters/Accounts 3,105 3,285 1,117 73 7,580Hydraulic Capacity Factor 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.20 Total Equivalent Meters 3,105 3,285 2,234 234 8,858
Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12Capacity Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $33.94 $33.94 $67.88 $108.62 Total Bi-Monthly Meter Charge $50.06 $50.06 $84.00 $124.74Annual Fixed Costs Allocated to Bi-Monthly Meter Charges Customer Costs $ 733,154 Capacity Costs 1,803,879
Total Fixed Meter Costs $ 2,537,034
Annual Revenue from Bi-Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Charges $ 317,733 300,323 $ 108,039 $ 7,061 $ $ 733,154 Capacity Charges 669,001 632,343 454,961 47,573 1,803,879 Total Revenue 932,666 $ 986,734 $ 563,000 $ 54,634 $ 2,537,034 $ Customer Class
Proposed Rates
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Proposed Fixed Charges, 39 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 754
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service Analysis/Rate DesignTABLE 37 : CALCULATION OF BI-MONTHLY FIXED METER SERVICE CHARGESProposed Fixed Charges Number of Meters by
Class and Size 3/4 inch 1 inch 1.5 inch 2 inch 3 inch 4 inch 6 inch 8 inch Total Multi Family 1,699 1,825 2,380 496 61 31 13 2 6,507
Commercial 580 492 542 349 117 54 22 4 2,160
Municipal 30 9 28 69 36 15 4 - 191
Irrigation 214 200 148 87 8 4 1 - 662
Total Meters/Accounts 2,523 2,526 3,098 1,001 222 104 40 6 9,520 Hydraulic Capacity Factor 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.20 6.40 10.00 20.00 56.00 Total Equivalent Meters 2,523 2,526 6,196 3,203 1,421 1,040 800 336 18,045 Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12Capacity Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $54.46 $54.46 $108.93 $174.29 $348.57 $544.64 $1,089.29 $3,050.01 Total Bi-Monthly Meter Charge $70.58 $70.58 $125.05 $190.41 $364.69 $560.76 $1,105.41 $3,066.13Annual Fixed Costs Allocated to Bi-Monthly Meter Charges Customer Costs $ 920,796 Capacity Costs 5,896,866
Total Fixed Meter Costs $ 6,817,661
Annual Revenue from Bi-Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Charges $ 244,320 244,030 $ 299,645 $ 96,819 $ 21,472 $ 10,059 $ 3,869 $ 580 $ $ 920,796 Capacity Charges 825,463 824,483 2,024,770 1,046,763 464,299 339,858 261,429 109,800 5,896,866 Total Revenue 1,068,513 $ 1,069,784 $ 2,324,416 $ 1,143,582 $ 485,771 $ 349,917 $ 265,298 $ 110,381 $ 6,817,661 $ Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Proposed Fixed Charges, 40 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 755
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYWater Cost of Service Analysis/Rate DesignTABLE 38 : CALCULATION OF BI-MONTHLY FIRE METER SERVICE CHARGESProposed Fixed Charges Number of Meters by
Class and Size 1.5 Inch 2 Inch 3 Inch 4 Inch 6 Inch 8 Inch 10 Inch Total Fire 1,270 15 8 4 - - - 1,297
Total Meters/Accounts 1,270 15 8 4 - - - 1,297
Hydraulic Capacity Factor 2.00 3.20 7.00 14.00 32.00 56.00 84.00 Total Equivalent Meters 2,540 48 56 56 - - - 2,700
Bi-Monthly Fixed Service Charges
Customer Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12 $16.12Capacity Costs ($/Acct/bi-month) $64.20 $102.73 $224.72 $449.43 $1,027.27 $1,797.73 $2,696.59 Total Bi-Monthly Meter Charge $80.32 $118.85 $240.84 $465.55 $1,043.39 $1,813.85 $2,712.71Annual Fixed Costs Allocated to Bi-Monthly Meter Charges Customer Costs $ 125,449 Capacity & Fire Protection Costs 520,056 Total Fixed Meter Costs $ 645,505
Annual Revenue from Bi-Monthly Meter Charges
Customer Charges $ 1,451 122,837 $ 774 $ 387 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 125,449 Capacity Charges 9,245 489,238 10,786 10,786 - - - 520,056 Total Revenue 612,075 $ 10,696 $ 11,560 $ 11,173 $ - $ - $ - $ 645,505 $

1. Consumption and Meters from source file: Customer Data 23 242. Meter flow rates & hydraulic capacity ratio are from AWWA M-1 (Seventh Edition) Table B-2.

3. Customer costs are allocated to each customer by dividing the total customer costs by the total number of customers.4. Capacity costs are allocated by meter size and the hydraulic capacity of the meter.

Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Proposed Fixed Charges, 41 of 52
5/28/2025

12.A.a
Packet Pg. 756
Attachment: Santa Monica Water and Sewer Rate Study_DRAFT FINAL [Revision 2] (6637 : Water Service

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WATER RATE STUDYCustomer DataWater Supply DataTABLE 39 : SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY RECORDS Fiscal Year SM Water (MG)
MWD
Purchased
Water (MG)
% MWD
Purchased
SM Water
(hcf) MWD Purchased Water (hcf) Total Supply (hcf) SM Supply Purchased Water FY 2021/22 1,711 1,731 49.7% 2,313,609 2,287,408 4,601,017 50% 50%FY 2022/23 2,948 446 86.9% 596,215 3,940,234 4,536,449 13% 87% FY 2023/24 2,758 751 78.6% 1,003,406 3,686,909 4,690,316 21% 79% TABLE 40 : SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY COSTS
Total Cost
Treated /
Delivered
Local Resource Credit Readiness To Serve Charge Capacity Charge Conservation Debit / Credit Misc. Debit / Credit FY 2021/22 2,848 8,743 $ 3,709,521 $ (5,820) 2,618,428 $ 953,981 $ 249,700 $ (106,767) $ - $ 30% 70% FY 2022/23 3,651 11,209 $ 4,517,630 $ (12,075) 3,438,014 $ 816,955 $ 214,515 $ 60,222 $ (0) $ 24% 76%FY 2023/24 4,155 12,755 $ 4,889,873 $ (14,670) 4,041,328 $ 705,657 $ 156,920 $ 637 $ (0) $ 18% 82% FY 2024-25* 1,599 4,907 $ 1,625,431 $ (3,975) 1,410,343 $ 341,407 $ 66,120 $ 15,300 $ - $ 26% 87% Source file: Well and Demand Report.
* Data is for July 2024 - December 2024 only.

Fiscal Year % Fixed % Variable Total Volume (HCF)
Total Volume
Treated /
Delivered
(AF)
Total Invoice
Cost
Variable Fixed
Prepared by NBSwww.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516
Proposed Volume Charges-3 Tiers

Page 42 of 52 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilJune 10, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
June 10, 2025