Agenda packet, first session — Santa Monica City Council, May 12, 2026 (part 6 of 7)

Respectfully submitted,

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

5 Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1751 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 1 Council Requests & Direction: Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study February 24, 2026 City Council Meeting — Summary of Council Direction and Staff Response in the Revised Plan (April 28, 2026 Study & May 12, 2026 Staff Report) | Updated to reflect Phase 2 CIP acceleration for Chelsea
Note: Councilmember Lana Negrete was present at the February 24, 2026 meeting (she led the Pledge of Allegiance and voted AYE on the final 7-0 motion). However, she did not speak during the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study discussion, so no requests are attributed to her in this tracker.

Status Legend
Addressed Partially Addressed Not Addressed Deferred to Design # Council Member Topic Request / Direction (Feb 24) Staff Response (Apr 28 Study / May 12 Report) Status 1 Jesse Zwick Lane Widths Reduce lane widths, particularly between 20th St and Chelsea Ave and Chelsea Ave to 26th St, where lanes
averaged ~12.6 ft. Directed lanes of approximately 10 ft.

April 28 study adopts 10 ft as the preferred width for all general travel lanes (max 11 ft; transit lanes max 12 ft). Markings near intersections updated to delineate new widths. (Apr 28 study p. 36; May 12 report pp. 2-3)
Addressed
2 Jesse Zwick Far-Side Bus
Stops
Far-side all bus stops wherever feasible. Specifically
called out 26th St & Santa Monica Blvd as a location
where far-siding appeared possible.

Far-side placement increases from 52% to 80% corridor-wide. The eastbound near-side stop at 26th St is explicitly relocated to the far side. (May 12 report p. 3)
Addressed
3 Jesse Zwick Bus-Only Lane –
Downtown
Explore extending the existing eastbound bus-only lane
from 4th St to Lincoln Blvd, where bus speeds are
reported at 4-7 mph at peak.

Updated study incorporates the Westside COG Bus Lane Project:
eastbound transit plaza/bus-only lane extended from 5th St to Lincoln Blvd; full-time bus-only lanes added in both directions from 14th St to Lincoln Blvd. (May 12 report p. 3)
Addressed
4 Jesse Zwick Raised Crossings Explore raised crossings at unsignalized intersections.

Cited FHWA guidance that raised crosswalks are effective at speeds below 30 mph without compromising buses or
emergency vehicles.

Staff reviewed NACTO, FHWA, Caltrans, and AASHTO guidance.

Widespread use not recommended given 10,000-29,000 daily vehicles, but vertical deflection will be evaluated during engineering design at 6 priority locations: 16th St, 21st St, 22nd St, Chelsea, Princeton, and Franklin. (May 12 report p. 4; Apr 28 study pp. 36-37) Deferred to Design
5 Jesse Zwick Chelsea – Phase /
Timing
Concern that Chelsea pedestrian signal is Phase 2;
expressed desire for it to happen sooner, within 5 years or less.

UPDATED: The revised May 12 staff report now includes a CIP request specifically for Phase 2 capital improvements (changed from 'Phase 1') at Chelsea/Park Drive for the FY26/27 budget cycle. This is an acceleration — staff is proactively seeking ~$1.15M in local CIP funding rather than waiting solely on competitive grants. Chelsea remains Phase 2 in the phasing table with completion targeted after the 2028 Olympics. (May 12 report pp. 4-5)
Partially Addressed
6 Natalya Zernitskaya Pedestrian Recall /
Beg Buttons
Eliminate requirement to push beg buttons; implement
automatic pedestrian recall so pedestrians don't have to physically press a button during timed walk phases.

Pedestrian signals will be on recall (activated automatically) in both directions from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM along Santa Monica Blvd. Beg buttons retained only for audible signals at non-recall intersections. (May 12 report p. 3; Apr 28 study p. 37)
Addressed
7 Natalya Zernitskaya Bus Stop Shelters Improve physical bus stop infrastructure — shelters, weather protection — in coordination with Big Blue Bus
when stops are relocated.

Not explicitly addressed in the May 12 staff report or the revised April 28 study. The February report noted coordination with BBB is ongoing.

Not Addressed
8 Natalya Zernitskaya Pedestrian &
Cyclist Safety
Priority
Explicitly prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety over vehicular throughput; noted pedestrians are
overrepresented in fatal/severe injury crashes.

The April 28 study's corridor-wide revisions (lane narrowing, pedestrian recall, raised crossing evaluation, bus lane expansion, Chelsea CIP priority) all reflect this direction. May 12 report frames revisions as 'further prioritizing pedestrian safety and reducing speeding.'
Addressed
9 Natalya Zernitskaya Raised Crossings Agreed with Zwick: explore raised crossings at certain intersections as a speed-calming tool.

Same as Item 4: vertical deflection to be evaluated during design at 6 eastern corridor locations. (May 12 report p. 4) Deferred to Design Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 2 # Council Member Topic Request / Direction (Feb 24) Staff Response (Apr 28 Study / May 12 Report) Status 10 Ellis Raskin No Delay to QuickBuild WorkEnsure that sending the plan back for revisions does not slow down safety improvements that can start immediately (signal timing, LPIs, quick-build treatments).

May 12 report explicitly lists items advanceable in 6-12 months (asterisked in phasing table): signal timing, LPIs, pedestrian recall, turn restrictions, and farside bus stop relocations. Staff confirmed no construction-ready work was paused pending re-adoption.

Addressed
11 Ellis Raskin Signal
Coordination for
Speed & Buses
Confirm that bus signal prioritization and signal timing can work together to both support bus reliability and mitigate vehicular speeding.

Signal timing coordination retained as Phase 1 element; bus-only lane expansion and queue jumps (Lincoln, 26th St) support bus priority. The study does not include a separate detailed treatment of the two-goal coordination, but it is an operational parameter within staff control.

Partially Addressed
12 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Return in 60 Days Directed staff to return within approximately two months (60 days) with revisions incorporated for council adoption.

Staff returned on May 12, 2026 — approximately 77 days after the Feb 24 meeting — with the revised study and adoption-ready staff report.

Addressed
13 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Lane Widths ~10 ft Formally directed lane width reduction to approximately 10 ft on average, specifically naming the 20th-Chelsea and Chelsea-26th segments.

Same as Item 1. April 28 study adopts 10 ft as the preferred width for all general travel lanes. (Apr 28 study p. 36; May 12 report p. 2) Addressed 14 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Far-Side Bus
Stops
Formally directed far-siding all bus stops wherever
feasible; called out 26th & Santa Monica specifically.

Same as Item 2. Far-side share increases to 80%; 26th St eastbound stop explicitly relocated. (May 12 report p. 3) Addressed 15 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Bus Lane – 4th to
Lincoln
Extend bus-only lane from 4th St to Lincoln Blvd
eastbound to address slowest bus speeds on the corridor.

Same as Item 3. Extended from 5th St (not 4th) to Lincoln; additional full-time lanes 14th-Lincoln in both directions. (May 12 report p. 3) Addressed 16 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Raised Crossings Directed exploration of raised crossings at new and existing unsignalized intersections.

Same as Items 4 and 9. Vertical deflection to be evaluated at 6 eastern locations in the design phase. Deferred to Design 17 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Chelsea – Phase 1
Priority
Directed staff to prioritize the pedestrian signal and raised median at Chelsea as a Phase 1 project, allocating capital budget if necessary, and expressed willingness to fund
through the CIP.

UPDATED: The revised May 12 report now includes a CIP request for Phase 2 capital improvements at Chelsea/Park Drive (updated from 'Phase 1' in the prior draft) for FY26/27 — an acceleration that proactively seeks local funding for the ~$1.15M project. Chelsea is not reclassified as Phase 1 in the phasing table, and completion is still targeted after the 2028 Olympics. The CIP request is a meaningful step but does not fully satisfy the direction to treat it as Phase 1. (May 12 report p. 5)
Partially Addressed
18 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) 6-12 Month Clarity Clarify specifically what can be accomplished in 6-12 months vs. a longer Phase 1 timeline, rather than treating all of Phase 1 as 'up to 2 years.'
May 12 report specifies that signal timing, LPIs, pedestrian recall, turn restrictions, and farside bus stop relocations can advance in 6-12 months, marked with asterisks in the phasing table (Section 7.2). (May 12 report p. 4)
Addressed
19 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Reevaluate Phase
1 for Safety Impact
Reevaluate the full Phase 1 list to ensure it reflects the highest-impact safety interventions, not just the easiest or cheapest to implement.

Revised study incorporates lane narrowing, pedestrian recall, expanded bus lanes, and the Chelsea CIP process — all higherimpact additions. May 12 report frames revisions as safety-driven. No explicit ranking or re-prioritization matrix of Phase 1 items was published.

Partially Addressed
20 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) CIP Budget Ask Requested City Manager provide feedback on what capital improvement budget is needed to fund key
interventions (especially Chelsea) rather than relying
solely on grant funding.

UPDATED: A CIP request for Phase 2 capital improvements (specifically including Chelsea/Park Drive) will be submitted in the FY26/27 budget cycle. The updated May 12 report changed the CIP bullet from 'Phase 1' to 'Phase 2' capital improvements — representing staff's proactive move to seek local funding for the ~$1.15M Chelsea intersection project. Specific budget figures are deferred to the CIP process. (May 12 report p. 5)
Partially Addressed
21 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Expanded KPIs Add robust performance metrics beyond crash/injury counts — including speed reduction, pedestrian delay,
bus on-time performance, and yield compliance — to
evaluate plan effectiveness post-implementation.

May 12 report commits to the Caltrans 'Counts+' evaluation methodology, tracking yield compliance, speed reduction, roadway user satisfaction, and transit performance before and after improvements. (May 12 report p. 4; Apr 28 study p. 40)
Addressed
22 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Pedestrian Recall
Priority
Directed staff to prioritize pedestrian recall (automatic walk signal, no button press required) over push-buttononly designs.

Same as Item 6. Recall in both directions from 7 AM to 10 PM. (May 12 report p. 3) Addressed
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 3 # Council Member Topic Request / Direction (Feb 24) Staff Response (Apr 28 Study / May 12 Report) Status 23 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Safety Over Level
of Service
Stated emphatically that when safety improvements
conflict with vehicular level of service, safety must take precedence, consistent with Vision Zero policy. Criticized that some trade-offs in the draft appeared to favor car throughput.

April 28 study's revisions reflect a stronger safety-first orientation.

The governing principle is embedded in the revised study but not codified as an explicit decision rule or formal policy statement in the document.

Partially Addressed
24 Dan Hall Speed Limit
Reduction
Asked whether reducing speed limits along any portion of Santa Monica Blvd was studied. Staff indicated it was not.

Implicitly directed that speed limit reduction should be considered given speeding is the root cause of severe
crashes.

Neither the April 28 revised study nor the May 12 staff report addresses speed limit reduction on Santa Monica Blvd. Hall noted explicitly that 'we didn't even do any reductions in speed limits on Santa Monica during the last speed study.' Not addressed.

Not Addressed
25 Dan Hall Level of Service –
Priorities
Asked where level of service (LOS) falls in the project's priorities and whether any safety treatments were rejected specifically because of LOS/throughput concerns.

Expressed that LOS should not override safety.

Staff acknowledged LOS is considered alongside crash data (per study p. 29) but did not identify specific treatments rejected for LOS reasons. Hall's closing statement directed that no safety countermeasure be eliminated due to LOS concerns — see Item 29.

The revised study does not include an explicit LOS-safety priority hierarchy.

Partially Addressed
26 Dan Hall Pedestrian
Demand
Methodology
Asked whether pedestrian count data — used to
determine where to prioritize treatments — was controlled for the possibility that pedestrians avoid intersections because they are unsafe. Questioned whether low
pedestrian counts reflect low demand or a safety-induced suppression of use.

Neither the April 28 study nor the May 12 report addresses this methodological question. Staff did not respond with a revised demand analysis that accounts for suppressed pedestrian activity. Not addressed. Not Addressed
27 Dan Hall Raised Treatments
at Chelsea
Explicitly asked whether any raised treatments
(specifically a raised crosswalk) were explored at the
Chelsea intersection.

Staff confirmed raised crosswalks at Chelsea are among the 6 locations where vertical deflection will be evaluated during engineering design. (May 12 report p. 4; Apr 28 study pp. 36-37) — same as Item 4.

Deferred to Design
28 Dan Hall ADA Curb Cuts Asked whether the designs will comply with the City's policy on unidirectional/perpendicular curb cuts, noting that the 6th St intersection design appeared to show an outdated diagonal ramp.

Staff responded affirmatively that if perpendicular curb cuts are technically feasible, the City's policy will be followed. The April 28 study and May 12 report do not contain an explicit commitment in writing, but staff indicated design-phase compliance.

Partially Addressed
29 Dan Hall Direction: No
Safety
Countermeasure
Eliminated for LOS
During deliberations, Hall stated emphatically that if an improvement reduces the likelihood of someone being
killed or seriously injured but reduces vehicle throughput, the Council supports that improvement. He asked that the motion explicitly state 'no safety countermeasure will be eliminated because it worsens vehicular throughput.' He initially indicated reluctance to approve the current
document, but supported the motion after the City
Manager offered to return with specific updated concepts rather than general guidance. Hall seconded Mayor
Torosis's motion and voted AYE in the unanimous 7-0
vote.

The May 12 staff report and revised study do not include Hall's requested explicit prohibition as codified language. The revised study reflects a safety-first orientation in framing throughout, but the specific 'no elimination for LOS' commitment is not stated as a formal decision rule. The safety-vs-LOS principle (Item 23) remains partially addressed. Partially Addressed
Summary of Outcomes
Of the 29 discrete requests and directions identified from the February 24, 2026 meeting (5 council members: Zwick, Zernitskaya, Raskin, Torosis, Hall; Negrete absent):
• 12 were fully addressed in the April 28 revised study and/or May 12 staff report. • 11 were partially addressed — primarily Chelsea Avenue phasing, safety-vs-LOS codification, the CIP budget process, and Hall's direction on prohibiting LOS-based elimination of safety treatments.
• 2 were not addressed — physical bus stop shelters, and speed limit reduction on Santa Monica Blvd. Note: pedestrian demand methodology was also not addressed. • 4 were deferred to the engineering design phase — raised crossings/vertical deflection at 6 eastern corridor locations (Chelsea included).

Chelsea Avenue CIP Update (Items 5, 17, 20): The updated May 12 staff report changed the CIP bullet from 'Phase 1' to 'Phase 2' capital improvements. Staff will submit a CIP request for Chelsea/Park Drive in the FY26/27 budget cycle — a proactive step to secure local funding for the ~$1.15M pedestrian signal and raised median project. This represents an acceleration of the project Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 4 ahead of relying solely on competitive grant funding. Chelsea remains Phase 2 in the phasing table with a target completion date after the 2028 Olympics, but the CIP request is a significant advocacy win that should be monitored closely in the budget process.

Dan Hall's Questions and Direction (Items 24-29): Councilmember Hall raised the most probing substantive questions of the Feb 24 meeting and pushed hardest on Vision Zero alignment. During deliberations he stated reluctance to approve the current document — but after the City Manager offered to return with specific updated concepts, Hall seconded Mayor Torosis's motion and voted AYE in the unanimous 7-0 vote. His key outstanding asks — speed limit reduction study, pedestrian demand methodology controlling for safety-suppressed use, and explicit codified language prohibiting elimination of safety countermeasures for LOS — have not been addressed in the revised plan. These represent open advocacy opportunities.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Caitlin O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Feedback on Santa Monica Blvd. Plan

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Santa Monica Blvd project you are seeking to approve without adequate data or consideration tonight. While I support improvements to make roads safer for all, my specific concerns with approving this proposal at this time are (i) the lack of meaningful community input and (ii) the lack of data provided to make a fully informed and responsible decision.

More broadly, this is one of many recent road projects that has been taken without adequate data or community input, but instead appear solely aimed at pushing personal agendas of at least some of the Council members. These road projects are having a number of significant and negative impacts on the daily lives of residents, and there should be a serious effort to investigate these community impacts and use that feedback to improve future projects. It is particularly concerning that not even one word of the public analysis on this project is devoted to considering community impacts or proposed mitigation.

The City Council should not move forward with this or any other similar project until a full and fair effort has been made to further evaluate community input, collect data on community impacts and make improvements.

1. The posted materials indicate the City has neither provided a meaningful opportunity for community input on this plan nor received a meaningful amount of community feedback.

The report indicates that the community input is based primarily on feedback as follows (i) a library display which received 59 stickers on a map over several weeks (the Social Pinpoint mapping), (ii) a one half mile walk with 17 people including students from an elementary school (the Community Walk Audit), (iii) an open house at the YMCA attended by 62 people, with some of those participants being the City Council itself, and (iv) a website that received only 700 visits and 349 comments which were not reproduced in full anywhere and an unknown number of which the staff noted were irrelevant (and I should note that I live near Santa Monica and never received any notice of how to participate, nor did a single neighbor). Several other booths or tables with minimal response and a safety walk including 15 people were mentioned. The most heavily referenced “community input” in the report is the Social Pinpoint Mapping and the Community Walk Audit comprising approximately 76 people total, and the events included in total around 500 people, if you count stickers on a map, those under 10 and the City Council itself. Upon reading the annex in detail, many of the respondents submitted comments that are irrelevant and indicate they may have had no or inadequate knowledge of what they were actually commenting on.

The description of the community input relied on in recommending this plan cannot be fairly characterized as broad community engagement or in any way representative of broad community views. While clearly well-intentioned, the efforts to seek community feedback were too limited. Only limited input from small events is referenced, likely geared towards attendance by biased interest groups. There are no indications that anyone who was consulted provided feedback on the actual design being recommended. Feedback appears guided to the intended answer by specific questions seeking desired responses (“put a sticker on the map”). Feedback was even inferred based on the number of “thumbs up likes” on a comment, and 34 likes was interpreted as board community support. There is, significantly, no evidence you even asked any participant for feedback about lane narrowing or removing lanes or turn lanes. There is no summary of input from community groups or from businesses.

I would note that the Council appears to be pursuing a personal interest in certain changes, like vertical measures, which expert consultants have not recommended for a number of reasons. The Council should in particular seek robust community feedback on any specific measures being pursued based on personal interest of the Council members over recommendations of experts.

You should create a widely publicized survey seeking actual feedback from residents and businesses on the actual current proposed design. These proposed changes will impact tens of thousands of residents and drivers in Santa Monica. I am certain I could collect more than 500 surveys in less than a few weeks, and I would absolutely volunteer to provide ideas and assist in these efforts.

2. The report refers to Santa Monica Blvd. as a “vital artery” (with one report on vertical measures noting that it is intended to prioritize vehicle movement). Yet, you have presented essentially no data on, and have devoted not even a minimal level of Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 3 thought or explanation to, any community impacts of the proposed design, such as increased traffic and safety issues like those experienced on other recently redesigned streets.

Increased traffic, particularly on a major artery, meaningfully reduces quality of life for large numbers of residents of Santa Monica for many reasons. There is a one hundred percent chance that removing a lane from Santa Monica Blvd. will create additional traffic on this heavily trafficked artery that carries up to 29,000 vehicles a day. Narrowed lanes and removal of turning lanes are also very likely to create additional congestion and traffic. Reduced traffic flow and increased travel times and traffic on Broadway and Ocean Avenue as a result of recent narrowing/bike path additions and other measures has already left Santa Monica as one of the few remaining viable transit options. Additionally, there are thousands of new apartments being built near Santa Monica Blvd. with residents highly likely to own cars. So it is easy to imagine how this proposal will reduce quality of life for many residents who live, shop, work or drive in the area. It may also lead to further closure of businesses as residents avoid the area, which is yet another reduction to quality of life in Santa Monica. Yet, there is is absolutely no analysis of the expected impacts of this plan on vehicles or traffic conditions (or otherwise). There is also not one word of analysis on proposed mitigation to alleviate negative impacts.

There is only scant data mentioned or offered on vehicle usage in Santa Monica, traffic conditions or projected traffic impacts of the proposed plan, mainly in the form of limited relatively unreadable/uninformative table that contains vehicle data based on counting cars for a total of 8 hours on two days (which in some cases this table appears to actually admit the proposed changes will in fact make traffic worse). It is certainly insufficient to evaluate the impact of this plan on the community. There is in particular no data on relative benefits of an expansion of the dedicated bus lane versus relative harms. I had to run my own math because the report makes only casual mention of 29,000 vehicles a day using Santa Monica Blvd. However, based on the figures of approximately 2250 BBB users a day and 650 Metro users a day, it appears that bus riders would be very significantly less than 5% (perhaps below 2%) of the total individuals on the road. It is extremely hard to support a decision that is absolutely certain to increase vehicle travel times by significant amounts without any consideration of relevant benefits. You should consider detailed data about the number of vehicle passengers per day, the number of bus passengers per day, the additional travel time added for each vehicle and quantify relevant benefit (how many minutes will be saved overall for bus riders) versus relevant harm (how many added minutes of traffic added overall for vehicles) to vehicle passengers to determine if this is a logical change or not.

Further, the changes to Broadway, 17th Street and Wilshire have been observed to raise significant practical and safety issues in everyday use by many residents who live along these streets. Yet, no effort has been made to document and consider these issues and improve future designs using that learning.

Decisions that give no thought to consequences or mitigation of consequences are simply irresponsible. You should require a careful, data-driven study of community impacts and proposed mitigation before proceeding. You should also learn from the issues that have arisen with prior projects.

3. The report has presented only shallow consideration of the proposed changes and omitted any consideration of safety issues presented by the proposed changes.

There are a large number of changes proposed with only shallow consideration of each, and without any attempt to delineate or defend which are really necessary or helpful and why, or to look into potential safety issues posed by a number of them. There needs to be a far deeper analysis by paid experts as to the utility of each measure given the actual data and any countervailing safety issues, such as was done in the study provided on vertical measures. There have been a number of safety issues presented by other recent projects that were similarly given no consideration in the planning phase.

By way of just one example, you have proposed to narrow lanes to reduce speeds, with barely one paragraph of consideration. However, the report on vertical measures cites heavy usage by large vehicles and emergency vehicles as a reason that the road is not compatible with vertical measures. Studies have found every one-foot decrease in lane width increased crash risk by around 10% on streets used by large vehicles. As someone who drives Santa Monica daily, it is indeed clearly a main artery used frequently by large vehicles and is also a main route for emergency vehicles. So where are the Council’s findings and considerations on the large vehicles using the road and the likely number of additional accidents? Further, while there is observational data on speeding, the actual hard data cited speeding as a cause of only 1 serious injury crash in the past 10 years, and there is no hard data presented on speeding tickets or other objective measures. So how would an expert compare the relative benefits to narrowing lanes to reduce speed versus other considerations like potential for increased crashes due to large vehicles? I hope you will take time to more thoroughly and responsibly seek input and data on this plan before moving forward.

Best,
Caitlin O'Brien
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah Dinsmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on City Council meeting agenda item I. Approval of Revisions to the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and Adoption of the Plan

EXTERNAL
I’m going to be critical about a number of items in this study, not because I don’t care about safety but because I do. I don’t think the consequences of some of the proposals have been well thought out, as they contradict lived experience. For context, I have been both a pedestrian and cyclist more often than a driver through much of the area studied for 40 years. A beloved friend was killed by a reckless hit and run driver on Wilshire, and I understand the painful personal cost and real impact of street safety.

The curb extensions for pedestrians “look” helpful, but I doubt they’ve taken into consideration the reality of how the human brain responds to motion. They place the pedestrian about 2 steps closer to the traffic lane. Two steps is about the time it takes the brain to process the motion, especially in an active environment, and more time to initiate reaction, even at a safe speed. It’s the same principle of why it’s harder to visually fasten on to a static body standing on a moving scooter vs. a cyclist whose legs provide kinetic motion that catches the eye and quickens response time. What looks good on paper can turn out to be more dangerous in reality. I noticed this on the first extension I saw, on Pico Blvd. where the pedestrian was literally one step from oncoming traffic, and had been quite visible before the change. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. This is why I say a hard NO to curb extensions. Where are the data?
I’ve asked this question on NextDoor and received links supposedly with supporting data, but which actually speak to different circumstances that aren’t necessarily applicable to the ones being discussed. So I’ve learned to be careful with “the data show.” I hope you are too.

Curb extensions also make transit of some streets harder for cyclists. I’ve had to bail out on the sidewalk on a narrow street to avoid a curb protruding into my path of travel when there was a UPS truck. Plus they make for more stop and go traffic when they block the ability for a car to pull over to the right curb to make a turn. I’m surprised, frankly, at the unsustainable notions being proposed without data to support greater safety in exchange for greater gas consumption and wear and tear.

The study claims that making lanes narrower makes for fewer accidents. That just flies in the face of common sense. But it DOES make for a more difficult driving experience and disrupts a smoother Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1758 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 2 flow of traffic as the current example on Broadway amply illustrates. Talk about throwing sustainability out the window! Let’s learn from that mistake, please. Consider re-setting the speed limit, not that there is much speeding on my end (west) of crowded SMB! The study claims they want to “enhance accessibility for all, especially pedestrians with disabilities” and then proceeds to recommend truncated domes (those bumpy yellow mats) at curb ramps. Have you no idea of the danger and difficulty these pose to people with even slight mobility or stability issues in walking?
Your own report notes seniors experience injuries out of proportion to their number in the population. Our pedestrians include many stroke survivors, people with Parkinson’s, and others with cognitive and CNS impairments that make walking difficult. Walking or shuffling or dragging a foot across these bumpy mats is an absolute trip hazard. I’ve experienced this firsthand helping such a person over this dangerous terrain. I’ve had several older women tell me how much harder it was to cross these mats and feel stable. One was a tourist – otherwise fully able - who could not walk on them safely in her normal, low heeled walking shoes and had to quickly buy a pair of flats to get around town.

You cannot enter the UCLA Orthopedics clinic without walking over one, and I’ve joked (while helping a person with a shuffle make it across the mat) that they must be drumming up more business for their clinic. But it’s no joke. They are dangerous. And I can affirm it’s no fun navigating a wheelchair over them either. Please, just stop it.

One can’t figure out what a bus jump queue lane is from the description given, but one bright spot in the study is the suggestion that far side bus stop relocations be made. This seems like a good idea, although I imagine having to take out some parking in front of the stop so the bus can pull away from the curb.

I noticed throughout that crosswalks were illustrated with wide bands painted all the way across the walkway. While this might look pretty on renderings, the reality is they are dangerous to pedestrians when wet. That paint is slippery for the first several seasons until it wears down. It’s slippery enough to injure a pedestrian. I know. I’m one of them. After two injuries, and the second one severe, I learned to walk outside of the crosswalk if it’s raining or dewy. I would prefer we all have safe crosswalks to use. Please drop this paint scheme! Consider leaving an open, safe path between the lines. (BTW, the same applies to the paint on the bike lanes. It’s not common, but I’ve had my back wheel start to skid out from under me when it lost traction on the slick new paint in an emergency stop in the rain.)
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1759 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 3 Bike boxes – yikes! I’m an experience biker and I would never ever consider parking my bike at the front of a traffic lane instead of safely to the side, but slightly forward to be seen. This is an absurd and dangerous idea. I suspect most bikers think so too because I am out a lot and never see a fellow cyclist in one. Please, just say no.

It’s odd that “the community” found it difficult to cross 6th and Santa Monica Blvd. since it’s a light controlled intersection. I walk through there a lot and have no trouble crossing that street. Of course, I wait for the green light. I don’t know what others do.

Did the city actually conduct before and after assessments of other pedestrian scrambles installed? It would be good to hear the results. Hopefully you have actual numbers. It “sounds” good and may help all traffic. What is the documented evidence? If it’s positive, then by all means install more at very busy intersections. But make signage clear. We have a lot of tourists, and this is an odd arrangement that many don’t figure out and dart in front of cars anyway.

It was helpful to read about the problems at 14th Street. As a cyclist, it’s my preferred transit across SMB. Makes me reconsider, and I would if the information were not incomplete. E.g. how many total cyclists cross that intersection vs. others? Is the percentage of cyclist injury higher there? Or just the absolute number higher because there are so many more of them? I’ve crossed SMB easily 3,000 times on my bike without a light, but tend to pick 14th now, so I’d like to know.

Pedestrian Refuge Islands cut two ways. They do provide some armored cover in the middle of the street. The planting strip enhances appearance. The problem is what gets selected for planting. On the strip in front of City Hall they used a blooming plant that just perfectly masked the typical pedestrian the strip was meant to help. And I mean masked them so drivers couldn’t see. So please, pay attention to the landscaping and don’t shoot yourself in the foot by offering a safety measure then planting it in a way that makes it unsafe. Save the tall stuff above thigh height for mid-block.

Bus lanes. I commuted to work for years on the bus down SMB. So I know just what the pattern of the ride is like. It seems odd to put a bus lane where traffic seems less dense, on the east end of SMB. What would be the point? If the targeted segments for bus only lanes have the slowest transit times, is that not also true for cars? Why would you try to make it a little faster for a small cluster of vehicles and intensely worse for the majority, which is how the report reads? I would like to trust that the study carefully evaluated traffic densities to determine the actual impact but don’t see the evidence. Let’s see actual simulations based on real traffic patterns and the effect on ALL vehicles. After the Broadway fiasco, until the city is transparent with that kind of data, this is a hard NO.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1760 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 4 There is a common theme here of not thinking things through carefully. After the recent experience on Broadway, which is a mess, (and I say this as a constant cyclist on that street, but a mess for drivers as well as cyclists and walkers crossing the street) I’m invigorated to write to try to prevent more pre-packaged thinking based on unsupported theories and shaped community input that is common to public work sessions which are easy to influence to a preferred conclusion, whether or not it is the optimum one.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dinsmore
Santa Monica
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1761 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 5 Mitchell Kois
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:36 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4I- Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Still Needs Improvement Attachments: Santa Monica Safety Study (3).pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
Please find attached my over-the-top comments on the revised Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study (SMBSS).

Santa Monica Blvd is one of our most dangerous roads, and this redesign is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a safe corridor that can achieve vision zero. While the revised plan has many improved recommendations, it does not achieve the needed speed reduction and crosswalk safety required to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries, as was directed by council previously.

Additionally, since the last time the SMBSS was at council, the WSCCOG Westside Bus Connection Program has now transferred all responsibility for transit improvements to Santa Monica. Therefore, it is more critical than ever that transit improvements are maximized, and all of the WSCCOG recommendations are included in this proposal.

We cannot miss this generational opportunity to make Santa Monica Blvd safer for all users and a high quality transit corridor. I think this plan still needs safety and transit improvements (whether it be another revision or incorporated directly into 30% design), and council needs to (re)emphasize the direction to prioritize the proposed Chelsea Ave pedestrian signal to McKinley Elementary as a phase 1 or separate near-term priority in the interim.

Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-city resident, 90404
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1762 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Mike <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Christopher Dishlip; Jennifer Taylor; Peter Wheelon; Liz Kennedy
Subject: re: Re: Agenda Item 4.I, Revisions to Chelsea/SM Blvd Intersection Concept Plan - Mike Sullivan/LAcarGUY
Attachments: Kia Santa Monica - Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Review and Recommended Modifications (04.06.2026).pdf; Kia SM - Alternative Route.pdf; Sullivan to Council (SM Blvd Safety Study) 2026.05.12.docx

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please see the attached letter from myeslf, Mike Sullivan, owner of the Kia Santa Monica dealership at 2440 Santa Monica Boulevard. LA Car Guy respectfully requests that the City Council direct City Staff to refine the scope of the improvements at the Chelsea/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection to maintain the ability to turn left from Santa Monica Boulevard (westbound) into the Kia Dealership. As explained in the letter and the enclosed memorandum prepared by traffic engineering firm Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (“LLG”), this left turn can be maintained in line with the City safety goals. LLG has proposed one alternative concept plan that achieves both the City’s safety goals and maintains the left turn into the Kia dealership; however, there are likely other workable solutions.

Sincerely,
Mike Sullivan
LAcarGUY

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1763 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 7 Mitchell Kois
From: elnaz rahbar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As a McKinley Elementary parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

We heard that the construction of a proper crosswalk and pedestrian traffic signal at Chelsea and Santa Monica Blvd. won’t happen until Fall 2028 for logistical and financial reasons. But we can’t wait that long to take short-term action.

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.  Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Elnaz Rahbarlayegh
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1764 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 8 Mitchell Kois
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Item 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Attachments: May 2026 SMFFSS Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Good morning council,
As a Santa Monica resident just a block away from SM Blvd, I support the attached letter from SM Families for Safe Streets and their recommendations for the SM Blvd Safety Study.

That corridor continues to invite unsafe driver behavior, kneecaps bus speed along critical transit routes, and remains an extremely hostile environment for pedestrians (even if they drove there). These improvements must deliver safety for local residents, business patrons, drivers, and children trying to get to school.

Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1765 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: Oliver Chi; Anuj Gupta; Colleen E. Stoll; Jason Kligier; [email protected]; Christopher Dishlip
Subject: Support Agenda Item 4-I: Approval of Revisions to the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and Adoption of the Plan
Attachments: 2026-05 CC Agenda Item 4-1 Support SM Blvd Safty Study-SM Spoke SaMoSSA.pdf

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

On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance please find attached our letter supporting Agenda Item 4-I to approve the Revisions to the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and Adoption of the Plan at tonight's City Council meeting.

Staff and council have done the hard work. It is time to move forward with purpose and urgency. It is time to give staff the green light to hit the ground running to seek the funding required to make these projects real -- asap. We sincerely appreciate council's guidance and vision from the first presentation in June and again in February adding to 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 led us to this point. We are looking forward to seeing these safety improvements implemented expeditiously as we know they will help reduce crashes – vehicle/pedestrian, vehicle/bike and vehicle/vehicle conflicts on the corridor and make our streets safer for everyone.

Creating a vibrant, people-first boulevard and a gateway into Santa Monica on Historic Route 66, as Councilmember Hall envisioned last June, makes a firm statement that we want to see realized.

What we do now improves the safety and resilience of our community and indeed everyone who visits Santa Monica now, and for generations to come.
--
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 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1766 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 10 Mitchell Kois
From: Lauren Dombrova <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; [email protected]; Barry Snell
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Lauren Dombrova
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1767 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 11 Mitchell Kois
From: leigh fenwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Forward this email to the following addresses below. But before clicking send, delete these emails and add your name and identify whether you're a parent, staff member, etc. [email protected]
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As a McKinley Elementary parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1768 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 12  Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
[Your Name] Leigh E. Fenwick
McKinley Elementary GrandParent
This message was sent to [email protected] from McKinley Elementary PTA. To unsubscribe from this list, click here. If you would like to manage your subscriptions, please visit https://mckinleypta.membershiptoolkit.com/user_subscriptions --
leigh e. fenwick
908-295-0311
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1769 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 13 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 4I: Please stop using RRFBs in the absence of other safety measures

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Honorable City Council Members:

I am writing to request that City staff stop proposing/using RRFBs, in the absence of other safety measures, on our busy boulevards.

As anyone who's used them or attempted to use them knows, they're death traps -- sometimes literally, as we've now seen multiple times on Wilshire. And in some cases, they're even worse than no treatment at all because they create a false sense of security for pedestrians who think traffic will stop even though it often won't.

I'm a big guy and, even with a kid on my shoulders (so 8+ feet off the ground -- should be highly visible), cars on Wilshire still regularly blow through crosswalks "enhanced" by RRFBs while me and my kids are attempting to cross. I can't imagine how, let's say, a 10 year-old or someone in a wheelchair is supposed to use an RRFB safely on their own. And if that's the case, then our City is failing us when it designs and redesigns our roads.

I think some strong direction to staff that these kind of treatments will no longer be welcome or sufficient would be immensely helpful to achieving our Vision Zero goals.

Thank you,
Brian Sweeney
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1770 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 14 Mitchell Kois
From: Zachary Dietrich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; [email protected]; Barry Snell
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Zach Dietrich
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1771 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 15 Mitchell Kois
From: Erin Buckley Burnett <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; [email protected]; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As an active Santa Monica resident and McKinley Elementary parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Erin Buckley Burnett
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1772 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 16 Mitchell Kois
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

EXTERNAL
I urge the Council to immediately adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard to unlock critical state and federal safety funding and signal pedestrian and cyclist safety as an immediate policy priority.

Sam Shapiro-Kline
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1773 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 17 Mitchell Kois
From: Jonathan Balk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1774 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 18 Mitchell Kois
From: Jessica Carpowich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: ‼URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As a McKinley Elementary alumni parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Jessica Carpowich
McKinley Elementary Alumni Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1775 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 19 Mitchell Kois
From: Anh Pham <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.  Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.  Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Anh Pham
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1776 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 20 Mitchell Kois
From: J B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

EXTERNAL
I urge the Council to immediately adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard to unlock criƟcal state and federal safety funding and signal pedestrian and cyclist safety as an immediate policy priority.

Thank you,
Jesse Budlong
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1777 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 21 Mitchell Kois
From: Krystal von der Lieth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Krystal von der Lieth
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1778 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 22 Mitchell Kois
From: Philip Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1779 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 23 Mitchell Kois
From: Lauren Movius <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Dr. Lauren Movius
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1780 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 24 This message was sent to [email protected] from McKinley Elementary PTA. To unsubscribe from this list, click here. If you would like to manage your subscriptions, please visit https://mckinleypta.membershiptoolkit.com/user_subscriptions Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1781 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 25 Mitchell Kois
From: Ayelet cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Ayelet Cohen,
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1782 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 26 Mitchell Kois
From: r3000 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As parents of two McKinley Elementary students, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

I would like to add that even with new and greatly appreciated safety measures at Arizona and 26th St. impatient drivers are constantly "blocking the box" (especially in the afternoon) in their race to get North or South and it would be great to see some enforcement at this intersection and along Arizona generally.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Rael Lewis & Ellen Moody
McKinley Elementary Parents
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1783 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 27 Mitchell Kois
From: Michele C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Street safety comment for May 12, 2026

EXTERNAL
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for over 25 years, and I love it here. I have always loved how forward-thinking we are and the new safety features on our streets are a great example of that. I value human life and safety above all else when evaluating our road design. It is more important than moving cars quickly, providing on-street parking or convenience. Please continue to improve our streets so we can become a city where nobody dies or is injured by traffic accidents that could have been prevented with better infrastructure.

Thank you, Michele
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1784 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 28 Mitchell Kois
From: Elena Natou <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Elena Natou
McKinley Elementary Parent
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1785 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 29 Mitchell Kois
From: Sofia Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for rightturn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.  Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Sofia Garcia
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1786 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 30 This message was sent to [email protected] from McKinley Elementary PTA. To unsubscribe from this list, click here. If you would like to manage your subscriptions, please visit https://mckinleypta.membershiptoolkit.com/user_subscriptions Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1787 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) 31 Mitchell Kois
From: Sirinya Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:46 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; Elizabeth Badger; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems Subject: Support item 4I
Attachments: McK SM Blvd Safety Study Letter to Council 5.11.2026.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and members of the City Council:

The McKinley Elementary PTA is voicing strong support for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and urging the City Council to adopt it, with modifications PTA representatives have already discussed with staff. Please see the attached letter.

Our top priority is requesting certain safety improvements at Santa Monica Boulevard and Chelsea Avenue be installed before the 2026-27 school year. This will provide immediate safety benefits before a fully-redesigned intersection is constructed after the citywide roadway construction moratorium for the summer of 2028 Olympic and Paralympic games. Specifically, we request use of quick build materials to restrict left turns from EB Santa Monica Blvd. to NB Chelsea and from SB Chelsea to eastbound Santa Monica. There is posted signage presently prohibiting lefts from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica, but compliance is hit-or-miss. If you don't believe me, just consult with our crossing guard Mr. Victor. He's been there for 17 years.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sirinya Matute MA UP, PMP
President, McKinley PTA
2025-2026 School Year
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1788 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) May 12, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, On behalf of the 228 members of the McKinley Elementary School PTA (including 33 kids!), we are pleased to voice our strong support for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study. That said, understanding that construction of the proposed improvements for the Chelsea Ave intersection may not begin until Fall 2028, we have a suggestion for a short-term fix (you may call it quick-build, I call it a quick-win.)
Our Community's Engagement with This Study
Our PTA and school administration have worked closely with the study team to support public outreach, far beyond a single PTA meeting. The project team attended McKinley events four times over 18 months, enabling them to speak with hundreds of families reflecting the demographics of this neighborhood, and welcomed our children to their February 2025 walk audit. We also conducted our own outreach, culminating in a Traffic Safety Session on February 9, 2026, attended by City staff, including the Chelsea Avenue crossing guard, to gather input on the plans for this corridor.

Highlights and concerns raised by our community at that session included:
● Potential spillover traffic on Arizona Avenue if a full traffic signal were added; ● Traffic signal synchronization, including at Arizona and 26th Street; ● The need to monitor changes in travel behavior and traffic patterns when our new building opens and the car line returns to Chelsea Avenue southbound; and ● The importance of designing our streets to meet the needs of our school's sizable special education student population.

We voted as a group to formally back Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study and to take steps to advocate for its implementation.

Chelsea Avenue: We Support Acceleration — With Two Tweaks We know that the complete buildout of Chelsea is a “Phase 2” project, and are pleased that staff will be seeking funding for the phase 2 design in your FY27-28 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) request. Our PTA will be tracking and voicing support.

For the record: we support a HAWK beacon (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) as an acceptable Phase 2 crossing technology. We urge Council to instruct staff to include this explicitly in the bid package. A HAWK beacon is proven, cost-effective, and appropriate for an elementary school zone.

1. Priority Request: Quick-Build Turn Restrictions Before the Next School Year Parents kept asking, what can be done sooner?
Our suggestion is: a quick-build restrictive median at Santa Monica Boulevard and Chelsea Avenue that prohibits the following turning movements:
↰ Left turns from eastbound Santa Monica Blvd. to northbound Chelsea Ave.; and Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1789 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) ↰ The resulting conflicting movement: left
turns from southbound Chelsea Ave. to
eastbound Santa Monica Blvd.

These movements create dangerous vehiclepedestrian conflicts and serve no school-access purpose once our new building opens this fall.

Families driving to school will turn north on 23rd
Street and follow the established car line
circulation on Chelsea Avenue. As recognized
in the Phase 2 intersection re-design, allowing
turning movements from Santa Monica
Boulevard onto Chelsea at this location adds
conflict points that serve no legitimate
school-access purpose and endanger the
children we are trying to protect.

Importantly, this is not a complex engineering
project. City staff already has the in-house
expertise to design and install a hardened
centerline or quick-build median of this kind. The
April 28 study already contemplates right-turn
treatment at this intersection.

We are asking for one additional step: make it
physically restrictive, not just marked. McKinley Elementary is ready to be a model for this type of quick-build
school-zone intervention. We know there are other schools around Santa Monica that face similar challenges. If we can demonstrate that City staff can move quickly and effectively at McKinley, it creates a template that benefits children across the city.

Landscaping: We Strongly Support Green Infrastructure
We urge the Council to direct staff to:
● Prioritize shade tree planting along the Chelsea Avenue intersection redesign as part of both the Phase 1 quick-build and the Phase 2 capital project; ● Design the new raised median at Chelsea Avenue with landscaping that creates a visible, continuous green presence at the entrance to the school zone; ● Ensure that landscaping decisions are coordinated with the planned traffic signal and pedestrian improvements so that no trees or plantings obstruct signal visibility or crossing sightlines; and
● Incorporate this project into the City's implementation of Parks Master Plan Action 5.1.1 — Safe Routes to Parks — which prioritizes bike and pedestrian improvements on routes near parks and streets with the highest injury occurrence.

Our families cross Santa Monica at Chelsea every school day. We are grateful for the City's investment in this safety study and for the commitment to bring the Chelsea intersection improvements forward. We look forward to partnering with the City on implementation.

Sincerely,
Sirinya Matute, MA UP, PMP
President, 2025-2026 McKinley Elementary School PTA

1. We were grateful that the City responded to our school's suggestion that the city install this MUTCD-compliant sign prohibiting left turns onto Santa Monica Blvd. It would've taken an element of unpredictability out... if everyone complied.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1790 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) Fun Pictures of the outreach process!
L: Carlos and Kyle at Multicutural Day January 2025; R: Edgar at Back to School Night in Fall 2025.

We wanted to make sure that this project team got to talk to everyone at our school (we did not want a repeat of the controversy of the 17th Street Protected Bike Lane project). So, we showed our annual event calendar to the city project team and began to piece together when the team could come to meet directly with all of our families - not just those lucky enough to go to a PTA meeting. This project team attended our Multicultural Day in January 2025 (an epic event, drawing so many people), our Back to School Nights, and our Literacy Night (we justified it when we realized that teaching a child (OR an adult, for that matter) how to read a conceptual design was definitely a form of literacy!)
McKinley families turned out for the February 2025 walk audit, making up Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

4.I.d
Packet Pg. 1791 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7654 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Revision – Plan Adoption) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.J
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Matthew Hallock, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Public Works Department Subject: Award RFB #4511 to AAA Oil Inc., dba California Fuels and Lubricants, for Purchase and Delivery of Renewable Diesel Fuel for the Public Works and Fire Departments
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Award Bid #4511 to AAA Oil, Inc. dba California Fuels and Lubricants for the purchase and delivery of diesel fuel for the Public Works and Fire Departments; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with AAA Oil, Inc. dba California Fuels and Lubricants for a total amount not to exceed $2,797,154 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

Summary
From mid-2023 until June 2025, the City of Santa Monica (City) has purchased renewable diesel fuel for the Public Works Department, Fleet Division, and the Fire Department under the State of California Contract No. 1-23-91-31C. From June 2025, renewable diesel fuel has been purchased under the Los Angeles County Contract No.

MA-IS-2240008-9. With the pending expiration of the Los Angeles County Contract on August 16, 2026, the Public Works and Fire Departments issued a formal bid #4511 to secure a long-term contract for diesel fuel. Staff recommends awarding bid #4511 to AAA Oil, Inc., dba California Fuels and Lubricants, to secure a contract in an amount

4.J
Packet Pg. 1792
2 of 5
not to exceed $2,797,154 over a five-year period beginning in FY 2026-27. Both the Public Works and Fire Departments will utilize this contract to purchase diesel fuel.

Discussion
The City has used renewable diesel fuel since May 2017. There are just over 100 City vehicles and pieces of equipment (approximately 67 in Public Works and 38 in the Fire Department) that are powered with renewable diesel fuel. This includes heavy-duty Fire apparatus, medium-duty Fire Station Utility and command vehicles, ambulances, crane trucks, backhoe loaders, tractors, and asphalt rollers.

Renewable diesel fuel sold in California (RD99), produced under the State’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, is derived from waste animal fat from the food processing industry and from waste fat from the fish processing industry. It is processed to be chemically the same as petroleum diesel and can be used as a replacement fuel or blended with any amount of petroleum diesel. While RD99 is more expensive than petroleum diesel (sold in California as Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel or ULSD), it produces lower greenhouse gas emissions and particulate matter than ULSD. The City’s vehicles and equipment are designed to utilize either RD99 or ULSD interchangeably.

The City currently obtains renewable diesel fuel under Los Angeles County contract MA-IS-2240008-9, which is effective through August 16, 2026. This was authorized as an emergency procurement as the City previously utilized the State of California contract no. 1-23-91-31C, which became unavailable to the City in June 2025 when the State no longer provided renewable diesel fuel under that contract. Shortly thereafter, the City sought to secure a long-term diesel contract utilizing its own competitive solicitation process.

Vendor Selection
Bidder Recommendation
Best Bidder AAA Oil, Inc. dba California Fuels and Lubricants Evaluation Criteria Price; qualifications; references.

Municipal Code SMMC 2.24.180
Submittals Received*
AAA Oil, Inc. $0.3622 per gallon – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) $0.4608 per gallon – Renewable Diesel (RD99)
M.O. Dion and Sons $0.20 per gallon – ULSD
$0.20 per gallon – RD99
SC Commercial, LLC $0.70 per gallon – ULSD

4.J
Packet Pg. 1793
3 of 5
* The price per gallon represents freight, margin, and all supplier charges above the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) Los Angeles Daily Rack Average for the calendar day. Taxes and fees are not included in this per-gallon differential.

Bid Data
Date Posted Posted On
Advertise In
(City Charter & SMMC)
Vendors
Downloaded
Date Publicly
Opened
01/28/2026 City's Online
Bidding Site
Santa Monica Daily Press 24 03/2/2026
Best Bidder Justification
The evaluation committee reviewed the vendor qualifications and conducted reference checks, and determined that the best bidder was AAA Oil, Inc. The evaluation committee determined that M.O. Dion did not meet the qualifications stated in the bid, while SC Commercial had the highest cost. Therefore, with AAA Oil’s next lowest cost and its history of reliable service to neighboring fire departments and cities, the evaluation committee recommends awarding to AAA Oil.

Staff notes that the value of this contract has been increased due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting geopolitical crises what has caused historic oil supply and price volatility since February 28, 2026. According to the American Automobile Association, the average price of petroleum diesel in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area was $5.588 per gallon in March 2026, reaching a high of $7.818 per gallon as of April 6, 2026. Staff assumed an average of $7.82 per gallon throughout the five-year contract term. The cost of renewable diesel is higher than petroleum diesel due to low manufacturing volumes and other factors, and staff has incorporated the higher price into the contract.

Environmental Review
The contract award for renewable diesel fuel is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 exempts Class 1 (Existing Facilities) projects from CEQA which include the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The contract for renewable diesel fuel would not result in any modifications $0.70 per gallon – RD99

4.J
Packet Pg. 1794
4 of 5
to existing fueling facilities and would not expand or materially change existing fueling operations or increase the fleet of vehicles or equipment using diesel fuel. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt as set forth in Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff seeks authority to approve funding from the Vehicle Management Fund and the General Fund to award a contract with AAA Oil, Inc. dba California Fuels and Lubricants for the purchase and delivery of renewable diesel fuel. While there is no financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action in FY 2025-26, this contract request will apply to rendered services beginning in FY 2026-27. Funds have been included in the FY 2026-27 Budget Plan which was approved by Council in the FY 2025-27 Adopted Biennial Budget.

Contract Request
Fund
FY 2026-27
Request
Amount
Future Years
Amount Department Account # Total Contract Amount
General $273,700 $1,094,800 01190001.521810 $1,368,500
Vehicle
Management $285,731 $1,142,923 70500001.521813 $1,428,654 Total $2,797,154
Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.

Prepared By: Jonathan Tang, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council

4.J
Packet Pg. 1795
5 of 5
Attachments:

A. AAA Levine Act 5-06-26
B. AAA Oaks 2-24-26

4.J
Packet Pg. 1796

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 1797 Attachment: AAA Levine Act 5-06-26 [Revision 1] (7658 : Award RFB 4511 Renewable Diesel Fuel)

4.J.a
Packet Pg. 1798 Attachment: AAA Levine Act 5-06-26 [Revision 1] (7658 : Award RFB 4511 Renewable Diesel Fuel)

4.J.b
Packet Pg. 1799 Attachment: AAA Oaks 2-24-26 (7658 : Award RFB 4511 Renewable Diesel Fuel) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.K
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of Resolution Ratifying Homelessness Emergency Proclamation Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Adopt the proposed resolution ratifying the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness.

Executive Summary
On March 11, 2025, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter

2.16, the City Council adopted the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (the “2025 Proclamation”).

Government Code Section 8630 requires local governmental authorities to renew a local emergency every 60 days until the governing body terminates the local emergency. Accordingly, this staff report recommends adopting the attached Resolution ratifying the 2025 Proclamation. (Attachment A).

Discussion
On February 14, 2023, the City Council adopted a Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness due to the homelessness crisis in the region, which continues to grow, leading to deplorable living conditions and illness and deaths of unhoused and unsheltered persons in the region. On May 14, 2024, the City Council

4.K
Packet Pg. 1800
2 of 3
adopted a further Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (“the 2024 Proclamation”), which was utilized to advance several key initiatives related to homelessness.

On March 11, 2025, because the conditions that existed at the time the 2024 Proclamation was adopted persist, the City Council adopted the 2025 Proclamation, which extends the local emergency on homelessness through December 31, 2026. The 2025 Proclamation allows the City to expeditiously increase City services and programs to address and prevent homelessness. Specifically, the extension enables the City to, among other things, receive additional county, state, and federal resources to address the homelessness crisis, prevent rental price gouging, streamline and expedite certain City processes, leverage City resources to support people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness or to address local impacts of homelessness, and allows the City Manager to take all available actions authorized under Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.16. On April 22, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11658 (CCS), ratifying the 2025 Proclamation. On June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11669 (CCS), on July 29, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11686 (CCS), on September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11697 (CCS), on October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11712 (CCS), on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11726 (CCS), on February 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11738 (CCS), and on March 24, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11742 (CCS) re-ratifying the 2025 Proclamation.

Staff now recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution re-ratifying the 2025 Proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and authorizing specified actions in response to that local emergency.

Environmental Review
The 2025 Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness would have no effect on the environment, and therefore, is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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.” Fiscal Impacts
None.

4.K
Packet Pg. 1801
3 of 3
Prepared By: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness
B. Exhibit A to Resolution

4.K
Packet Pg. 1802
1 City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA RATIFYING THE 2025 PROCLAMATION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING A LOCAL

EMERGENCY ON HOMELESSNESS
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.16 empowers the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services (“Director”), to request that the City Council proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency if the City Council is in session; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the City adopted a Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness due to the homelessness crisis in the region, which continues to grow, leading to deplorable living conditions and illness and deaths of unhoused and unsheltered persons in the region, which was extended to May 31, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024 the City adopted a further Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (the “2024 Proclamation”), which was utilized to advance several key initiatives related to homelessness; and WHEREAS, based on the 2024 Point-In-Time Homeless Count (“2024 PITC”) data, there were 75,312 people experiencing homeless in Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, based on the 2024 PITC data for Service Planning Area 5 (SPA 5), the SPA Santa Monica is in, there were 5,383 people experiencing homelessness; and WHEREAS, based on the 2024 PITC data, there were 774 people experiencing homelessness in Santa Monica; and

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1803 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness (7659 : Homelessness 2 WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) conducted an End of Line Survey in January 2025, and found 39 unhoused persons were unsheltered at the Santa Monica Downtown Metro Station given Metro’s current End of Line policy, which requires deboarding of all passengers and belongings at the end of the line when trains go out of service; and
WHEREAS, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report published in October 2023, the fastest growing group in the nation’s population of people experiencing homelessness is older adults, composing nearly half of the homeless population nationwide, and a number that is expected to triple by 2030, and older adult homelessness has increased by 25% in the Los Angeles Continuum of Care between 2020 and 2024; and
WHEREAS, a California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (CASPEH) found that high housing costs and low income left participants vulnerable to homelessness, and that the most common reason for leaving housing was economic; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium that protected tenants from eviction who were under 80% of Area Median Income who were unable to pay rent due to the pandemic expired March 31, 2023, and tenants had up to twelve (12) months to repay past due rent owed to avoid risk of eviction; and WHEREAS, the number of eviction lawsuits provided to the Santa Monica City Attorney’s office in 2024 increased by over 28% from the number provided in 2023, with

84.8% of 2024 eviction lawsuits based on nonpayment of rent, suggesting even more tenants at risk of eviction and homelessness than in 2023; and

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1804 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness (7659 : Homelessness 3 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025, because the conditions that existed at the time the 2024 Proclamation was adopted persist, the City Council adopted the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (the “2025 Proclamation”); and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Proclamation extends the local emergency on homelessness through December 31, 2026, and allows the City to expeditiously increase City services and programs to address and prevent homelessness; and WHEREAS, specifically, the extension of the local emergency effectuated by the 2025 Proclamation enables the City to, among other things, receive additional county, state, and federal resources to address the homelessness crisis, prevent rental price gouging, streamline and expedite certain City processes, leverage City resources to support people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness or to address local impacts of homelessness, and to allow the City Manager to take all available actions authorized under Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.16; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11658 (CCS), ratifying the 2025 Proclamation; and
WHEREAS, on June 10. 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11669 (CCS), on July 29, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11686 (CCS), on September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11697 (CCS), on October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11712 (CCS), on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11726 (CCS), on February 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11738 (CCS), and on

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1805 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness (7659 : Homelessness 4 March 24, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 11742 (CCS) re-ratifying the 2025 Proclamation; and
WHEREAS the findings included in the 2025 Proclamation are included herein as if stated in full.

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

SECTION 1. The 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness (“Exhibit A”) is hereby ratified.

SECTION 2. It is hereby proclaimed that a local emergency now exists throughout the City. It is further proclaimed and ordered that during the existence of this local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by State law and by the ordinances and resolutions of this City.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, in capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, to take all actions related to the protection of life and property that are reasonably necessary to respond to the local emergency.

SECTION 4. The local emergency shall be deemed to continue and exist until December 31, 2026, unless its termination is earlier proclaimed by the City Council. As required by law, the City Council shall review the need to continue the state of emergency every 60 days until this resolution is terminated.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution, or the 2025 Proclamation ratified herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1806 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness (7659 : Homelessness 5 not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution or the 2025 Proclamation. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and the 2025 Proclamation 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 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

4.K.a
Packet Pg. 1807 Attachment: Resolution for Ratification of 2025 Proclamation Declaring State of Emergency on Homelessness (7659 : Homelessness

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1808 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1809 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1810 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1811 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1812 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1813 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1814 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation)

4.K.b
Packet Pg. 1815 Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution (7659 : Homelessness Proclamation) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.L
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Mobility Division Subject: Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect and a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the attached 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to enhancing safety for all users of its local roadways, as reflected by the City’s commitment to conducting and updating a Local Roadway Safety Plan or equivalent every five years. Agencies must have a completed Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) or equivalent to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. Staff seeks approval of the City’s 2022 LRSP to remain competitive for HSIP and other grant funding sources.

Although the 2022 LRSP has been completed and posted on the City’s website since 2022; it is being presented to Council now because LSRPs that have been adopted by the City Council have the ability to make grant applications more competitive.

Discussion
The City of Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to enhancing safety for all users of its local roadways and has established guiding transportation safety programs, policies, and goals with the following planning documents: Land Use and Circulation Element (2010), Bike Action Plan (2011), Pedestrian Action Plan (2016), Climate Action

4.L
Packet Pg. 1816
2 of 3
and Adaptation Plan (2019), Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020), Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study (2020), and the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) (2022). The 2022 LRSP analyzed collision data from 2015 – 2019 and identified the highest priority intersections and corridors for improvement, as well as recommended focus areas.

Findings and emphasis areas identified in the current LRSP have been used to prioritize the rollout of capital improvements, including pedestrian crossings at intersections, projects addressing crashes involving people bicycling and using shared mobility devices, speed management and network improvements in CalEnviroScreen areas.

These areas are most burdened by pollution and community vulnerability. Projects that address these emphasis areas and have been recently completed or are nearing completion include Six Schools Pedestrian Improvements, Olympic Boulevard Sidewalks, Bergamot First and Last Mile Improvements, Broadway Protected Bikeway, Colorado Avenue Protected Bikeway, East Pico Safety Project and Wilshire Safety Improvements.

Staff is currently working to update the LRSP with data from 2020-2025 and anticipates coming to Council with an updated LRSP in Fall 2026. In order to remain eligible for HSIP and other transportation safety funding sources, staff recommends that Council adopt the 2022 LRSP now to remain competitive for any funding sources that might become available prior to Council’s adoption of the updated LRSP later this year.

Currently the LRSP is a technical requirement for the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Environmental Review
The City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15061(b)(3), states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment”.

Section 15262 exempts a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded. The LRSP is a plant that would guide the prioritization of future

4.L
Packet Pg. 1817
3 of 3
capital improvement projects, including pedestrian crossing upgrades at key intersections, initiatives addressing crashes involving people bicycling and using shared mobility devices, network enhancements in CalEnviroScreen-designated communities, and speed management projects. Therefore, the LRSP is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15262.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
02/23/2016
(Attachment A)
Adoption of Pedestrian Action Plan
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

Prepared By: Colleen Stoll, Transportation Demand program Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. February 23, 2016 Staff Report (web link)
B. Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary C. Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full
D. Written Comments

4.L
Packet Pg. 1818

LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN

SUMMARY
April 22, 2022
09/16/2021

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1819 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................4

2. DATA SUMMARY...................................................................... 10

3. EMPHASIS AREAS: WHAT’S NEXT? 16

4. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 22

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1820 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 1:

Introduction

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1821 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 4 City of Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to enhance safety for all road users with the adopted aim to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes from occurring in the city by 2026. The City has established guiding transportation safety programs, policies, and goals with the following planning documents: Land Use and Circulation Element (2010), Bike Action Plan (2011), Pedestrian Action Plan (2016), Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2019), and Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020). This long tradition of expanding mobility choices for people that live, work, and play in Santa Monica is founded on creating a transportation network with increased and targeted safety enhancements that serve users of all ages and abilities. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) builds upon previous work by analyzing the latest available crash data to prioritize safety improvements throughout the City. The LRSP is a technical requirement for the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and will facilitate the City’s efforts to apply for future grant funds.

Vision & Goals
The City’s Vision Zero commitment was adopted on February 23, 2016 with the premise that fatal and severe injury collisions are unacceptable. The premise led to the guiding vision for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation (SaMoDOT): reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2026.

SaMoDOT will achieve this vision by identifying the
measures necessary to care for the wellbeing of everyone, while increasing health, safety, and promoting equitable mobility for all.

1. Introduction

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1822 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 5
Safety Partners
SaMoDOT staff convenes an interdepartmental Vision Zero working group that meets quarterly to review crash data. The internal departmental partners include staff from:
• Police
• Fire
• Public Works
• SaMoDOT - Big Blue Bus
• SaMoDOT - Mobility
• City Attorney’s Office
• Office of Communications
The group was created in 2017 to increase the transparency and frequency of crash data sharing between departments. In addition to identifying locations with high concentrations of crashes, the group reviews crash patterns to identify resources that would help prevent future crashes (e.g., developing communication strategies to educate drivers about roadway safety and identifying locations where deployment of City resources would help alleviate a pattern of crashes).

The Vision Zero working group played an integral part in the development of the LRSP and was consulted to verify the crash data and development of the emphasis areas. Each City partner provided specific insight to address roadway safety: Police and Fire provided insightful perspectives into historic crashes and first-hand knowledge of the daily traffic and crash patterns present in the City; Communications provided input on messaging and outreach; Mobility and Public Works guided the general framework on advancing safety related infrastructure projects; Big Blue Bus led the transit safety discussion; the City Attorney’s Office informed legal considerations.

Process
The LRSP provides an overview of existing conditions and analyzes the last five years (2015-2019) of crash data to update and identify corridors and intersections where the highest number of crashes are taking place. Additional priority was given to crashes that occur in communities with negative health outcomes as identified by the state of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s CalEnviroScreen tool, a screening tool used to help identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. This combination of crash intensity and social equity helped develop a plan of action to implement proven safety measures.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1823 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 6 City of Santa Monica
Existing Efforts
Since the adoption of the Vision Zero program, SaMoDOT analyzed crash data from 2006-2016 and identified locations with high concentrations of crashes. This work effort resulted in the Vision Zero Priority Map (Figure 1). Staff used the map to create a work plan to alleviate and prevent future crashes. Table 1 identifies a sample of key safety projects and actions taken or planned to improve safety.

Figure 1: Vision Zero Priority Map, 2017
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P

LINCOLN BLVD

OLYMPIC BLVD

SAN VICENTE BLVD

OCEAN AVE

SANTA MONICA FWY

WILSHIRE BLVD
Legend
Priority Intersections
!P Priority Intersections
!P PCH Priority Intersections
Priority Streets
Priority Streets
PCH Priority Corridors
Los Angeles High Injury Network
´
Map prepared by Sarah Popelka, City of Santa Monica, 2017

PICO BLVD
26TH ST 26TH ST
PCH

SANTA MONICA BLVD

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1824 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 7
Table 1: Sample of Key Safety Projects
Project Description Status Result
Safety evaluation of the top 10
priority intersections identified
in the Vision Zero priority map
(Figure 1)
Complete
All intersections have been evaluated and have a
concept design to address safety issues. Six of the
intersections have funding identified to construct the
concept safety improvements.

Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI) signal timing at key
intersections in the city
Complete Installed LPIs at 54 intersections since 2018
Colorado Esplanade Complete
Installed new pedestrian sidewalk and protected
cycletrack on Colorado Avenue between Ocean
Avenue and 5th Street
Pedestrian scrambles Complete Installed a total of 11 pedestrian scrambles in June 2016 Wilshire Boulevard Safety
Study Complete
Completed safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard in
February 2020; first phase of safety enhancements to
be installed in 2022
Protected bikeways on Ocean
Avenue and Broadway Complete
Installed 4 block protected bikeway pilot on Broadway
in March 2020 and protected bikeway on Ocean
Avenue on 4 blocks in November 2020; Bike Action Plan
Amendment calls for extending the protected bikeway
on these corridors in the future
Pico Boulevard and 3rd Street
connection
Under
construction
Install a new crosswalk, additional Rapid Rectangular
Flashing beacons, and other quick build improvements
Road safety enhancements
around 10 SMMUSD Santa
Monica schools
Four locations
complete,
remaining six
locations in
design
Completed safety improvements at four SMMUSD
school sites. The remaining six sites are in design. The improvements include curb extensions, crosswalk and
ramp upgrades, enhancements to existing bicycle
facilities, pick-up/drop-off circulation improvements,
and new school signage.

Pedestrian crossing
improvements at Olympic
Boulevard and 26th Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Protected bicycle facility on
Broadway from 5th Street to
26th Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Pedestrian safety
improvements on Pico
Boulevard between 16th Street
and Cloverfield Boulevard
Funding
secured for
construction
Construction scheduled to start by Spring 2022
Safety study of eastern
section of Pico Boulevard
with quick build safety
enhancements
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for community engagement and
safety evaluation in 2022

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1825 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 8 City of Santa Monica
A large proportion of the projects identified in 2016 are in the process of being implemented or are complete. This LRSP will enable the City to refresh the safety data and continue advancing successful transportation safety projects.

Vision Zero Campaign
As part of the ongoing commitment to safety, the Vision Zero program also includes an outreach and education campaign called Take the Friendly Road. The campaign aims to increase traffic safety awareness, improve driving behavior, and highlight capital interventions. The campaign was amplified by participation from local community partners including schools, neighborhood associations, business districts, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, Santa Monica Spoke, and Adopt-a-Walk. These efforts resulted in:
• The campaign had over 16 million impressions generated by utilizing digital and traditional media, including advertisements on the Big Blue Bus and Metro buses and Expo trains, banners posted on light poles along Wilshire Boulevard, messages hung on local park and construction site fencing, messages on the digital overhead signage located in the downtown and beach areas, and social media.
• In partnership with the Safe Routes to School program, over 1,700 lawn signs were distributed to allow people to show their support for road safety while reinforcing a key campaign message:
slow down.
• Stop, look, wave stencils were added to crosswalks to remind pedestrians to be vigilant at the ten priority intersections where fatal and severe injury crashes were most prevalent between 2006-2016.
• Placement of the campaign logo on all City-issued parking hangtags provided a reminder to drivers to look out for vulnerable road users.
• Staff developed an online community feedback map that received over 900 comments from the community. The public input was used to inform the LRSP evaluation and give a nuanced, community-informed understanding of the transportation safety issues impacting the city.

The Take the Friendly Road campaign will continue to be the public facing communication point for the public to learn about capital projects or other safety related initiatives from the City.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1826 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 2:

Data Summary

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1827 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 10 City of Santa Monica

2. Data Summary
This chapter provides an update on crash patterns using 2015-2019 reported crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). From 2015-2019, there were 2,334 crashes on Santa Monica’s local streets.
• 125 crashes resulted in a fatality or severe injury
• 42% of fatal and severe crashes involved pedestrians
Figure 2: Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdiction by Year and Mode Figure 3: Severity of Crashes by Mode
339
270 283 301 286
94 82 82 86
73 67
78 90 79 82
5 37
0 100
200
300
400
500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle Only
Injury Crashes
3 40
547
889
1 24
265
127
11 41
192
152
5 28
9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Percent of Crashes
Motor Vehicle Only Bicycle Pedestrian Scooter

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1828 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 11
This map shows crash hot spots in Santa Monica, weighted by how severe they were, and locations of fatal and severe injury crashes. Weighting crashes helps us focus our resources and work toward the goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries. In this weighting system, fatal and severe injury crashes get about ten times as many “points” as other visible injury crashes.

Figure 4: Density of Crashes in Santa Monica, 2015-2019 Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
McKinley Elementary
Olympic
High School
Roosevelt Elementary
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SAN VICENTE BLVD
7TH ST

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA

INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

ADELAIDE DR

CARLYLE AVE

IDAHO AVE

ALTA AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Fat
Crash Dens
Density
2015-20
Crashes are w
severity as fo
Fatal or sever
Other visible
Complaint of
Data sources: Tran
System, Safe Trans
Education Center
Berkeley; City of S
Map created Jun
!
H
Lo
The Pacific Coast Highway is
under Caltrans’ jurisdiction
E

DEWEY ST
23RD ST

BRYN MAWR AVE
ST
H ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Fatality or Severe Injury
Crash Density by Severity
Density of Crashes,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by
severity as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
!
Highest
Lowest
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
McKinley Elementary
Olympic
High School
oosevelt
mentary
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA

INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

IDAHO AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Fatality or Severe Injury
Crash Density by Severity
Density of Crashes,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by
severity as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Data sources: Transportation Injury Mapping
System, Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley; City of Santa Monica
Map created June, 2021
!
Highest
Lowest
acific Coast Highway is
Caltrans’ jurisdiction
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
Olympic
High School
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool

PICO BLVD

MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD

OCEAN PARK BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD
14TH ST
11TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST

OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
28TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

NEILSON WAY
ST
21ST ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Fatality or Severe Injury
Crash Density by Severity
Density of Crashes,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by
severity as follows:

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1829 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 12 City of Santa Monica
The Priority Network is comprised of the 14% of Santa Monica’s streets that see the top 50% of weighted crashes. Much of the Priority Network falls in and around areas of the city that bear the greatest pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen’s equity tool, which combines environmental, health, and socioeconomic factors.

Figure 5: Priority Network, 2015-2019
Prior
Top 5
Priority
2015-20
Crashes are w
as follows:

Fatal or sever
Other visible i
Complaint of
Data sources: Tran
System, Safe Trans
Education Center
Berkeley; City of S
Map created Jun
The Pacific Coast Highway is
under Caltrans’ jurisdiction
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
McKinley Elementary
Olympic
High School
Roosevelt Elementary
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SAN VICENTE BLVD
7TH ST

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA

INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

ADELAIDE DR

CARLYLE AVE

IDAHO AVE

ALTA AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
Priority Network:

Top 50% of Weighted Crashes
Priority Network,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by severity
as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
E

DEWEY ST
23RD ST

BRYN MAWR AVE
ST
H ST
Priority Network:

Top 50% of Weighted Crashes
Priority Network,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by severity
as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Data sources: Transportation Injury Mapping
System, Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley; City of Santa Monica
Map created June, 2021
acific Coast Highway is
Caltrans’ jurisdiction
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
McKinley Elementary
Olympic
High School
oosevelt
mentary
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA

INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

IDAHO AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Priority Network:

Top 50% of Weighted Crashes
Priority Network,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by severity
as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
Olympic
High School
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool

PICO BLVD

OLYMPIC BLVD

OCEAN PARK BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

EXPOSITION BLVD
14TH ST
11TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST

OLYMPIC BLVD
28TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST
H ST
21ST ST

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1830 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 13
The maps on these two pages show the intersections with the highest number and severity of total crashes, crashes taking place after dark, and crashes involving the most vulnerable road users: those walking, riding a bike, and riding a scooter. The first map shows the top signalized intersections, and the second map shows the top unsignalized intersections.

Figure 6: Top Crash Locations: Signalized intersections, 2015-2019 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Crash Type
Signalized
Highest N
!
! Crashes
Bicyclist
! Total Cr
Top ten locatio
combined cras
More than ten
each category
have equal sco
Crashes are we
Fatal or severe
Other visible inj
Complaint of p
Data sources: Tran
System, Safe Trans
Education Center
Berkeley; City of S
Map created Jun
Crashes
The Pacific Coast Highway is
under Caltrans’ jurisdiction
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
McKinley Elementary
Olympic
High School
Roosevelt Elementary
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SAN VICENTE BLVD
7TH ST

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA

INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

ADELAIDE DR

CARLYLE AVE

IDAHO AVE

ALTA AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
Crash Type
Signalized Intersections with
Highest Numbers of Crashes
!
! Crashes Involving a Pedestrian,
Bicyclist, or Scooter
! Total Crashes
Top ten locations are identified based on the
combined crash weight at each location.

More than ten intersections are included in
each category because many locations
have equal scores.

Crashes are weighted by severity as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Crashes Occuring at Night

DEWEY ST
23RD ST

BRYN MAWR AVE
T
ST
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Crash Type
Signalized Intersections with
Highest Numbers of Crashes
!
! Crashes Involving a Pedestrian,
Bicyclist, or Scooter
! Total Crashes
Top ten locations are identified based on the
combined crash weight at each location.

More than ten intersections are included in
each category because many locations
have equal scores.

Crashes are weighted by severity as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Data sources: Transportation Injury Mapping
System, Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley; City of Santa Monica
Map created June, 2021
Crashes Occuring at Night
acific Coast Highway is
Caltrans’ jurisdiction
Edison Elementary
Grant Elementary
John Adams Middle
McKinley Elementary
Olympic
High School
oosevelt
mentary
John Muir E lementary SMAS H
Santa Monica College
Will R ogers Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
Santa Monica
High S chool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA

INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

IDAHO AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Priority Network:

Top 50% of Weighted Crashes
Priority Network,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by severity
as follows:

PICO BLVD

OLYMPIC BLVD

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

EXPOSITION BLVD
14TH ST
11TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST

OLYMPIC BLVD
ST
28TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST
TH ST
21ST ST

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1831 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 14 City of Santa Monica
Figure 7: Top Crash Locations: Unsignalized intersections, 2015-2019 ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
Unsignaliz
Highest N
Top locations a
combined cras
More than ten
each category
have equal sco
Crashes are we
Fatal or severe
Other visible inj
Complaint of p
Data sources: Tran
System, Safe Trans
Education Center
Berkeley; City of S
Map created Jun

STRAND ST
Crash Type !! Crashes
Bicyclist
! Total Cr
Crashes
Edison
Elementary
Grant
Elementary
JohnAdams
Mi
ddle
McKinley
Elementary
Olympic
High
School
Roosevelt
Elementary
JohnMuirElementary
SMASH
SantaMonica
College
WillRogers
Elementary
Franklin
Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
SantaMonica
HighSchool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SAN VICENTE BLVD
7TH ST

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
15TH ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST

OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

ADELAIDE DR

CARLYLE AVE

IDAHO AVE

ALTA AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
!
!
!
!
Unsignalized Intersections with
Highest Number of Crashes
Top locations are identified based on the
combined crash weight at each location.

More than ten intersections are included in
each category because many locations
have equal scores.

Crashes are weighted by severity as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Crash Type !! Crashes Involving a Pedestrian,
Bicyclist, or Scooter
! Total Crashes
Crashes Occuring at Night

DEWEY ST
23RD ST

BRYN MAWR AVE
T
ST
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
Unsignalized Intersections with
Highest Number of Crashes
Top locations are identified based on the
combined crash weight at each location.

More than ten intersections are included in
each category because many locations
have equal scores.

Crashes are weighted by severity as follows:

STRAND ST
Crash Type !! Crashes Involving a Pedestrian,
Bicyclist, or Scooter
! Total Crashes
Crashes Occuring at Night
Edison
Elementary
Grant
Elementary
JohnAdams
Mi
ddle
McKinley
Elementary
Olympic
High
School
oosevelt
ementary
JohnMuirElementary
SMASH
SantaMonica
College
WillRogers
Elementary
Franklin
Elementary
Lincoln
Middle
Santa
Monica
College
SantaMonica
HighSchool
4TH ST
14TH ST
11TH ST
26TH ST

PICO BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
6TH ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

OCEAN AVE MAIN ST OLYMPIC BLVD
20TH ST

MONTANA AVE

OCEAN PARK BLVD

COLORADO AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

BARNARD WAY

EXPOSITION BLVD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
14TH ST

CENTINELA AVE
11TH ST

BROADWAY

WASHINGTON AVE

ARIZONA AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

CALIFORNIA INCLINE
2ND ST
3RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST
23RD ST
16TH ST
19TH ST

STANFORD ST

OLYMPIC BLVD
4TH ST
5TH ST
2ND ST
28TH ST
18TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST

IDAHO AVE

NEILSON WAY
9TH ST
12TH ST
17TH ST
21ST ST

YALE ST

HARVARD ST

FRANKLIN ST
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Priority Network:

Top 50% of Weighted Crashes
Priority Network,
2015-2019
Crashes are weighted by severity
as follows:

Fatal or severe: 22
Other visible injury: 2
Complaint of pain: 1
Edison
Elementary
Grant
Elementary
JohnAdams
Mi
ddle
Olympic
High
School
JohnMuirElementary
SMASH
SantaMonica
College
WillRogers
Elementary
Santa
Monica
College
SantaMonica
HighSchool

PICO BLVD

OLYMPIC BLVD

OCEAN PARK BLVD

CENTINELA AVE

STEWART ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

DEWEY ST

EXPOSITION BLVD
14TH ST
11TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
23RD ST

PICO BLVD

ASHLAND AVE

BRYN MAWR AVE
16TH ST

OLYMPIC BLVD
28TH ST
9TH ST
7TH ST
H ST
21ST ST

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1832 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Emphasis Areas
3:

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1833 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 16 City of Santa Monica

3. Emphasis Areas: What’s Next?
The emphasis areas were developed through a combination of data analysis and input from the interdepartmental Vision Zero working group. The emphasis areas provide staff a plan for how to address some of the more persistent crash types that take place in the city.

Emphasis Area: Pedestrians Crossing at Intersections
In Santa Monica, pedestrians were involved in 42% of all fatal and severe injury crashes, despite being involved in only 17% of all crashes. Pedestrian victims of fatal and severe injury crashes tend to be older. People in the age group of 65+ are involved in 30% of our fatal and severe injuries but are only 18% of the Santa Monica population. Pedestrians of color, specifically Hispanic or Latino people, are overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes (at 23% of pedestrians and only 15% of the Santa Monica population).

The most common type of fatal or severe pedestrian crash involves a person crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection and a driver proceeding straight. This type of crash represents 20% of all pedestrian crashes and 31% of fatal and severe pedestrian crashes, with most (69%) occurring at unsignalized intersections.

Goals for Emphasis Area
• Conduct detailed safety evaluation of all fatal and severe injury pedestrian crashes. Investigate at least five priority intersections per year based on the locations identified in Figures 5 and

6. Each crash location will be evaluated based on detailed crash records and field visits with safety partners that will determine the specific treatments for short- and long-term interventions and policy actions to treat the primary cause of the crashes. • Implement recommended treatments.

Strategies for Emphasis Area
• Implement proven safety measures that will alleviate the more persistent crash-inducing conditions including best practice treatments identified by the FHWA & Caltrans, and may include enhancements to lighting and/or improvements to lighting conditions in and around intersections.
• Implement safety strategies that eliminate conflicts, such as traffic calming, in and around high pedestrian crash intersections.
• Work with internal departments to identify and apply for safety grant funding to further advance safety projects.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1834 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 17
Emphasis Area: Crashes Involving People Bicycling and Using Shared Mobility Devices
People riding bicycles and scooters are involved
in 20% of all crashes but represent 24% of all
fatal and severe injury crashes in Santa Monica,
according to the data available from the statewide
SWITRS system. Local crash data suggests that
the actual number of crashes involving people
on scooters is higher, with 14 resulting in a fatality
or severe injury from 2015- 2019. These crashes
are undercounted in the state data due to
inconsistencies in how scooter use is reported.

Bicyclists involved in fatal and severe injury crashes
tend to be younger adults. In 43% of fatal and
severe injury bicyclist crashes the person bicycling
was aged 25-39, an age group that represents
only 29% of the population. Bicyclists of color,
specifically Black and Hispanic or Latino people,
are overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes, at
25% of involved bicyclists and only 19% of the Santa
Monica population.

While pedestrian crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections, crashes involving bicyclists occurred at signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and between intersections at approximately equal frequency. Overall, 27% of fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists take place where both the bicycle and vehicle are proceeding straight.

Goals for Emphasis Area
• Conduct detailed safety evaluation of top locations for fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists or people using shared mobility devices. Investigate five intersections per year based on the top locations identified in Figures 5 and 6. Each crash location will be evaluated based on detailed crash records and field visits with safety partners that will determine the specific treatments for short- and long-term treatments, and policy actions to treat the primary cause of the crashes.
• Implement recommended treatments with a goal of implementing all safety enhancements within five years.
• Work with SMPD to ensure consistent and reliable data with a goal of more uniform data entry for scooters and other shared mobility devices.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1835 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 18 City of Santa Monica
Strategies for Emphasis Area
• Complete the planned five-year protected bicycle network as defined in the City’s Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020).
• Implement proven safety measures that will alleviate some of the more persistent conditions. • Implement safety strategies that help manage vehicular speeds in and around intersections. • Implement safety enhancements to create protected left turn signals at intersections with persistent left-turn-related bicycle and shared mobility involved crashes. • Include a focus on bicycle and scooter safety in traffic safety education materials with a specific emphasis in developing materials that target the most impacted 25-39 age group. • Work with internal departments to identify and apply for safety grant funding to further advance safety enhancements.
• Work with Police and Fire to verify and analyze crash data for bicyclists and shared mobility devices.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1836 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 19
Emphasis Area: Priority Network – Prioritized by CalEnviroScreen The LRSP identifies the roadway segments that represent the highest concentration (weighted by severity) of crashes in the City, in Figure 4. The City will focus resources on investigating these priority segments to develop plans of action. The investigation of roadway segments will be further prioritized based on equity using CalEnviroScreen rankings.

The City is already making progress to address some roadway segments identified in the LRSP priority map. For example, staff recently completed a comprehensive safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard and are procuring a contractor to install the safety improvements identified in the plan. In-progress work for priority roadway segments will be accelerated when possible, and the remaining priority segments will be a priority for funding. This will allow the City to focus resources on streets with the greatest need for traffic safety improvements.

Goal for Emphasis Area
• Continue to advance in-progress safety projects.
• Within five years, complete new detailed safety evaluation on corridors in the Priority Network that are in areas with high CalEnviroScreen scores. This focus area includes priority roadway segments located in Downtown Santa Monica, and Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards.

Strategies for Emphasis Area
• Identify opportunities to accelerate traffic safety projects already in progress on the Priority Network.
• Work with City departments including Police and Fire to address safety issues on the Priority Network through education and emergency response efforts. Work with internal departments to identify and apply for funding to conduct comprehensive safety evaluations on roadway segments identified as part of the Priority Network.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1837 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 20 City of Santa Monica
Emphasis Area: Speed Management
Unsafe speed is the second most common violation cited in fatal and severe crashes in the City, at 14% of the total. It is the most common violation for fatal and severe crashes involving motor vehicles only, at 28% of the total. About 5% of Unsafe Speed crashes result in a fatality or severe injury. Most fatal and severe crashes due to unsafe speeds take place on the Priority Network, including on Pacific Coast Highway. Streets under the City’s jurisdiction where unsafe speeds resulted in more than one fatality or severe injury include Pico Boulevard, Broadway, and Wilshire Boulevard. Strategies that reduce motor vehicle speeds will be a particular focus as the City conducts safety evaluations and identifies improvements for street segments on the Priority Network.

Streets with a higher posted speed are also associated with a higher rate of fatalities and severe injuries. Thirty-five mph streets make up only 3% of street centerline miles but are the site of 15% of all crashes and 9% of fatal and severe crashes.

Goal for Emphasis Area
• Reduce the number of crashes in which unsafe motor vehicle speeds are a factor.

Strategies for Emphasis Area
• Develop a toolkit of proven safety countermeasures that reduce motor vehicle speeds and are appropriate for streets on the Priority Network.
• Ensure speed limits are set appropriately and consistent with recent legislation (Assembly Bill No. 43).
• Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and law enforcement on an enforcement strategy for unsafe speeds on the Pacific Coast Highway.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1838 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 4:

Evaluation and
Implementation

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1839 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 22 City of Santa Monica

4. Evaluation and Implementation
This plan represents a commitment to implement
infrastructure that will save lives and improve mobility options for all.

To measure success of the LRSP, the City will evaluate projects two years after implementation by analyzing collision patterns and, if appropriate, speed patterns and reporting on the findings. The analysis will assess:

1. if the intervention has increased safety for vulnerable road users and

2. if additional measures need to be taken to adjust the design to further enhance safety.

The City anticipates that crash data will be analyzed and refreshed every three years to understand where new crash patterns arise, and old problems have been resolved. Meanwhile, a project work plan that specifically identifies the goals and strategies of each priority location will also be developed and revisited every six years.

The Vision Zero Working Group will continue to meet quarterly to discuss progress on the plan goals and to review proposed design interventions.

Staff will continue to engage with neighboring cities and agencies in Los Angeles, such as Caltrans, to improve efficiencies related to roadway design and to promote traffic safety across jurisdictions.

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1840 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | Summary 23

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1841 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan)

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 1842 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Summary (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan
April 2022

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1843 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | i
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1 Data Summary.............................................................................................................................................6 Prioritizing Actions...................................................................................................................................39 Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Sample of Key Safety Projects...............................................................................................4 Figure 2 Crash Severity Weighting........................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdiction by Year and Mode........7 Figure 4 Fatal and Severe Crashes by Year.......................................................................................8 Figure 5 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica...................................................................9 Figure 6 Severity of Crashes by Mode..............................................................................................10 Figure 7 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Mode..................................................................11 Figure 8 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Collisions.......................................................................11 Figure 9 Top Five Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Crashes.....................................................................................................................................12 Figure 10 Priority Network with Pacific Coast Highway Included, 2015-2019...........................13 Figure 11 Top Crash Locations: Signalized intersections, 2015-2019...........................................15 Figure 12 Top Signalized Intersections Overall..................................................................................16 Figure 13 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)......................................................................................17 Figure 14 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Taking Place After Dark....................................18 Figure 15 Top Crash Locations: Unsignalized intersections, 2015-2019.......................................19 Figure 16 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Overall............................................20 Figure 17 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters).............................................................20 Figure 18 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Taking Place After Dark..............21 Figure 19 Time of Day and Day of Week of All Crashes................................................................22 Figure 20 Time of Day and Day of Week of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes..........................23 Figure 21 Lighting Conditions by Severity of Crash...........................................................................24 Figure 22 Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway.............25 Figure 23 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway..................................................................................................................................25 Figure 24 Posted Speeds and Crash Locations Weighted by Severity.........................................26 Figure 25 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by AADT of Primary Roadway...........................27 Figure 26 Injury Level as Percent of Total by AADT of Primary Roadway...................................27 Figure 27 Traffic Volumes and Weighted Crash Locations..............................................................28 Figure 28 Age Distribution of All Parties Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................29

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1844 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ii
Figure 29 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................30 Figure 30 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Compared to 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................30 Figure 31 Age of Killed and Severely Injured Victims by Mode.....................................................31 Figure 32 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018............32 Figure 33 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018..................32 Figure 34 Reported Race of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved in Fatal and Severe Crashes Compared to Santa Monica Population, 2015-2018.....................................33 Figure 35 All Crashes Involving Pedestrians........................................................................................33 Figure 36 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Pedestrians.............................................................34 Figure 37 All Crashes Involving Bicyclists..............................................................................................35 Figure 38 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Bicyclists...................................................................35 Figure 39 The Priority Network and People of Color by Census Block Group............................37 Figure 40 The Priority Network and CalEnviroScreen Scores..........................................................38 Figure 41 Top Priority Network Segments by CalEnviroScreen Score...........................................39 Figure 42 Top Ten Signalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score..........................................40 Figure 43 Top Ten Unsignalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score......................................41

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1845 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1

INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to enhance safety for all road users with the adopted aim to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes from occurring in the city by 2026. The City has established guiding transportation safety programs, policies, and goals with the following planning documents: Land Use and Circulation Element (2010), Bike Action Plan (2011), Pedestrian Action Plan (2016), Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2019), and Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020). This long tradition of expanding mobility choices for people that live, work, and play in Santa Monica is founded on creating a transportation network with increased and targeted safety enhancements that serve users of all ages and abilities. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) builds upon previous work by analyzing the latest available crash data to prioritize safety improvements throughout the City. The LRSP is a technical requirement for the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and will facilitate the City’s efforts to apply for future grant funds.

SaMoDOT will achieve this vision byidentifying the measures necessary to care for the wellbeing of everyone, while increasing health, safety, and promoting equitable mobility for all.

Safety Partners
SaMoDOT staff convenes an interdepartmental Vision Zero working group that meets quarterly to review crash data. The internal departmental partners include staff from:
 Police
 Fire
 Public Works
 SaMoDOT - Big Blue Bus
 SaMoDOT - Mobility
 City Attorney’s Office
 Office of Communications
The group was created in 2017 to increase the transparency and frequency of crash data sharing between departments. In addition to identifying locations with high concentrations of crashes, the group reviews crash patterns to identify resources that would help prevent future crashes (e.g., developing communication strategies to educate drivers about roadway safety and identifying locations where deployment of City resources would help alleviate a pattern of crashes).

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1846 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2
perspectives into historic crashes and first-hand knowledge of the daily traffic and crash patterns present in the City; Communications provided input on messaging and outreach; Mobility and Public Works guided the general framework on advancing safety related infrastructure projects; Big Blue Bus led the transit safety discussion; the City Attorney’s Office informed legal considerations.

Existing Efforts
Since the adoption of the Vision Zero program, SaMoDOTanalyzed crash data from 2006-2016 and identified locations with high concentrations of crashes. This work effort resulted in the Vision Zero Priority Map (Figure 1). Staff used the map to create a work plan to alleviate and prevent future crashes. Figure 2identifies a sample of key safety projects and actions taken or planned to improve safety.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1847 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
Figure 1 Vision Zero Priority Map, 2017

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1848 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4
Figure 2 Sample of Key Safety Projects
Project Description Status Result
Safety evaluation of the top 10
priority intersections identified in
the Vision Zero priority map (Figure
1)
Complete All intersections have been evaluated and have a concept design to address safety issues. Six of the
intersections have funding identified to construct the
concept safety improvements.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
signal timing at key intersections in
the city
Complete Installed LPIs at 54 intersections since 2018
Colorado Esplanade Complete Installed new pedestrian sidewalk and protected cycletrack on Colorado Avenue between Ocean
Avenue and 5th Street
Pedestrian scrambles Complete Installed a total of 11 pedestrian scrambles in June 2016
Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study Complete Completed safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard in February 2020; first phase of safety enhancements to
be installed in 2022
Protected bikeways on Ocean
Avenue and Broadway
Complete Installed 4 block protected bikeway pilot on Broadway in March 2020 and protected bikeway on Ocean
Avenue on 4 blocks in November 2020; Bike Action
Plan Amendment calls for extending the protected
bikeway on these corridors in the future
Pico Boulevard and 3rd Street
connection
Under
construction
Install a new crosswalk, additional Rapid Rectangular
Flashing beacons, and other quick build
improvements
Road safety enhancements around
10 SMMUSD Santa Monica
schools
Four locations
complete,
remaining six
locations in
design
Completed safety improvements at four SMMUSD
school sites. The remaining six sites are in design.

The improvements include curb extensions,
crosswalk and ramp upgrades, enhancements to
existing bicycle facilities, pick-up/drop-off circulation improvements, and new school signage.

Pedestrian crossing improvements
at Olympic Boulevard and 26th
Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Protected bicycle facility on
Broadway from 5th Street to 26th
Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Pedestrian safety improvements on
Pico Boulevard between 16th
Street and Cloverfield Boulevard
Funding
secured for
construction
Construction scheduled to start by Spring 2022
Safety study of eastern section of
Pico Boulevard with quick build
safety enhancements
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for community engagement and
safety evaluation in 2022

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1849 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5
A large proportion of the projects identified in 2016 are in the process of being implemented or are complete. This LRSP will enable the City to refresh the safety data and continue advancing successful transportation safety projects.

Vision Zero Campaign
As part of the ongoing commitment to safety, the Vision Zero program also includes an outreach and education campaign called Take the Friendly Road. The campaign aims to increase traffic safety awareness, improve driving behavior, and highlight capital interventions. The campaign was amplified by participation from local community partners including schools, neighborhood associations, business districts, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, Santa Monica Spoke, and Adopt-a-Walk. These efforts resulted in:
 The campaign had over 16 million impressions generated by utilizing digital and traditional media, including advertisements on the Big Blue Bus and Metro buses and Expo trains, banners posted on light poles along Wilshire Boulevard, messages hung on local park and construction site fencing, messages on the digital overhead signage located in the downtown and beach areas, and social media.
 In partnership with the Safe Routes to School program, over 1,700 lawn signs were distributed to allow people to show their support for road safety while reinforcing a key campaign message: slow down.
 Stop, look, wave stencils were added to crosswalks to remind pedestrians to be vigilant at the ten priority intersections where fatal and severe injury crashes were most prevalent between 2006-2016.
 Placement of the campaign logo on all City-issued parking hangtags provided a reminder to drivers to look out for vulnerable road users.
 Staff developed an online community feedback map that received over 900 comments from the community. The public input was used to inform the LRSP evaluation and give a nuanced, community-informed understanding of the transportation safety issues impacting the city.

The Take the Friendly Road campaign will continue to be the public facing communication point for the public to learn about capital projects or other safety related initiatives from the City.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1850 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6

DATA SUMMARY
Data Sources
The Santa Monica Local Road Safety Plan(LRSP) analysis looks at crashesin Santa Monica from 2015-2019, excluding those that involvedproperty damage only. California Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System (SWITRS) data for 2015-2018 was acquired via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by SafeTREC at UC Berkeley and is used for 2015-2018 crash data. At the time of the analysis, crash data from 2019 was provisional, meaning it could still be amended. Therefore, 2019 data was acquired from the City of Santa Monica’s Crossroads crash database. The 2015-2018 data sourced from TIMS includes geographic information for96% of all reported crashes. The remaining 4% could not be mapped. The 2019 data from Crossroads includes geographic information for 92% of all reported crashes, with the other 8% unmapped.

The analysis includes only those crashes that occurred on streets under the City’s jurisdiction, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), which is under Caltrans jurisdiction. PCH was included because the City provides enforcement and some regulatory authority on a portion of the highway. Crashes that took place at the intersection of a street under the City’s jurisdiction with a ramp leading to or from U.S. 10 or PCH are also included.

Overall Crash Trends
This section examines where, when, and why most crashes occur, includingpatterns specific to serious injury or fatality crashes.As part of prior safety planning efforts using crashdata from 2006 to 2017, the City identified priority road segments and intersections for safety improvements. Santa Monicahas made great progress investigating the locations identified. For the majority of locations, the City has either installed new safety enhancements, obtained grant funding to advance safety projects, orput in place a planto enhance safety improvements with local resources. Some examples of this work include the new protected bikeway installed on Ocean Avenue; the recently completed Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study, which identifies safety improvement for four priority intersections; and grant funding obtained to install bicyclistand pedestrian crossing improvements at 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard to improve connections to the Metro E (Expo) Light Rail Station. TheLRSP builds upon this foundational work by refreshing the City’s crashanalysis with the newest available data and identifying the next phase of locations to focus education, planning, and engineering resources on.

To identify high-crash locations, crashes are weighted according to their severity. The weighting is based on crash cost estimates from Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual.

Figure 3 Crash Severity Weighting
Crash Type Crash Cost Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury $1,590,000 22
Other Visible Injury $142,300 2
Complaint of Pain $80,900 1
From 2015-2019, there were 2,334 crashes on Santa Monica’s local streets. The greatest number, 500, occurred in 2015. After a decrease in 2016, the number of crashes has gradually trended up again. This is largely due to variation in the number of crashes involving motor vehicles only, as

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1851 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7
the number of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclistsis fairly consistent year after year. The widespread use of scooters, including the introduction of a system of shared scooters in the fall of 2018, also accounted for a greater number of crashes in the last two years of the study period.

According to a detailed examination of crash records (see below), scooters were involved in 60 and 58 crashes in 2018 and 2019, respectively, after being involved in few crashes the previous three years.

As stated before, this LRSP uses TIMS data for 2015-2018 and Crossroads data for 2019.

However, in response to concerns that scooter crashes were not fully reflected in TIMS data, and were sometimes miscoded in Crossroads, City staff performed a detailed analysis of 2015-2019 Crossroads data to identify a more complete set of scooter crashes.They found a substantially higher number of scooter crashes than were tabulated in the baseline estimate shown in Figure 2.

The more refined estimates for 2015-2019 Crossroads data are as follows:
 2015 and 2016: one crash involving a scooter per year; one fatalityor severe injury  2017: seven scooter crashes
 2018: 60 scooter crashes; four fatalities or severe injuries  2019: 58 scooter crashes; eight fatalities or severe injuries Figure 4shows crashes by mode and year from the TIMS data, as that is the primary data source used in this report.Given the findings above, however, it should be noted that scooter crashes in Figure 4and throughout this LRSP are underreported.

Figure 4 Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdictionby Year and Mode 339
270
283
301
286
94 82
82 86
73 67
78 90 79
82 5
37 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Injury Crashes
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle Only

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1852 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8
There were 125 fatal and severe injury (FSI) crashes during the 2015-2019 timeframe.Of the five years included in the analysis,2019 saw the highest number of fatal and severe crashes. While fatalities in 2019 were not the highest of any year analyzed, severe injury crashesin 2019 were double those in 2015. Some of this difference may be due to the use of a different data source for 2019(Crossroads instead of TIMS)than for the other years.See Figure 5.

Figure 5 Fatal and Severe Crashes by Year
Figure 6provides a map of all crashes in the city from 2015-2019.For visual clarity, only points representing fatal or severe injury crashes are shown. Crashes are concentrated in downtown Santa Monica—which is bounded by Wilshire Boulevard on the north, Ocean Avenue on the west, Colorado Avenue on the south, and Lincoln Boulevard on the east—and on major east-west arterials, such as Wilshire Boulevard.
2 4
6 3
17 20
21 18
34 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal Severe

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1853 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Figure 6 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1854 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10
Crashes By Mode and Severity
Figure 7 illustrates the severity of crashes by mode.As noted in the previous section, there are discrepancies between TIMS data (used for 2015-2018 data reportingthroughout this LRSP) and Crossroadsdata (used for 2019) with regard to how crashesinvolving scooters are reported. As such, Figure 7 underrepresents the proportion of fatal or severe injury crashes involving scooters.

Figure 7 Severity of Crashes by Mode
Pedestriansare more likely to be involved in a fatal or severe injury crash than any other mode.

While 17% of all crashes involve a pedestrian, they comprise 42% of fatal or severe injury crashes.

Similarly, bicyclists are involved in 18% of all crashes but account for 20% of fatal or severe injury crashes. People riding scooters represent a small portion of total crashes, 2%, but comprise4% of fatal or severe injury crashes. Figure 8 provides a detailed breakdown of the frequency and severity of crashes by mode.
3 40
547
889
1 24
265
127
5 28
9 11
41 192
152
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Percent of Crashes
Motor Vehicle Only Bicycle Scooter Pedestrian

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1855 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11
Figure 8 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Mode
Mode Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Total by
Mode
Percent
FSI
Percent
of all
Crashes
Percent
of FSI
Crashes
Motor Vehicle
Only
3 40 547 889 1,479 3% 63% 34%
Bicycle 1 24 265 127 417 6% 18% 20%
Scooter 0 5 28 9 42 12% 2% 4%
Pedestrian 11 41 192 152 396 13% 17% 42%
Total by Injury
Severity
15 110 1,032 1,177 2,334
Crash Characteristics
The most reportedfatal and severe crash type is vehicle/pedestrian. The second most common is broadside (vehicle/vehicle). Thirty-six fatal or severe crashes did not specify a crash type. Staff reviewed reports for these crashes and were able to determine the crashtype for all but four of them. Figure 9provides a summary of crash type of fatal and severe collisions. Eleven remain in the “other” category. Six of these involve a person riding a motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle losing control of their vehicle; two involve a bicyclist hit by the opening door of a parked car.

Figure 9 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Collisions
The five most common violations cited in fatal and severe injury crashes were pedestrian violation, in which the person walking commits the violation; unsafe speed; improper turning (related to a prohibited turning movement or required signal); pedestrian right-of-way violation, in which the person walking has the right-of-way; and automobile right-of-wayviolation, in which an automobile’s right-of-wayis violated. These top five categories encompassed82 fatal and 48 28
11 9 8 8 6 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1856 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12
severe injury crashes, about 66% of all fatal and severe injury crashes, and are summarizedin Figure 10.

Figure 10 Top Five Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Crashes Priority Network
The Priority Network was establishedto identify where to prioritize transportation safety resources.The Priority Network represents the top 50% of crashes weighted by severity.To identify segments to include on thePriorityNetwork, the city’s streets were dividedinto half-mile segments,and the total severity-weighted value of crashes on each half-mile segment was summed. The street segment list wasthen sorted from highest value to lowest. Half-mile street segments were added to the Priority Network until 50% of the total weighted values of all crashes in Santa Monica during the 2015-2019 period was reached. For the 2015-2019 period, the citywide weighted crash value was 10,281. Therefore, the top half-mile segments that cumulatively comprise a weighted value of 5,141 (10,281divided by two)represent the Priority Network.

Crashes at intersections are includedin each half-mile segment of the network. Therefore, it should not be assumed that crashes are evenly distributed over the extents of a segmentincluded in the Priority Network. Rather, crashes may be concentrated at intersections or specific points within the segment and addressing crash patterns atthose locations may remove the street segment from the Priority Network.

In summary, the Priority Network identifies the street segments that represent the highest concentration of crashes weighted by severity. As shown in Figure 11, the Priority Network makes up 14% of Santa Monica’s centerline miles but accounts for over 50% of the city’s crashes weighted by severity.
21 17
16 15
13 0
5 10
15 20
25 Pedestrian
Violation
Unsafe Speed Improper
Turning
Pedestrian Right
of Way
Automobile
Right of Way
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1857 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13
Figure 11 Priority Network with Pacific Coast Highway Included, 2015-2019

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1858 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14
Top Intersection Locations
In addition to identifying thePriorityNetwork of roadway segments, the top intersection locations in terms of crash rates were mapped to identifywhich intersections would benefit most from safety enhancements.The maps and tables in Figure 12through Figure 19show the intersections with the highest weighted crash rates. To assist with identifyingappropriate safety countermeasures, intersections are divided into two categories: signalized and unsignalized.

Within those two categories, the maps and figures include details on the intersections with the highest overall crash rates, with the highest rates of crashes taking place after dark, and with the highest rate of crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, or people riding scooters(referred to as “active modes” in the tables on the following pages). Many intersections are high ranking in more than one type of crash;this is indicated on the maps and in the tables.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1859 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 15
Signalized Intersections
Figure 12 Top Crash Locations: Signalized intersections, 2015-2019

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1860 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16
Figure 13 Top Signalized Intersections Overall
IntersectionName
Total Crash
Weight Total Crashes
Total Fatal
and Severe
Crashes
Top Ten for
Active
Modes?
Top Ten After
Dark?
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 63 13 2 Yes Yes
Pico Blvd and 4th St 63 15 2 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 26th St 48 4 2 Yes Yes
Santa Monica Blvd and
6th St
48 5 2 Yes Yes
Olympic Blvd and 26th St 44 2 2 No Yes
Lincoln Blvd and Olympic
Blvd
43 17 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and
20th St
40 15 1 Yes No
Colorado Ave and 4th St 38 13 1 Yes No
Pico Blvd and Neilson
Way
37 11 1 No No
Ocean Park Blvd and
11th St
35 10 1 Yes No
Olympic Blvd and 4th St 35 28 0 No No

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1861 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17
Figure 14 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)
IntersectionName
Total
Active
Mode
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Active
Mode
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Active
Mode
Crashes
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
After
Dark?
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 59 13 11 2 Yes Yes
Pico Blvd and 4th St 49 15 5 2 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 26th St 48 4 4 2 Yes Yes
Ocean Park Blvd and 11th
St
31 10 7 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and
20th St
30 15 6 1 Yes No
Lincoln Blvd and Olympic
Blvd
29 17 5 1 Yes No
Colorado Ave and Stewart
St
28 4 4 1 No No
Colorado Ave and 4th St 27 13 4 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and
6th St
26 5 4 1 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 5th St 26 5 3 1 No Yes
Wilshire Blvd and 4th St 26 8 3 1 No No
Santa Monica Blvd and
26th St
26 7 3 1 No Yes
Pico Blvd and Main St 26 8 4 1 No No
Olympic Blvd and
Cloverfield Blvd
26 4 3 1 No Yes
Ocean Park Blvd and 28th
St
26 5 4 1 No No

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1862 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18
Figure 15 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Taking Place After Dark IntersectionName
Total After
Dark
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Crashes
After
Dark
Fatal and
Severe
Crashes
After Dark
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
for Active
Modes?
Olympic Blvd and 26th St 44 2 2 2 Yes No
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 31 13 6 1 Yes Yes
Pico Blvd and 4th St 25 15 4 1 Yes Yes
Santa Monica Blvd and 6th St 25 5 3 1 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 5th St 24 5 2 1 No Yes
Santa Monica Blvd and 26th St 23 7 2 1 No Yes
Wilshire Blvd and 6th St 23 3 2 1 No No
Broadway and 20th St 23 6 2 1 No No
Arizona Ave and 26th St 22 4 1 1 Yes Yes
Olympic Blvd and Cloverfield
Blvd
22 4 1 1 No Yes
California Incline and Pacific
Coast Highway
22 2 1 1 No No

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1863 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 19
Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 16 Top Crash Locations: Unsignalized intersections, 2015-2019

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1864 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 20
Figure 17 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Overall IntersectionName
Total
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Crashes
Top Ten
for Active
Modes?
Top Ten
After
Dark?
Montana Ave and Stanford St 45 3 2 No No
Ocean Park Blvd and 16th St 43 15 1 No No
Airport Ave and Dewey St and 23rd St 36 9 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and 18th St 35 9 1 Yes No
Hill St and 23d St 32 8 1 No No
Santa Monica Blvd and 15th St 31 8 1 No No
Santa Monica Blvd and 16th St 30 7 1 No Yes
Montana Ave and 15th St 29 5 1 Yes Yes
Main St and Strand St 29 7 1 Yes No
Wilshire Blvd and 18th St 29 6 1 No Yes
Figure 18 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)
Intersection
Name
Total Active
Mode Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Active Mode
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Active Mode
Crashes
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
After Dark?
California Ave
and 6th St
46 2 3 1 No Yes
Airport Ave
and Dewey St
and 23rd St
36 9 9 1 Yes No
Montana Ave
and 15th St
28 5 4 1 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave
and 23rd St
26 5 4 1 No No
Santa Monica
Blvd and 18th
St
25 9 3 1 Yes No
Montana Ave
and 19th St
24 2 2 1 No Yes
Pico Blvd and
3rd St
24 3 2 1 No Yes
Navy St and
23rd St
24 2 2 1 No No

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1865 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21
Intersection
Name
Total Active
Mode Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Active Mode
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Active Mode
Crashes
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
After Dark?
Montana Ave
and 16th St
24 4 3 1 No Yes
Main St and
Strand St
24 7 2 1 Yes No
Hill St and 7th
St
24 2 2 1 No Yes
Figure 19 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Taking Place After Dark IntersectionName
Total After
Dark
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Crashes
After Dark
Fatal and
Severe
Crashes
After Dark
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
for Active
Modes?
Montana Ave and 15th St 26 5 3 1 Yes Yes
Montana Ave and 16th St 25 4 4 1 No Yes
California Ave and 14th St 24 3 2 1 No No
Hill St and Lincoln Blvd 23 6 2 1 No No
Montana Ave and 19th St 22 2 1 1 No Yes
Adelaide Dr and 4th St 22 1 1 1 No No
Pico Blvd and 3rd St 22 3 1 1 No Yes
Pico Blvd and 9th St 22 2 1 1 No No
Raymond Ave and Lincoln
Blvd
22 1 1 1 No No
Beach St and 2nd St 22 1 1 1 No No
Wilshire Blvd and 18th St 22 6 1 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and 16th
St
22 7 1 1 Yes No
California Ave and 6th St 22 2 1 1 No Yes
Hill St and 7th St 22 2 1 1 No Yes
Environmental Characteristics
This section looks at characteristics of the environment in which crashes take place, including time of day and day of week, lighting conditions, proximity to parks and schools, and the speed and traffic volumes of the primary roadway.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1866 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22
Time and Day
Overall, crashes in Santa Monica are concentrated in the afternoonand early evening on weekdays (Figure 20), withthe highest concentration of crashes occurring on Tuesdays from 3 p.m.-6 p.m. Fatal and severe crashes do not show as strong of a pattern but also occur most frequently during the 3 p.m.-6 p.m. time period (Figure 21).

Figure 20 Time of Day and Day of Week ofAll Crashes
Time of Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Grand
Total
12 a.m. - 3 a.m. 14 1 5 6 13 13 18 70
3 a.m. - 6 a.m. 5 7 6 3 5 8 6 40
6 a.m. - 9 a.m. 56 56 49 46 38 26 17 288
9 a.m. - 12 p.m. 64 69 68 59 54 51 44 409
12 p.m. - 3 p.m. 65 85 63 79 77 72 51 492
3 p.m. - 6 p.m. 74 82 79 81 64 58 64 502
6 p.m. - 9 p.m. 51 43 58 61 52 50 51 366
9 p.m. - 12 a.m. 22 17 22 21 27 33 25 167
Grand Total 351 360 350 356 330 311 276 2334

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1867 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23
Figure 21 Time of Day and Day of Week of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes Time of Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Grand
Total
12 a.m. - 3 a.m. 4 2 1 6 13
3 a.m. - 6 a.m. 2 2 1 1 1 7
6 a.m. - 9 a.m. 5 2 1 1 9
9 a.m. - 12 p.m. 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 12
12 p.m. - 3 p.m. 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 18
3 p.m. - 6 p.m. 3 9 4 3 3 2 8 32
6 p.m. - 9 p.m. 3 1 1 4 4 3 4 20
9 p.m. - 12 a.m. 2 1 2 5 2 2 14
Grand Total 24 20 13 18 16 11 23 125
Lighting Conditions
As shown in Figure 22, the majority of crashes in Santa Monica take place during daylight hours.

About 22% of all crashes take place after dark.Fatal and severe crashes are much more likely to take place after dark, with 75% of fatal and 34% of severe crashes occurring in dark conditions with streetlights present.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1868 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24
Figure 22 Lighting Conditions by Severity of Crash
Parks and Schools
Sixty-nine percentof all crashes in Santa Monica took place withina quarter-mile of a schooland 62% took place withinquarter-mile of a park, though there is no discernable difference in crash rate of pedestrian or bicyclist-involvedcrashes near parks and schools compared to the city as a whole.

Roadway Characteristics
Posted or Prima FacieSpeed
Figure 23 and Figure 24provide insight into the types of crashes occurring on roads with different speed limits.
 Streetswith a speed limit of 25 mph—either posted or prima faciewithin a residence or business district—make up 48% of centerline miles, 35% of total crashes,and 34% of fatal and severe crashes. Approximately 5% of crashes occurring on these streets result in fatal or severe injuries.
 Streetswith a posted speed limit of 30 mph make up 13% of the centerline miles, 43% of total crashes, and 39% of fatal and severe crashes. Approximately 5%of crashes occurring on these streets result in fatal or severe injuries.
 Streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph make up only 3% of centerline milesbut are the site of 15% of all crashes and 9% of fatal and severe crashes. Approximately 3% of crashes occurring on these streets result in fatal or severe injuries.  Posted speed of 40 mph are found only on Olympic Boulevard. Olympic Boulevard makes up 1% of centerline miles, 2% of all crashes, and 2% of fatal and severe injury crashes.

Approximately 5% of crashes occurring on this street result in fatalor severe injuries.  Posted speeds of 45 mph are found only on PCH. PCH makes up 1% of street milage, 4% of total crashes, and 14% of fatal and severe crashes.Approximately 18% of crashes occurring on PCH result in fatal or severe injuries.

For a map of posted speeds and crash locations in Santa Monica seeFigure 25. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Daylight
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Dark - No Street Lights
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Not Stated
Total Crashes
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1869 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25
Figure 23 Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway Figure 24 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Postedor Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway Posted
Speed Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complain
t of Pain
Total
Crashes
Percent
of Total
Crashes
Percent of
FSI Crashes
Percent of
Street
Miles
Less than
25 mph
(includes
alleys)
1 1 5 5 12 1% 2% 33%
25 mph 2 40 390 392 824 35% 34% 48%
30 mph 3 46 431 532 1,012 43% 39% 13%
35 mph 3 8 144 188 343 15% 9% 3%
40 mph 1 1 19 19 40 2% 2% 1%
45 mph 4 14 42 40 100 4% 14% 1%
Total
Crashes by
Severity
15 110 1,032 1,177 2,334
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
45 mph
Posted or Prima Facie Speed
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1870 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 202
2 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26
Figure 25 Posted Speeds and Crash Locations Weighted by Severity Crashes on I-10, which has a speed limit of 65 mph, are not included in this analysis.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1871 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27
Average Annual Daily Traffic
Figure 26provides data on crashes by theAverage Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)of streets where they occurred. Higher volume streets tend to experience a greater level of crashes. Given the functionalclassification and characteristic of thesehigher volume roads, special attention will need to be given to safety countermeasures. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data is not available for every street in Santa Monica. Data from a 2013 speed and traffic survey conducted by the City and 2019 data purchased from a third-party data source, Streetlight, covers most arterials and collectors and many local streets. Streets in the “No Data” category are typically smaller neighborhood streetswith low daily traffic.

Figure 26 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by AADT of Primary Roadway AADT Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complai
nt of
Pain
Total
Crashes
Percent
of Total
Crashes
Percent
of FSI
Crashes
Percent
of Street
Miles
< 5k 3 48 39 90 4% 2% 5%
5k - 10k 1 9 70 71 151 6% 8% 5%
10k - 20k 35 317 323 675 29% 28% 8%
20k - 30k 5 25 276 338 644 28% 24% 5%
> 30k 6 18 118 173 315 13% 19% 1%
No Data 3 20 203 233 459 20% 18% 76%
Figure 27 Injury Level as Percent of Total by AADT of Primary Roadway 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
< 5k
5k - 10k
10k - 20k
20k - 30k
> 30k
No Data
AADT of Primary Roadway
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1872 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 202
2 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28
Figure 28 Traffic Volumes and Weighted Crash Locations

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1873 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29
Involved Parties
This section looks at the age and reported race and ethnicity of people who were involved in crashes in Santa Monica. The age and race or ethnicity informationfrom crash reports is compared to the distribution of Santa Monica’s population across age and racial/ethnic categories from the 2019 5-year estimates of the U.S. Census American Community Survey.Age and race data are also broken down by mode and injury level.

Age Distribution
The 18-24 age group is overrepresented in crashes. People in this age group are involved in about 16% of all crashes, but make up only 6% of Santa Monica’s population (see Figure 29). The age distribution of pedestriansand bicyclists is similar to that for all parties(Figure 30 and Figure 31). Additionally, a high proportion of pedestrians who were killed or severely injured were age 65 and over (see Figure 32).

Figure 29 Age Distribution of All Parties Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-64 Over 65
Percent of Total
Parties Involved in Crash Santa Monica Population

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1874 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30
Figure 30 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population
Figure 31 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Compared to 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-64 Over 65
Percent of Total
Parties Involved in Crash Santa Monica Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-64 Over 65
Percent of Total
Parties Involved in Crash Santa Monica Population

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1875 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31
Figure 32 Age of Killed and Severely Injured Victims by Mode Race and Ethnicity
The race and ethnicity of people involved in crashes is reported by the officer who files the report.

This information is not available for the 2019 crash data used in this analysis. The racial and ethnic categories reported for crashes do not align exactly with those used by the U.S.Census, but the percent of total involved parties and percent of total Santa Monica population for comparable categories are shown side by side in Figure 33 and Figure 34to allow for an assessment of whether some demographics are affected by traffic crashes at a disproportionate rate. The data suggest that Black and Hispanic or Latino community members are more likely to be involved in crashes while walking and bicycling, as compared to their share of the overall population in Santa Monica.

Race and ethnicity data is not available at the victim level, meaning there is no specific indication of injury level by race. However, pedestriansand bicyclists are typically the most severely injured parties in crashes with motor vehicles. Figure 35 shows the race and ethnicity of pedestriansand bicyclists who are involved in fatal and severe crashes. Hispanic or Latino people and those whose race was categorized as “other” appear to be disproportionately involved in fatal and severe crashes while walking and bicycling.
1 1 3
2 2
4 9
8 4
11 1
12 6
8 12
3 3
1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
Passenger
Driver
Under 18
18 to 24
25 to 39
40 to 64
65 and above
Unknown

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1876 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 32
Figure 33 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018 Figure 34 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Asian Black Hispanic or Latino White Other
Percent of Total
Pedestrian Santa Monica Total Population
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Asian Black Hispanic or Latino White Other
Percent of Total
Bicyclist Santa Monica Total Population

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1877 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 33
Figure 35 Reported Race of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved in Fatal and Severe Crashes Compared to Santa Monica Population, 2015-2018
Movement Preceding Crash
This section describes the most common combinations of actions that preceded crashesinvolving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.

Pedestrians
Figure 36 All Crashes Involving Pedestrians
Pedestrian Action
(below) | Driver
Action (right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right
Turn
Backing Entering
Traffic
Other Grand
Total
Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection
78 92 41 2 1 7 221
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk
35 4 2 7 1 2 51
In Road, Including
Shoulder
32 7 4 7 5 5 60
Not in Road 13 1 1 3 3 6 27
Crossing in
Crosswalk Not at
Intersection
11 1 1 2 15
Not Stated 9 4 4 1 4 22
Grand Total 178 109 52 20 11 26 396
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Asian Black Hispanic or Latino White Other
Percent of Total
Fatal and Severe Injury Santa Monica Total Population

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1878 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 34
Figure 37 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Pedestrians Pedestrian Action
(below) | Driver Action
(right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right Turn Backing
Entering
Traffic Other
Grand
Total
Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection 16 7 3 1 27
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk 8 1 9
In Road, Including
Shoulder 6 1 2 9
Not in Road 1 1 1 3
Crossing in Crosswalk
Not at Intersection 2 2
Not Stated 1 1 2
Grand Total 34 8 4 2 2 2 52
Top Crash Movements for Pedestrians
The below crash types represent 71% of fatal and severe crashes involving pedestrians. Overall, half of fatal and severe crashes involving pedestrians take place at intersections, and half do not.  Pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at intersection/Driver proceeding straight − 20% of all pedestrian crashes
− 31% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes, most (69%) take place at an unsignalized intersection
− 20% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury  Pedestrian crossing not in crosswalk/Driver proceeding straight − 9% of all pedestriancrashes
− 15% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes, all take place between intersections − 23% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury  Pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at intersection/Driver making left turn − 23% of all pedestriancrashes
− 13% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes, most (71%) take place at signalized intersections
− 8% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury  Pedestrian in road/Driver proceeding straight
− 8% of all pedestrian crashes
− 12% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes,alltake place between intersections − 19% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1879 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 35
Bicyclists
Figure 38 All Crashes Involving Bicyclists
Bicyclist Action
(below) | Driver
Action (right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right Turn Parked Stopped Other
Grand
Total
Proceeding
Straight 93 74 52 31 12 75 332
Traveling Wrong
Way 5 1 11 0 17
Making Left Turn 8 1 5 14
Entering Traffic 7 1 2 0 10
Other Unsafe
Turning 7 4 11
Other 21 4 0 0 5 12 42
Grand Total 141 81 65 26 17 96 426
Figure 39 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Bicyclists Bicyclist Action (below)
| Driver Action (right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right Turn Parked Other Grand Total
Proceeding Straight 7 5 1 3 6 21
Making Left Turn 1 1 0 2
Other Unsafe Turning 1 0 1
Passing Other Vehicle 1 1
Stopped In Road 1 1
Other 1 0 1
Grand Total 10 6 1 2 6 26
Top Crash Movements for Bicyclists
The below crash types represent 58% of fatal and severe crashes involving bicyclists. Fatal and severe crashes involving bicyclists are distributed evenly between signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and between intersections.
 Bicyclist proceeding straight/Driver proceeding straight − 22% of all bicyclist crashes
− 27% of fatal and severe bicyclist crashes (3 broadsides, 1 sideswipe, 2 “other”) − 7% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury  Bicyclist proceeding straight/Driver making left turn − 17% of all bicyclist crashes
− 19% of fatal and severe bicyclist crashes, with most (80%) at signalized intersections

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1880 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 36
− 7% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury  Bicyclist proceeding straight/Parked car
− 7% of all bicyclist crashes
− 12% of fatal and severe bicyclist crashes
− 10% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Motor Vehicle Only
Top Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Movements for Motor Vehicle Only The below crash types represent 53% of fatal and severe injury crashes that involve motor vehicles only. Over half (58%) of these crashes take place between intersections, while only 13% take place at signalized intersections.
 Driver 1 proceeding straight/Driver 2making left turn − 25% of fatal and severe motor vehicleonly crashes
 Both drivers proceeding straight
− 15% of fatal and severe motor vehicleonly crashes, most (71%) take place at unsignalized intersections
 Other unsafe turning
− 13% of fatal and severe motor vehicleonly crashes
Equity
Reported information about the race and ethnicity of people involved in crashes has several drawbacks, as described above. The disproportionate impact of traffic crashes in Santa Monica can also be examined geographically. Much of the Priority Network is located in areas of the city that have the greatest concentrations of residents of color (Figure 40). People of color are defined as anyone who identifies as a race other than white or as Hispanic or Latino in the U.S. Census American Community Survey. In Santa Monica, the census block groups with the highest proportions of people of color are along the I-10 corridor and Pico Boulevard. Segments on the Priority Network are found on streets that pass through these census blocks, including Olympic Boulevard, Broadway, Santa Monica Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pico Boulevard, 4th Street, Main Street, and Ocean Avenue.

CalEnviroScreenprovides another tool for looking at equity, specifically in the area of environmental justice. CalEnviroScreen is a mapthat combines environmental, health, and socioeconomic factors to identify places in the state that are most affected by pollution. Figure 41 shows the Priority Network over CalEnvironScreen 4.0 Draft scores by census tract. Higher scoring areas bear the greatest pollution burden. High-scoring tracts in Santa Monica are the same areas of the city that have the greatest proportion of residents of color.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1881 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 202
2 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 37
Figure 40 The Priority Network and People of Color by Census Block Group

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1882 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 202
2 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 38
Figure 41 The Priority Network and CalEnviroScreen Scores

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1883 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 39

PRIORITIZING ACTIONS
Priority Candidate Locations
Priority locations for safety countermeasures are identified using a combination of equity and crash data. High crash intersections and street segments on the Priority Network that are located within census tracts with a high CalEnviroScreen score are the highest priority for improvement.

Each location is given a score that reflects the mean percentile of the CalEnviroScreen scores of the census tracts it falls within or borders on. When multiple locations have the same CalEnviroScreen score, the one falling within the census block group with the highest proportion of residents of color, based on U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates from 2019, is a higher priority.

Figure 42 Top Priority Network Segments by CalEnviroScreen Score Segment
CalEnviroScreen
Score
Total Collision
Weight Project in Progress
Olympic Blvd from Cloverfield Blvd
St to 28th St
87 84 Olympic Blvd & 26th St: Grant
funding obtained from LA Metro
to install pedestrian and bicyclist
improvements at intersection
Pico Blvd from 26th St to Urban
Ave
87 74 Grant funding obtained for
safety study and installation of
safety improvements for Pico
Blvd east of 28th St
Olympic Blvd from 17th St to
Cloverfield Blvd
83 95 No current project in progress
Pico Blvd from 19th St to 26th St 83 67 ATP project designed and going to construction on Pico Blvd
near Santa Monica College and
Virginia Avenue Park

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1884 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 40
Figure 43 Top Ten Signalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score Intersection
CalEnviroScreen
Score
Total Crash
Weight Top Crash Types
Olympic Blvd and 26th St 87 44  All
 Night
Olympic Blvd and Cloverfield
Blvd
87 28  Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
 Night
Colorado Ave and Stewart St 78 28  Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Lincoln Blvd and Olympic Blvd 78 43  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Olympic Blvd and 4th St 77 35  All
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 77 63  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
 Night
Santa Monica Blvd and 6th St 77 48  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
 Night
Arizona Ave and 5th St 77 2  Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
 Night
Colorado Ave and 4th St 77 38  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Pico Blvd and 4th St 67 63  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
 Night

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1885 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 41
Figure 44 Top Ten Unsignalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score Intersection
CalEnviroScreen
Score
Total Crash
Weight Top Crash Types
Pico Blvd and 3rd St 67 25  Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved  Night
Pico Blvd and 9th St 65 23  Night
Main St and Strand St 58 29  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Santa Monica Blvd and
18th St
49 35  All
 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Santa Monica Blvd and
15th St
49 30  All
 Night
Santa Monica Blvd and
16th St
49 31  All
 Night
Beach St and 2nd St 48 22  Night
Hill St and 7th St 48 24  Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved  Night
Hill St and 23d St 46 24  All
Navy St and 23rd St 46 32  Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved Emphasis Areas: What’s next?
The emphasis areas were developed through a combination of data analysis and input from the interdepartmental Vision Zero working group. The emphasis areas provide staff a plan for how to address some of the more persistent crash types that take place in the city.

Emphasis Area: Pedestrians crossing at intersections
In Santa Monica, pedestrianswere involved in 42% of all fatal and severe injury crashes, despite beinginvolved in only 17% of all crashes. Pedestrian victims of fatal and severe injury crashes tend to be older. People in the age group of 65+ are involved in 30% of our fatal and severe injuries but are only 18% of the Santa Monica population. Pedestrians of color, specifically Hispanicor Latinopeople, are overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes (at 23% of pedestrians and only 15% of the Santa Monica population).

The most common type of fatal or severepedestrian crash involves a person crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection and a driver proceeding straight. This type of crash represents 20% of all pedestrian crashes and 31% of fatal and severe pedestrian crashes, with most (69%) occurring at unsignalized intersections.

Goals for Emphasis Area
 Conduct detailed safety evaluation of all fatal and severe injury pedestrian crashes.

Investigate at leastfive priority intersections per yearbased on the locations identified in Figure 12andFigure 16. Each crash location will be evaluated based on detailed crash records and field visits with safety partners that will determine the specific treatments for

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1886 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 42
short- and long-terminterventions and policy actions to treat the primary cause of the crashes.
 Implement recommended treatments.

Strategies for Emphasis Area
 Implement proven safety measures that will alleviate the more persistent crash-inducing conditions, including best practice treatments identified by the FHWA andCaltrans, and may include enhancements to lighting and/or improvements to lighting conditions in and around intersections.
 Implement safety strategies that eliminate conflicts, such as traffic calming, in and around high pedestrian crash intersections.
 Work with internal departments to identify and apply for safety grant funding to further advance safety projects.

Emphasis Area: Crashes involving people bicycling and using shared mobility devices
People riding bicycles and scooters are involved in 20% of all crashes but represent 24% of all fatal and severe injury crashes in Santa Monica, according to the data available from the statewide SWITRS system. Local crashdata suggests that the actual number of crashes involving people on scooters is higher, with 14 resulting in a fatality or severe injury from 2015- 2019. These crashes are undercounted in the state data due to inconsistencies in how scooter use is reported. Bicyclists involved in fatal and severe injury crashes tend to be younger adults. In 43% of fatal and severe injury bicyclist crashes the person bicycling was aged 25-39, an age group that represents only 29% of the population. Bicyclists of color, specifically Black and Hispanic or Latino people, are overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes, at 25% of involved bicyclists and only 19% of the Santa Monica population.

Goals for Emphasis Area
 Conduct detailed safety evaluation of top locations for fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists or people using shared mobility devices. Investigate five intersections per yearbased on the top locations identified in Figure 12andFigure 16. Each crash location will be evaluated based on detailed crash records and field visits with safety partners that will determine the specific treatments for short- and long-term treatments, and policy actions to treat the primary cause of the crashes.  Implement recommended treatments with a goal of implementing all safety enhancements within five years.
 Work with SMPD to ensure consistent and reliable data with a goal of more uniform data entry for scooters and other sharedmobility devices.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1887 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 43
Strategies for Emphasis Area
 Complete the planned five-year protected bicycle network as defined in the City’s Bike Action PlanAmendment (2020).
 Implement proven safety measures that will alleviate some of the more persistent conditions.
 Implement safety strategies that help manage vehicular speeds in and around intersections.
 Implement safety enhancements to create protected left turn signals at intersections with persistent left-turn-related bicycle and shared mobility involved crashes.  Include a focus on bicycle and scooter safety in traffic safety education materialswith a specific emphasis in developing materials that target the most impacted 25-39 age group.  Work with internal departments to identify and apply for safety grant funding to further advance safety enhancements.
 Work with Police and Fire to verify and analyze crash data for bicyclists and shared mobility devices.

Emphasis Area: Priority Network – Prioritized by CalEnviroScreen The LRSP identifies the roadway segments that represent the highest concentration (weighted by severity) of crashes in the city. The City will focus resources on investigating these priority segments to develop plans of action. The investigation of roadway segments will be further prioritized based on equity using CalEnviroScreen rankings.

The City is already making progress to address some roadway segments identified in the LRSP priority map. For example, staff recently completed a comprehensive safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard and are procuring a contractor to install the safety improvements identified in the plan. In progress work for priority roadway segments will be accelerated when possible and the remaining priority segments will be a priority for funding. This will allow the City to focus resources on streets with the greatest need for traffic safety improvements.

Goal for Emphasis Area
 Continue to make progress on in-progress safety projects.  Within five years, complete new detailed safety evaluation on the primary corridors in the Priority Network that are in areas of high concentration of the CalEnviroScreen. This focus area includes priority roadway segments located in Downtown Santa Monica, and Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards.

Strategies for Emphasis Area
 Identify opportunities to accelerate traffic safety projects already in progress as identified on the Priority Network.
 Work with City departments,including Police and Fire,to address safety issues on the Priority Network through education and emergency response efforts.Work with internal departments to identify and apply for funding to conduct comprehensive safety evaluations on roadway segments identified as part of the Priority Network.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1888 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 44
Emphasis Area: Speed Management
Unsafe speed is the second most common violation cited in fatal and severe crashes in the City, at 14% of the total. It is the most common violation for fatal and severe crashes involving motor vehicles only, at 28% of the total. About 5% of Unsafe Speed crashes result in a fatality or severe injury. Most fatal and severe crashes due to unsafe speeds take place on the Priority Network, including on Pacific Coast Highway. Streets under the City’s jurisdiction where unsafe speeds resulted in more than one fatality or severe injury include Pico Boulevard, Broadway, and Wilshire Boulevard. Strategies that reduce motor vehicle speeds will be a particular focus as the City conducts safety evaluations and identifies improvements for street segments on the Priority Network.

Streets with a higher posted speed are also associated with a higher rate of fatalities and severe injuries. Thirty-fivemph streets make up only 3% of street centerline miles but are the site of 15% of all crashes and 9% of fatal and severe crashes.

Goal for Emphasis Area
 Reduce the numberof crashes in which unsafe motor vehicle speeds are a factor.

Strategies for Emphasis Area
 Develop a toolkit of proven safety countermeasures that reduce motor vehicle speeds and are appropriate for streets on the Priority Network.
 Ensure speed limits are set appropriately and consistent with recent legislation (Assembly Bill No. 43).
 Coordinate withneighboring jurisdictions andlaw enforcement on an enforcement strategy for unsafe speeds on the Pacific Coast Highway.

Evaluation and Implementation
This plan represents a commitment to implement infrastructure that will save lives and improve mobility options for all.
 To measure successof the LRSP, the City will evaluate projects two years after implementation by analyzing crashpatternsand, if appropriate, speed patterns and reporting on the findings. The analysis will assess:

1. if the intervention has increased safety for vulnerable road users and

2. if additional measures need to be taken to adjust the design to further enhance safety.  The City anticipates that crashdata will be analyzed and refreshed every three years to understand where new crash patterns arise and old problems have been resolved.

Meanwhile, a project work plan that specifically identifies the goals and strategies of each priority location will also be developed and revisited every six years.  The Vision Zero Working Group will continue to meet quarterly to discuss progress on the plan goals and to review proposed design interventions.  Staff will continue to engage with neighboring cities and agencies in Los Angeles, such as Caltrans, to improve efficiencies related to roadway design and to promote traffic safety across jurisdictions.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1889 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 45
Countermeasures
The City of Santa Monica uses FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, other FHWA guidance, and Caltrans documentation to identify appropriate countermeasures for high crashlocations and common crashtypes.

4.L.c
Packet Pg. 1890 Attachment: Santa Monica 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan - Full (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 4 L. Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXTERNAL
Hello,
All licensed drivers in Santa Monica should oppose any plan that does not adequately consider severe injuries to drivers and their passengers.

The City’s own data shows severe injuries to drivers and their passengers exceed those to pedestrians and far exceed those to bicyclists (nearly 5x more in 2025).

Yet the Council’s “plans” routinely ignore this plain fact and too often make roadways even less safe for drivers.

Every resident with a drivers’ license should vote to oust those who perpetuate this dangerous farce, in every instance in which the member appears on any future ballot.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica resident
Item 4-L
May 12, 2026
Item 4-L
May 12, 2026

4.L.d
Packet Pg. 1891 Attachment: Written Comments (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) 2 Mitchell Kois
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall
Subject: In Support: 4.L

EXTERNAL
Writing only for myself, as a professional transportation planner, Planning Commissioner, and resident of Santa Monica who walks, bikes, takes the bus, and drives on our streets, I support keeping our Local Roadway Safety Plan re-adopted in order to remain eligible for grants to support safe streets projects, while an update to the plan is being worked on.

Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 4-L
May 12, 2026
Item 4-L
May 12, 2026

4.L.d
Packet Pg. 1892 Attachment: Written Comments (7703 : Adoption of Local Roadway Safety Plan) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):

John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.

City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV0239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v.

City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v.

City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158 - New Item Received. 5/8/2026

5.A
Packet Pg. 1893
2 of 2
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Administrative Services Officer Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 1894
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with legal counsel - significant exposure to litigation - Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2) – 1 case (1213 Pine Street) Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Email

5.F
Packet Pg. 1895

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1896 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE LLP
JACKSON D. McNEILL, State Bar No. 301606
[email protected]
MARCO A. ORNELAS LOPEZ, State Bar No. 343187
[email protected]
10345 W. Olympic Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: 310.746.4400
Facsimile: 310.746.4499
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner
Focus Line, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
FOCUS LINE, LLC, a California limited
liability company,
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
v.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a California
Charter City; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
Defendants and
Respondents.

Case No.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDATE (CCP, § 1085), AND

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983,
U.S. Const., amend. XIV) and
DECLARATORY RELIEF (CCP §
1060)
DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1897 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 2

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 Petitioner and Plaintiff Focus Line, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Focus Line”) hereby alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Petitioner seeks a building permit to convert an existing, attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) into additional living space within its existing single-family residence at 1213 Pine Street in Santa Monica, California (“Property”).

2. Respondent and Defendant City of Santa Monica (“City”) does not dispute that an addition to the existing residence of the same size and configuration as the ADU is permissible and would meet all applicable development standards or that the ADU need not be preserved as an ADU.

3. Petitioner applied for a building permit, submitted code-compliant plans, passed plan check, and paid its permit fees, including permit issuance fees.

The City approved the application, collected those fees, and told Petitioner the permit was ready—only to have a senior planning official intervene at the last moment to opine that the project does not qualify as an “addition” because it involves no new physical construction.

4. Based solely on the senior planning official’s unsupported opinion, the City refused to issue the building permit. Instead, the City insists that Petitioner must first demolish the existing, lawfully permitted and fully inspected ADU structure in order to immediately rebuild the same structure from scratch, in the same location, with the same walls and dimensions before the City will recognize the structure as an “addition.”

5. Nothing in the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any other law supports this extraordinary waste of time, money, and resources.

6. This Petition asks the Court to compel the City to do what its own code already requires: issue a building permit allowing Petitioner to convert its existing ADU into additional living space for its existing single-family residence.

DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1898 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 3

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

PARTIES

7. Petitioner and Plaintiff Focus Line, LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal address in Los Angeles, California. Focus Line owns the real property located at 1213 Pine Street, Santa Monica, California 90405.

8. Respondent and Defendant City of Santa Monica is a California Charter City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The City operates and administers a Building and Safety Division responsible for issuing building permits and enforcing the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC” or “Municipal Code”), including the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition and Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1060, and Article VI of the California Constitution.

10. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394, as the City of Santa Monica is located within the County of Los Angeles.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Property and the Certificate of Occupancy.

11. The Property lies within the City’s R1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district, and the Property is improved with a single-family residence with an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”).

12. The single-family residence and attached ADU at the Property were constructed pursuant to Building Permit No. 19BLD-3695, issued on August 19, 2021.

13. On May 14, 2025, the City’s Building and Safety Division conducted a final inspection of the Property and approved the structure for occupancy. The City’s Building Official issued a Certificate of Occupancy dated June 3, 2025, confirming that the residence and attached ADU had been inspected and approved.

DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1899 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 B. The Proposed Conversion and Building Permit Application.

14. On September 16, 2025, Petitioner applied to the City for a building permit (Permit No. 25BLD-3311) to convert the attached ADU into living space constituting an addition to the primary single-family residence (the “Project”).

15. The City’s R1 zoning standards establish a maximum Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 0.45 for new construction on R1 parcels. However, section 9.07.030 and Table 9.07.030 of the City’s Municipal Code provide an enhanced FAR of 0.55 for an “existing structure with addition.” The same section and table further state this provision “[a]pplies to projects that do not result in a demolition as defined in Chapter 9.25, Demolition and Relocation.”

16. As confirmed in communications with senior staff in the City’s Community Development Department, because the Property’s single-family residence received its certificate of occupancy prior to filing the permit application for the addition, it qualified (and continues to qualify) as an “existing structure” for purposes of this provision.

17. The Project does not result in a demolition as defined in Chapter 9.25 of the City’s Municipal Code.

18. The Project complies with the 0.55 FAR standard and all other applicable development standards.

C. The City’s Initial Approval, Fee Collection, and Representations of Imminent Permit Issuance.

19. City Building and Safety Division staff reviewed Petitioner’s application for Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311 that would authorize converting the ADU into the single-family residence as an addition.

20. In late October 2025, the City advised Petitioner that the permit was ready to be issued, subject to paying permit issuance fees. On or about October 29, 2025, the City demanded, received, and accepted final permit issuance fees from Petitioner.

DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1900 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 5

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

21. The permit would have been issued but for what was described as a technical glitch with the City’s ProjectDox application, which the City uses to process certain permit applications. Prior to that technical issue, City planner Liku Abera had confirmed in writing on October 14, 2025: “I discussed the project with [City Planner] Shira [Moch] and other colleagues, and we confirmed that the change of use of the ADU into the primary home may be treated as an addition to the home.”

22. Petitioner reasonably relied on this confirmation and the City’s representations at substantial cost.

D. Senior City Staff’s Last-Minute Intervention and Refusal to Issue the Permit.

23. On the day the permit was scheduled to be issued, Acting Planning Manager Ross Fehrman intervened and blocked the issuance of Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311. Mr. Fehrman issued plan check comments asserting, among other things, that “[y]our proposed scope of work is not accurate and the work being proposed is not permitted [because] … [y]ou are not proposing a 2nd floor addition.

Instead, you are converting existing square footage that was permitted as an ADU.

Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.07.030, an increased FAR allowance is only for ‘existing structures with addition.’”

24. In a written communication dated November 13, 2025, Mr. Fehrman stated: “Although the municipal code does not have a formal definition of ‘addition,’ the additional Parcel Coverage/FAR for ‘existing structure with addition’ that came out of the 2019 R1 update was adopted with the intent that this additional living space would be through a newly constructed addition and not the conversion of existing space.”

25. In a written communication dated November 24, 2025, Community Development Director Jing Yeo likewise stated that “[f]undamentally, the issue is that what is being proposed is conversion of space as opposed to a new addition.”

26. In other words, the City’s position, as articulated by Mr. Fehrman and DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1901 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 6

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 Ms. Yeo, is that the conversion of the existing attached ADU into additional square footage of the primary residence does not qualify as an “addition” under the SMMC because it does not involve the physical alteration or new construction of the structure.

27. Instead, Mr. Fehrman stated by email on December 9, 2025, that “[t]he property owner can demolish the ADU and construct an addition to the house.” On January 29, 2026, Mr. Fehrman reiterated that “your client is still required to demolish the ADU and build a new addition if he still wants this additional space to be part of the main house. Conversion in order to achieve this expansion is not permitted.” City Community Development Director Jing Yeo reiterated this position in written communications.

28. Thus, in the City’s view, Petitioner must first demolish the existing, permitted, and fully inspected ADU and then rebuild the exact same structure, in the same location, with the same walls, size, and configuration, in order to qualify it as an “addition.” This demolition would waste resources, generate unnecessary construction waste and environmental impact, and impose an arbitrary and substantial financial penalty on Petitioner without serving any legitimate public purpose.

29. The City has never identified any specific resolution, policy document, staff report, minutes, or other record to support this interpretation of “addition.” The SMMC does not define “addition,” and no provision of the SMMC, City charter, general plan, or any other applicable law prohibits the conversion of an ADU into additional square footage of an existing residence.

E. No Administrative Hearing or Other Administrative Remedy Exists.

30. The permit application is subject to ministerial review. There was no administrative hearing required or available with respect to Permit No. 25BLD-3311, and the City’s refusal to issue Permit No. 25BLD-3311 was not subject to administrative appeal.

DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1902 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 7

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

31. Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies. Further, Petitioner, through counsel, engaged in extensive pre-litigation correspondence with City Planning staff, including Acting Planning Manager Ross Fehrman and Community Development Director Jing Yeo, seeking reconsideration of the City’s position. The City has confirmed on multiple occasions that its position remains unchanged.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Petition for Writ of Mandate (Code of Civil Procedure § 1085) (Against Respondent City of Santa Monica)

32. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

33. Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 authorizes this Court to issue a writ of mandate to compel a public agency or officer to perform an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

34. Petitioner has a beneficial interest in the issuance of Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311. The City has a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to issue a building permit when an application is submitted in compliance with applicable law and all development standards are satisfied. Here, Petitioner’s application complies with all applicable development standards, including the 0.55 FAR standard for an “existing structure with addition” that does not result in a demolition as set forth in SMMC section 9.07.030 and Table 9.07.030.

35. SMMC section 9.07.030 and Table 9.07.030 provides an enhanced 0.55 FAR standard for projects that constitute an “existing structure with addition” and do not result in a “demolition” as defined in Chapter 9.25. The Project meets both criteria: the single-family residence is an existing structure that has received its final inspection, and the Project does not result in a demolition.

36. In effect, the conversion of the attached ADU into additional square DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1903 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 8

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 footage of the primary residence takes the floor area from the now-eliminated ADU and adds that floor area to the primary residence; this constitutes an “addition” within the ordinary and common meaning of that term.

37. The term “addition” is not defined in the SMMC. No provision of the SMMC, the City’s charter, the California Building Code, or any other applicable law allows the City to require that an “addition” involve the physical alteration of a structure, or that an attached ADU be demolished before its square footage may be incorporated into the primary residence.

38. The City’s interpretation of the applicable law was arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. By not issuing the building permit, the City violated its ministerial, non-discretionary duty to do so and abused its discretion.

39. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner has been unable to obtain relief through exhaustion of available informal administrative remedies, and no administrative hearing process is available.

40. The building permit application for Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311 remains open and the permit remains capable of being issued.

41. Petitioner is therefore entitled to a writ of mandate compelling the City to process, approve, and issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief (Code of Civil Procedure § 1060)
(Against Respondent City of Santa Monica)

42. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

43. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Petitioner and the City concerning: (a) whether the conversion of the existing attached ADU into additional square footage of the primary residence at the Property constitutes an “addition” within the meaning of SMMC section 9.07.030 and Table 9.07.030; and (b) DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1904 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 9

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 whether the City is obligated to issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311.

44. Petitioner contends that: (a) the conversion of the attached ADU constitutes an “addition” within the ordinary meaning of that term and within the intent of SMMC section 9.07.030 and Table 9.07.030; (b) the Project complies with the 0.55 FAR standard and all other applicable development standards; and (c) no provision of the SMMC or applicable law requires the demolition of the existing ADU as a prerequisite to issuing the permit. The City is therefore obligated to issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311.

45. The City contends that the conversion does not qualify as an “addition” under SMMC section 9.07.030 and Table 9.07.030 and that Petitioner must first demolish the ADU and then reconstruct the same structure in the same location before the 0.55 FAR standard may be applied.

46. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve this controversy and to establish the rights and obligations of the parties. Petitioner is entitled to a declaration that: (a) the conversion of the existing attached ADU into additional square footage of the primary residence constitutes an “addition” under SMMC Table 9.07.030; and (b) the City is required to issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983, U.S. Const., amend. XIV) (Against Respondent City of Santa Monica)

47. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

48. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that any person who, under color of state law, subjects any citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1905 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 10

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

49. At all relevant times, Respondent City of Santa Monica, acting through its Planning Division and Building and Safety Division, acted under color of state law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

50. At all relevant times, the City of Santa Monica, acting through its employees and representatives, constitutes a “person” for purposes of Section 1983 liability. (Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 694 (“Monell”) [“[M]unicipalities and other local government units . . . [are] among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.”]; see also Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown (1997), 520 U.S. 397, 403.)
A. Municipal Liability Under Monell.

51. A municipality is liable under § 1983 where the constitutional deprivation complained of was caused by an official policy, custom, or practice of the municipality, or where the deprivation was caused by the act or decision of an official with final policymaking authority over the subject matter involved. (Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 694 (“Monell”); Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986) 475 U.S. 469, 480–481.)

52. The constitutional deprivations alleged herein were not the unauthorized acts of low-level employees acting outside the scope of their authority.

Rather, the decision to block the issuance of Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311 and to impose the demolition-and-rebuild requirement was made, confirmed, and maintained by officials at the highest levels of the City’s planning apparatus, including Acting Planning Manager Ross Fehrman and Community Development Director Jing Yeo, with the involvement of the City Manager’s office.

53. Ms. Yeo, as the City’s chief planning official, is a final policymaker with respect to the interpretation and application of the City’s zoning ordinance, including SMMC Table 9.07.030. (See SMMC § 9.37.140 [giving the Community Development Director the power to “interpret the relevant provision of the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Ordinance” subject to confirmation by the Planning Commission].) DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1906 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 11

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 Her written communication on November 24, 2025, stating that “[f]undamentally, the issue is that what is being proposed is conversion of space as opposed to a new addition,” as well as her confirmation on March 9, 2026 that the City’s position was unchanged and would not be reconsidered, among other written and oral communications, constitute an official policy decision of the City of Santa Monica for purposes of Monell liability.

54. This decision constitutes the “moving force” behind the constitutional violation because it caused the building permit not to be issued. (See Monell, supra, 436 U.S. 658, 694; Polk County v. Dodson (1981) 454 U.S. 312, 326.) B. Substantive Due Process.

55. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits governmental action that is arbitrary, capricious, or irrational and that deprives a person of a protected property interest without substantive due process of law. The Supreme Court established nearly a century ago that zoning regulations and their application are subject to substantive due process review, and that a zoning measure, however facially neutral, may be found unconstitutional as applied to specific premises or particular conditions where it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) 272 U.S. 365, 395.) Critically, Euclid recognized that even a zoning scheme valid on its face may yield unconstitutional applications: “if ever the provisions set forth in the ordinance . . . come to be concretely applied to particular premises . . . or to particular conditions, or to be considered in connection with specific complaints, some of them, or even many of them, may be found to be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.” (Ibid.) This is precisely such a case.

56. Here, Petitioner has a cognizable and protected property interest in the development and use of its real property at 1213 Pine Street in accordance with applicable law, and in the issuance of a building permit for the conversion of the DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1907 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 12

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 ADU into an addition, to which it is entitled under the SMMC. Petitioner has a legitimate claim of entitlement to the building permit because the City lacks all discretion to deny issuance of the permit or withhold its approval. (Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 166, 183; see also Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003, 1035 [noting “series of cases … that find substantive due process violations when municipalities refuse to issue nondiscretionary building permits”].) That protected interest is further grounded in the City’s approval of Petitioner’s application, its collection of final permit issuance fees, and its repeated representations that the permit was ready to be issued and would be issued, all of which gave rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement to the permit.

57. At the same time, no cognizable public benefit under the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare is served by compelling the destruction and reconstruction of an identical structure. The City’s refusal to issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311, and its imposition of a demolition-and-rebuild requirement that has no basis in the text of the SMMC or any other applicable law, constitutes arbitrary and irrational governmental action that is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable within the meaning of Euclid.

58. Accordingly, the City’s actions occurred under the color of state law and deprived Petitioner of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.

C. Damages.

59. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s violations of Petitioner’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as alleged herein, Petitioner has suffered and continues to suffer damages including but not limited to permit and application fees paid to the City; financing and maintenance costs, property taxes and insurance premiums on the Property; costs incurred in reliance on the City’s representations that the permit would be issued; lost economic opportunity; and other economic harm in amounts to be proven at trial.

DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1908 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 13

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

60. Petitioner is further entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as the prevailing party in a civil rights action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Focus Line prays for relief as follows:

1. For a Writ of Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, compelling Respondent City of Santa Monica to process, approve, and issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311 without requiring the demolition of the existing attached ADU;

2. For a judicial declaration, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, that: (a) the conversion of the existing attached ADU at 1213 Pine Street into additional square footage of the primary residence constitutes an “addition” within the meaning of SMMC Table 9.07.030; (b) the City is required to issue Building Permit No. 25BLD-3311;

3. For a judicial declaration that the City’s interpretation and application of SMMC Table 9.07.030 to require the demolition and reconstruction of the existing attached ADU as a prerequisite to permit issuance is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare in violation of the substantive due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

4. For damages against Respondent City of Santa Monica pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Petitioner’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in amounts to be proven at trial;

5. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as the prevailing party in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1909 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 14

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

6. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit to the extent permitted by any other applicable law, including pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;

7. For all costs of suit incurred herein; and

8. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED: April 21, 2026 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN

GARTSIDE LLP
By:

JACKSON D. McNEILL
Attorneys for Plaintiff Focus Line, LLC
DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1910 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8104863 15

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN

GARTSIDE LLP
10345 W. Olympic Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

VERIFICATION
I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CCP, § 1085), AND COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983, U.S. Const., amend. XIV) and DECLARATORY RELIEF (CCP § 1060) and know its contents.

I am the Managing Member of Focus Line, LLC, the Plaintiff/Petitioner in this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 20, 2026.

Farhad Larian
Print Name of Signatory Signature
DRAFT

5.F.a
Packet Pg. 1911 Attachment: Email (7720 : 5.F. Closed Session: Pine Street) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.H
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator – Gov. Code § 54956.8: property: 200 Santa Monica Pier, Santa Monica, CA, Beach Parking Lot 1 North, Sandbox North (approximately 15,000 square feet of sand area north of the Beach Bike Path/Lot 1 North to Lifeguard Tower 14 and bordered by the beach bike on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west); City of Santa Monica; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; parties to negotiate with: LA Kings (Outdoor Game); under negotiation: price and terms of payment for license Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Administrative Services Officer Approved Forwarded to Council

5.H
Packet Pg. 1912
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Aileen Reynolds, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Policies for Boards and Commissions and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending and establishing various Boards and Commissions Resulting from the 2025 Comprehensive Review and Establishment of a Restorative Justice Commission
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance to: amend sections regarding the Public Safety Reform Oversight Commission, Arts Commission, Disabilities Commission, and Human Services Commission to establish a new Housing and Human Services Commission; add new sections converting the Urban Forest Task Force into a Commission and establish a new Restorative Justice Commission;

2. Adopt the attached resolution amending various sections on the Policies for City Boards, Commissions, Committees, Task Forces, and Regional Advisory Boards, and repealing Resolution No. 11510 (CCS);

3. Review and provide direction on information requested at the January 13, 2026 Council meeting, and an alternative option for the Disabilities Commission; and

4. Adopt a finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Executive Summary
At the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting, staff presented the Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review and made recommendations to make the program: impactful, efficient, not overly burdensome to support, aligned with available

11.A
Packet Pg. 1913
2 of 12
resources, and empower residents to contribute meaningfully. Council directed staff to effectuate the following beginning July 1, 2026:

1. Allow the: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Advisory Committee to hold their annual meetings jointly with a Council Audit Subcommittee meeting, and the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee (Clean Beaches Committee) to hold their quarterly meetings jointly with the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment (Commission on Sustainability);

2. Consolidate the Housing Commission and the Human Services Commission into a new Housing and Human Services Commission (HHS Commission), and maintain a standalone Disabilities Commission;

3. Reduce membership of the Arts Commission and Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC), and expand the age range for the two PSROC commissioners between the ages of 18-22 to “18-25”;

4. Convert the Urban Forest Task Force into a formal commission; and

5. Implement the proposed administrative changes to the general policies and procedures governing boards, commissions and task forces, and remove Sections 1.G (ineligibility of close family relatives of Council) and 2.G. Term Limits for Regional Advisory Boards.

Council also requested the following:

1. Review of the Landmarks Commission’s work, such as the Mills Act and Structures of Merit, and efficiency options;

2. Youth representation options.

3. A centralized system of measuring performance for boards & commissions through the City Clerk’s Office, such as efficiencies and positive impacts on policy; and

4. A review of the Airport Commission’s composition and potential conflict of interests;
Further, on January 27, 2026, as part of the consideration related to the Ebony Beach Club matter, the City Council directed the establishment of a new Restorative Justice

11.A
Packet Pg. 1914
3 of 12
Program to advance the development of a programmatic framework for addressing claims of historically rooted harm in Santa Monica. As part of that overarching program, among other action, the City Council approved the allocation of substantial resources to redress past harms, including:
• Allocating $3.5 million towards the Restorative Justice Program in one-time funds that have been received by the City as part of a recent deal with the RAND Corporation.
• Directing that an additional $2 million in funding that will be received by the City in the future from the RAND Corporation deal be reserved to support the Restorative Justice Program initiative.
• Authorizing the establishment of a formal City Council appointed Restorative Justice Commission to help guide the efforts of the overall program.

Per that direction from the City Council, this Boards & Commission update contemplates the establishment of a new Restorative Justice Commission that would serve as an upgrade to the former staff-developed Landback + Reparations Task Force. If approved, the Restorative Justice Commission would be tasked with developing program criteria, eligibility standards, and oversight mechanisms for the broader Restorative Justice Program.

Overall, this item proposes a resolution and ordinance implementing Council’s direction, reports back on information requested, and provides an alternative option regarding the composition of the Disabilities Commission.

Discussion
Staff followed up with specific Departments regarding their applicable board or commission on next steps. Staff Liaisons for the applicable boards and commissions informed their members of Council’s direction. Liaisons for the TOT Advisory and Clean

11.A
Packet Pg. 1915
4 of 12
Beaches Committee and will submit updated Bylaws for members’ approval and update agenda templates and webpages to reflect joint meetings after July 1, 2026.

Amendment to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
The proposed ordinance updates sections pertaining to the following Commissions with most proposals effective July 1, 2026:

Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Updates to SMMC 2.50.020 (a-d) would: 1) reduce membership from 11 members to seven in phases by dissolving two seats after June 30, 2026 and two more after June 30, 2027; and 2) change the age range for the two commissioners between the ages of 18-22 to “18-25”. Previously, it was also proposed to allow commissioners to not only reside in Santa Monica but work or go to school in the City. Upon further review, staff is withdrawing this proposal.

Human Services Commission
SMMC Chapter 2.62 would: 1) be to delete and dissolve the current Housing Commission and Human Services Commission after June 30, 2026; 2) replaced to establish a new consolidated Housing and Human Services Commission to allow the appointment of seven new members, where two members must be affordable housing participants, one of which must be 62 years of age or older and the other be unhoused or formerly unhoused; 3) incorporate Housing Commission-related powers and duties.

Arts Commission
Updates to SMMC 2.64.020(a) would reduce membership from nine members to seven after June 30, 2026. As other sections have not been updated since 1982, staff proposes additional updates to SMMC 2.64.020(b)-.040 to: 1) remove the requirement that Commissioners must also be members of the Santa Monica Arts Foundation as the Foundation’s Bylaws now only require three Commissioners in the Board and is consistent with current nonprofit governance practices and the operational independence of the Foundation; 2) add new artistic disciplines applicants and members may work in; 3) delete Section 2.64.030 as the Staff Liaison is the dedicated

11.A
Packet Pg. 1916
5 of 12
support staff to the Commission, hiring the Department Director is under the City Manager’s authority and decisions on administrative matters are under the Department Director’s authority; and 5) clarify the Commission’s role to advise on programs and include the Arts Foundation as another body the Commission works with.

Urban Forest Commission
Adding SMMC Chapter 2.73 to convert the current Urban Forest Task Force to a Commission, reappoint current members to new terms, and direct the Department to stagger terms by drawing lots to ensure future vacancies are distributed evenly over time.

Restorative Justice Commission
Adding SMMC Chapter 2.74 to create a new, seven-member Restorative Justice Commission to help advise and lead development of the Santa Monica Restorative Justice Program. This new seven (7) member commission would be appointed by the City Council. Further, to ensure informed and meaningful participation, each appointee will need to be a resident of the City of Santa Monica, and shall have subject matter expertise relevant to restorative justice, or have lived experience representing communities impacted by past and present inequities. This new Restorative Justice Commission would be charged with developing program criteria, eligibility standards, and oversight mechanisms for the City’s broader restorative justice program. This would advance healing, accountability, trust building, and equitable community outcomes by addressing past harms and historical inequities. Any recommendations, policies, programs or implementation strategies developed by the Restorative Justice Commission would be returned to the City Council for full consideration, public review, and formal policy adoption prior to implementation.

Pending approval of its second reading, the Liaisons for the applicable Commissions would prepare Bylaws for members’ approval and update agenda templates and webpages as needed.

Proposed Modification to the Composition of the Disabilities Commission

11.A
Packet Pg. 1917
6 of 12
During the January Study Session, Council confirmed keeping the Disabilities Commission as a standalone Commission from the proposed consolidated Housing and Human Services Commission. However, staff asks Council to consider aligning membership with most City bodies to seven members. Since its creation in 2002, the Commission was established as an 11-member body. In the first two Comprehensive Reviews, consolidating this body with other commissions under the Housing and Human Services Department was discussed but modifying membership was not. Of the 19 remaining City bodies, nine will have a membership of seven, seven have a membership of five, and two have a membership of 11. The other 11-member body is the Measure GS Committee that was established by ballot measure that prevents amendments, including the Committee’s membership, absent a vote of the people.

Should Council agree, staff proposes updating Chapter 2.66 to: 1) reduce membership to seven in phases by dissolving two seats after June 30, 2026 and two more after June 30, 2027; 2) adjust the number of persons with disabilities in the Commission to at least four; 3) confirm that members shall not be City employees or elected officials to align with other boards; 4) delete the section on meeting schedules to provide the flexibility for the Commission to amend their schedule through Bylaws; and 5) remove the requirement to hold annual public hearings for community input as commissions may hold public hearings at any time. As there are currently two vacancies, these seats can be removed and two more seats can be removed after June 30, 2027, when two more members complete their terms. This would allow all current members to complete terms and anticipated work.

Amendments to the Policy for City Boards and Commissions The proposed resolution updates the following sections with most proposals effective July 1, 2026:

Section 1. Appointments: 1) extends the application deadline to not less than one week prior to the Council meeting when appointments are schedule to accommodate more applicants; 2) updates the City’s current posting locations for legal notices advertising vacancies; 3) emphasizes that incomplete applications will not be considered; 4)

11.A
Packet Pg. 1918
7 of 12
clarifies that applications for consideration are provided in Council’s meeting packets; 5) adding that applicants will be invited to Council meetings to provide public comment on their qualifications and improve their chances of being appointed, and to the extent possible, a special meeting can be scheduled to accommodate Annual Appointments; and 6) deletes Subsection G. prohibiting close family relatives of Councilmembers to serve.

Section 2. Term Limits: 1) reduces the wait time for a member who served the maximum number of consecutive terms on a board or commission to serve on the same body from four years to one; and 2) deletes Subsection E that established term limits for Regional Advisory Boards.

Section 7. Annual Dinner and Report: 1) deletes direction to City Clerk to organize an Annual Dinner as the time for boards and commissions to present Annual Reports and Workplans to Council; 2) provides an alternative to gather and provide written Reports and Workplans as Information Items if Council’s meeting schedule cannot accommodate presentations; and 3) requests exceptions for the Transit Security Advisory Committee, Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism and the Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee to reduce duplicative work as the policies establishing these bodies already require them to present detailed reports at Council meetings or Information Items at different times of the year.

Section 9, Secretaries: Reference to secretaries as “Staff Liaisons” and clarifies their duties.

Section 10. Conduct of Meetings, Agendas and Minutes: adds that Staff Liaisons shall maintain up-to-date webpages and ensure that scheduled meetings are incorporated into the City’s Calendar of Events. Webpages will include meeting agendas, executed minutes, and video or audio recordings of meetings. Both public-facing locations would be updated promptly to reflect any changes, including meeting cancellations, rescheduled meetings, or special meetings.

11.A
Packet Pg. 1919
8 of 12
Section 11. Attendance: 1) deletes direction to City Clerk to provide attendance reports for a second time in December of every calendar year; 2) standardizes policy for unexcused absences and automatic vacation of a member to no more than two in a fiscal year, regardless of a body’s meeting schedule, the consecutiveness of meetings and time of year.

Section 12: Deletes and incorporates reference to annual workplan in Section 7, and renumbers subsequent sections accordingly.

Section 14. Other Trainings: renumbered as Section 13 and added trainings required by Resolution 11605 (CCS) and future mandated trainings.

Section 15. Council Liaisons: Deleted.

Section 16: Clarifies that demographics reports will be submitted in June with the Annual Appointments packet.

Section 17: Delete as it is duplicative of Section 10.

Additional Council Direction
Landmarks Commission
Review of the Commission’s work was not conducted as Council directed staff to pause the Mills Act Program Assessment and any work on Structure of Merit Designation Processing the following month at the February 10, 2026, Council meeting.

Youth Representation Options
Upon reviewing past Youth Commission Council items, a 16-item from the September 9, 2025, Council meeting directed staff to discontinue this effort as it was duplicative of

11.A
Packet Pg. 1920
9 of 12
current youth bodies, so no further work was conducted. However, City Clerk staff is reaching out to identify opportunities for boards and commissions and election outreach from active youth groups.

Evaluation of Proposed Changes
Council expressed a desire to see the effectiveness of the program changes they adopt and routed through the City Clerk’s Office. Staff reached out to municipalities with annual reporting requirements for their appointed bodies and found the City’s process to be similar but with slight variances from Redwood City and Ventura. Redwood City schedules Council meeting presentation by Staff Liaisons and/or Chairs bi-annually instead of in one meeting; and provides guidelines to align workplans with Council’s priorities and assess their plan’s benefits, required resources, metrics, etc. Ventura’s boards and commissions adopt workplans within their bodies at the beginning of a fiscal year, and report accomplishments toward the end of a calendar year via Consent Item.

The written report would allow for City Manager review and public comment, and generally be approved and filed without presentations and questions. City Clerk staff will: 1) update the Annual Evaluation and Workplan template using Redwood City’s template as a guide; and 2) provide an updated Staffing Cost for bodies with proposed efficiencies after a fiscal year.

Airport Commission
City Charter Section 1015 established the composition of the Airport Commission as five residents of the City who are not elected officers or City employees, and this is the case for the five members currently serving as Airport Commissioners. At January’s Study Session, Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) Regulation 18702.2(a)(7) on Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property was mentioned and concerns were raised over the distance of Commissioners’ residence from the Santa Monica Airport and potential conflicts of interest. This was not the first time that Airport Commissioners’ property interests have received scrutiny under state conflict of interest laws. In 2014 and 2016, separate complaints were received by the FPPC about alleged conflicts of interest by City Airport Commissioners. In both instances the City Attorney’s Office analyzed the alleged conflicts under California law and determined that the

11.A
Packet Pg. 1921
10 of 12
“Public Generally” exception in FPPC Regulation 18703 applied to the Commissioners because the material financial effect on their property interests through their participation in Commission decisions involving airport closure would be indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally. As such City Airport Commissioners were not disqualified under state conflict of interest laws by their participation in issues related to airport closure. The FPPC agreed with City Attorney’s analysis and took no action on the 2014 complaint. In 2016, after reviewing a subsequent complaint about a different Commissioner’s financial interest in their home, the FPPC determined that City Airport Commissioners are not “public officials” under state conflict of interest laws. The FPPC concluded that: “The Airport Commission is an advisory board, which makes recommendations subject to ‘significant intervening substantive review’ by multiple entities, including the Santa Monica City Council, and therefore the Airport Commissioners are not public officials making or participating in making governmental decisions in these circumstances.” The City Attorney’s Office advises that the FPPC’s analysis from 2014 and 2016 continues to apply to today’s Airport Commission and its members.

Additionally, Airport staff compared the Commission’s membership composition with those of other commissions serving other Municipal/County-Operated Airports and found the following: Napa County Airport has an eight (8) member board/commission composed of three general public members, one Napa County Airport pilots group or club member, one local chamber of commerce member, one hospitality industry member, one local education industry member, and one non-voting planning commission liaison member. Similarly, Reid-Hillview County Airport has a seven (7) member board/commission composed of three members from the aviation community and four general public members. While Livermore Municipal Airport has a five (5) member board/commission composed of City of Livermore residents. Similarly, Santa Barbara Airport utilizes a seven (7) member board structure composed of county and city residents. These examples illustrate the range of governance models used across municipal/county airports in California and provide context for evaluating the composition of the Santa Monica Airport Commission. Staff is mindful that the Santa Monica Airport is scheduled to close after December 31, 2028.

11.A
Packet Pg. 1922
11 of 12
Should the Council wish to amend Section 1015 to modify the Airport Commission’s composition or its criteria for membership, such as requiring aeronautical knowledge or experience for some or all members, this would require an amendment to the City Charter and thus a vote of the residents in Santa Monica. Alternatives to adding a measure to the upcoming election include City staff improving its outreach to aeronautical experts and the Council prioritizing aviation expertise and experience when making appointments.

Environmental Review
The proposed changes to the boards and commission program are not a “project” subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the changes do not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”. Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The changes are administrative in nature, and no action is being undertaken and therefore, are not subject to CEQA and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of these recommendations. Should Council direct staff to place a measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot amending the Airport Commission’s composition, then the cost is estimated at $ 77,225 and is included in the FY 2026-27 Approved Budget Plan.

11.A
Packet Pg. 1923
12 of 12
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay-Wisner, Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Proposed Resolution
C. Airport Commission Charter Sections (Web Link)
D. FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property E. July 9, 2002 Staff Report (Web Link)
F. September 9, 2025 Councilmember Discussion Item (Web Link) G. February 10, 2026 Councilmember Discussion Item (Web Link) H. January 13, 2026 Staff Report (Web Link)
I. Written Comments

11.A
Packet Pg. 1924
1 City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA REPEALING AND REPLACING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.62 , CREATING CHAPTERS 2.73 AND 2.74, AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 2.50, 2.64 AND

2.66, TO IMPLEMENT VARIOUS BOARD AND COMMISSION CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA 2025 COMPREHENSIVE BOARD

AND COMMISSION REVIEW
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) maintains over twenty-five volunteer bodies that have various administrative, regulatory, or review authority for the purpose of making recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, In the spring of 2025, City staff conducted the City’s Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review (“Review”) to make the administration and purpose of boards and commissions impactful, efficient, aligned with available City resources, and empowering for residents and community members to meaningfully contribute; and WHEREAS, at the Council’s January 13, 2026 regular meeting, City staff presented the Review; and
WHEREAS, the Review’s recommendations include changes, including consolidating the Housing Commission and the Human Services Commission into a new Housing and Human Services Commission, reducing membership on the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and Arts Commission, and converting the Urban Forest Task Force into a codified City Commission; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, Council established a new Restorative Justice Commission (“RJC”) to replace the current Landback + Reparations Task Force; and

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1925 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 2 WHEREAS, implementation of the Review recommendations and RJC direction requires amendments to the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

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

SECTION 1. Ordinance Number 1168 establishing a housing commission is hereby repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.50.020, Creation of Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission, is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.50.020 Creation of Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the City Charter, a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission is created. The Commission shall consist of nine eleven members and shall be appointed by the City Council. As of July 1, 2027, the Commission shall consist of seven (7) members and shall be appointed by the City Council. In addition to the requirements for appointments of commissioners set out in this Section below, the Commission and commissioners shall be subject to all the terms of Article X of the City Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of commissioners, terms, and meetings. (b) All commissioners shall:
(1) Reside in the City;
(2) Have a significant commitment to the public safety and wellbeing of the City and those who reside, work, are students or own property in the City; and (3) Have knowledge of or experience with law enforcement, public safety policies and issues, or social services policies and issues.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 3 (c) At all times, two commissioners shall be individuals who were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five twenty-two at the time of the appointment. These commissioners shall not be required to have knowledge or experience satisfying subsection (b)(3) above at the time of appointment.
(d) In addition to the eleven voting commission members, there shall be one additional ex officio non-voting commission member who shall be an individual who meets the criteria set forth in subsections (b) and (e) of this Section and is jointly recommended by the Police Chief and the SMPOA. If the Police Chief and SMPOA cannot agree on a recommendation, this ex officio position shall remain unfulfilled. (e) Persons holding any paid office or employment in the City government, including, but not limited to, sworn offices and non-sworn employees of the SMPD, shall not be eligible to serve as commissioners. Practicing attorneys who handle, or are members of firms or entities that currently handle, criminal or civil matters involving the SMPD also shall not be eligible to serve as commissioners.
(f) Within six months of appointment, each commissioner shall participate in training relevant to providing oversight of law enforcement and to the understanding of racial justice. Such training shall include participation in the SMPD Community Academy; a training session of two hours or less presented by the SMPOA that will address topics including the rights of police officers under the Police Offices Bill of Rights; and reasonable additional required training identified by the Commission, which may include programs offered by the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, the Association of Local Government Auditors, entities with experience providing racial justice training, or other similar bodies.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 4 The Commissioners initially appointed to the Commission shall have until May 31, 2022 to complete the required training. Failure to complete the required training will result in removal from the Commission.

SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.62, Human Services Commission, is hereby deleted and replaced to read as follows:

Chapter 2.62 Housing and Human Services Commission.

2.62.010 Creation of the Housing and Human Services Commission (a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the Santa Monica City Charter, a Housing and Human Services Commission is hereby established. The Commission and members shall be subject to all of the terms of Article X of the Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of members, terms, and meetings.
(b) The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members all of whom shall be residents of the City of Santa Monica. Two (2) members shall be participants in an affordable housing program, and shall each serve two-year terms. The remaining five (5) members shall each serve four-year terms. One (1) affordable program participant must also be at least 62 years old and one (1) affordable housing program participant must be unhoused or formerly unhoused. No member shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government.

2.62.020 Powers and duties of the Commission
The Commission shall act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the production and preservation of affordable housing and to the social, economic, and wellness needs of vulnerable community members, including, but not limited to, marginalized populations, low-income households, older adults, youth and

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1928 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 5 families, the LGBTQ community, women and girls (including transgender women and girls), people of color, and people experiencing homelessness. The Commission shall encourage the full participation of the Santa Monica community in shaping the City’s future and shall demonstrate a commitment to fairness, equity, social justice, and democracy.

Specifically, the Commission’s powers and duties are as follows:
(a) Recommend to the City Council policies, programs, and projects that guide and advance the provision, production, and preservation of affordable housing in Santa Monica.
(b) Recommend to the City Council specific housing and human services programs necessary to serve the unmet needs of residents of the City. (c) Make recommendations to Council regarding Housing Authority programs and activities.
(d) Review the City Manager’s proposed budget for housing and human services and make recommendations to the City Council.
(e) Review national, state, and local legislation which may have an impact on housing and human services for vulnerable communities in the City and make recommendations to the City Council.
(f) Consult and maintain contact with groups and individuals who are concerned with the challenges, opportunities, and services of vulnerable City residents, and hold meetings and public hearings on housing and human services programs as necessary to receive input from these groups and individuals, coordinating with the scheduled events of other boards and commissions as appropriate.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1929 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 6 (g) Schedule, participate in and conduct public hearings to determine the housing needs of the residents of the City as part of the development of the Housing Assistance Plan component of the City's annual Community Development Block Grant submission, and transmit the findings of said hearings to the City Council. These hearings may be coordinated with other scheduled events of other boards and commissions as appropriate.
(h) Recommend to the City Council specific housing programs to meet the needs of the residents of the City, based on information from public hearings and forums. (i) Review, comment and make recommendations to the City Council on procedures and policies to provide affordable housing for City residents and to implement the City's housing programs.
(j) Review, comment, on the proposed funding for housing programs funded through the City’s annual Community Development Plan process.
(k) Prepare an annual assessment on the extent to which local agencies and programs of the City, County of Los Angeles, and other entities are achieving goals and objectives for affordable housing, and transmit to City Council for review. (l) Conduct public forums on housing programs and issues in conjunction with other boards and commissions, including but not limited to the Housing Element, the Housing Assistance Plan, and the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA) program.
(m) Make recommendations on all Housing Authority programs and activities. (n) Develop an annual budget and workplan for activities such as speaking engagements, mailings and liaison activities.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1930 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 7 SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.64, Arts Commission, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 2.64 Arts Commission.

2.64.010. Findings and purpose.

The City Council finds and declares:
(a) The lives of citizens of the City can be enriched by exposure to art in its various forms.
(b) Recognizing and encouraging the arts is a basic service of local government. (c) Innovative programs for ensuring artistic expression in the City must be developed. (d) The creation of an Arts Commission will ensure a regular and ongoing assessment of art programs in the City.

2.64.020 Creation of Arts Commission.
(a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the City Charter, an Arts Commission is created. The Commission shall consist of seven (7) nine members. A majority of the members in office at any time shall constitute a quorum. The members shall be appointed by the City Council. The Commission and members shall be subject to all of the terms of Article X of the City Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of members, terms and meetings. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the Commission and Commissioners shall be subject to all the terms of Article X of the City Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of Commissioners, terms, and meetings. (b) Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.64.080, aAll Commissioners members shall reside or work in the City and shall be actively involved in the arts. No member shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government. From and after

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1931 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 8 April 10, 1990, any person appointed as a Commissioner must be a Director of the Santa Monica Arts Foundation. The Commission shall represent the diversity of the community and shall include minorities and working artists, but not limited to in the following disciplines:
(1) Performing arts such as drama, music, and dance.
(2) Visual arts such as painting, sculpture, photography, material arts, digital art, game design, interactive media, graphics, video art, and new media installations. applied art.
(3) Communications arts such as film, television, online videos, podcasting and radio.
(4) Literary arts such as literature, poetry, and journalism. (5) Design & Creative Industries such as architecture, urban design, landscape design, fashion design, industrial/product design, graphic and communication design, interior design.
(6) Folk, Traditional & Cultural Arts such as traditional crafts, heritage arts, indigenous arts, cultural performance traditions, community-based and vernacular arts. (7) Interdisciplinary & Hybrid Arts such as cross-disciplinary, transmedia, collaborative, research-based and experimental practices.

Commissioners may represent one or more of the disciplines indicated above.

2.64.030 Staff.

The Commission shall have a staff the amount and type of which shall be determined by the City Council during the regular City budget process. The staff shall report directly to the Director of Cultural and Recreation Services. In hiring staff, the Director of Cultural

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1932 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 9 and Recreation Services shall consult with the Commission. Decision-making matters of administrative concern shall rest with the Director of Cultural and Recreation Services.

2.64.0340 Powers and duties.

The powers and duties of the Commission are as follows:
(a) Initiate and aAdvise on art programs in the City.
(b) Provide advice to the City Council on matters relating to the arts. (c) Work cooperatively with City boards and commissions, the Santa Monica Unified School District, and Santa Monica College, and the Santa Monica Arts Foundation in promoting art in the City.
(d) Solicit private funds and grants earmarked for art activities in the City. (e) Encourage public and private partnerships to assure the survival of art and artists in the City.
(f) Develop and make recommendations to the City Council an art acquisition program for the City.
(g) Review and make recommendations directly to the City Council all proposals for art works for public buildings and public spaces.
(h) Encourage the flow of art into the City and stimulate art activities among residents of the City.
(i) Implement Advise on such art programs and activities as may be delegated to it from time to time by the City Council including the selection of artists for art programs and projects and the award of contracts for art projects and programs. (j) Make decisions without regard to the residency of the artist.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1933 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 10 2.64.0450 Funding and budget.
(a) The annual budget prepared by the City Manager and approved by the City Council shall contain such appropriations as the City Council deems necessary and appropriate to enable the Commission to exercise its powers. (b) Any donations or grants solicited by the Commission and any revenues from art programs and projects of the Commission shall be deposited in a special account in the General Fund. Any amounts so deposited may only be expended for the activities of the Commission.

2.64.0560 Appeal to City Council.

Any decision of the Commission selecting an artist for an art project or program or awarding a contract for an art program or project may be appealed to the City Council within twenty days of the date of the action of the Commission. The action of the Commission shall be stayed pending determination by the City Council. The City Council shall act on the appeal at the earliest convenient date.

2.64.070 Reports.

The Commission shall render written reports of its activities to the City Council not less than once every six months and at such other times as requested by the City Council.

2.64.080 Transition provisions.
(a) The requirement that a Commissioner work or reside in the City of Santa Monica shall not apply to any person who was a director of the Santa Monica Arts Foundation on April 10, 1990.
(b) Any person who was a director of the Santa Monica Arts Foundation as of April 10, 1990, but not a member of the Commission on such date, shall have the length of his or

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1934 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 11 her initial term on the Commission determined as follows: Foundation directors shall draw lots of one-, two-, three- and four-year initial terms. Any Foundation director drawing a lot for a one-, two- or three-year initial term shall be eligible to serve two additional four-year terms. Any Foundation director drawing a lot for a four-year initial term shall be eligible to serve one additional four-year term.

SECTION 5. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.66, Disabilities Commission, is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.66.010 Creation of Disabilities Commission.
(a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the Santa Monica City Charter, a Disabilities Commission is hereby established. The Commission and members shall be subject to all of the terms of Article X of the City Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of members, terms and meetings.
(b) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) eleven members appointed by the City Council. As of July 1, 2027, the Commission shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council. All members shall be residents of the City who have significant experience in the disability community. Additionally, at least four six members shall be persons with disabilities. No member shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government. The Commission and Commissioners shall be subject to all of the terms of Article X of the City Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of Commissioners, terms and meetings.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1935 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 12 2.66.020 Powers and duties of the Commission.

The Disabilities Commission shall have the power and be required to:
(a) Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to people with disabilities in Santa Monica and their needs as a group. (b) Work cooperatively with City agencies, officials, boards, commissions and departments in developing educational and informational materials and programs about the abilities, rights and responsibilities of people with disabilities. (c) Hold an annual public hearing to receive community input on matters relevant to the general scope of the Commission.
(c)(d) Study and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the special problems that people with disabilities in Santa Monica face in employment, transportation, housing, programmatic and physical access to City services, and facilities and programs stemming from barriers encountered in everyday life.
(d)(e) Work cooperatively with City agencies, officials, boards, commission and departments in making recommendations on the development and implementation of programs and practices promoting disability awareness and the integration of people with disabilities into City life.
(e)(f) Review the City's annual Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Review and Update and provide input to staff on the review process and the content of the report.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1936 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 13 SECTION 6. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.73, Urban Forest Commission, is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 2.73 Urban Forest Commission.

2.73.010 Creation of the Urban Forest Commission.
(a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the Santa Monica City Charter, an Urban Forest Commission is hereby established. The Commission and members shall be subject to all of the terms of Article X of the Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of members, terms, and meetings.
(b) The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members all of whom shall be residents of the City of Santa Monica. No member shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government. No less than three (3) members shall have professional experience in urban forestry, landscaping, or horticulture.

2.73.020 Powers and duties of the Commission.

The powers and duties of the Commission are as follows:
(a) Advise on citywide compliance with the vision and guiding principles of the Urban Forest Master Plan, including but not limited to tree planting, tree removal requests, species designation changes, and updates to existing urban forestry standards. (b) Advise on proposed tree planting activities in the City and public improvement projects.
(c) Advise on public tree species designations, including adjacent to designated landmarks and within historic districts in conjunction with the Landmarks Commission. (d) Advise on the Heritage Tree Program.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1937 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 14 (e) Advise on urban forest funding initiatives including urban forest grant funding opportunities.

SECTION 7. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.74, Restorative Justice Commission, is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 2.74 Restorative Justice Commission.

2.74.010 Creation of the Restorative Justice Commission. (a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the Santa Monica City Charter, a Restorative Justice Commission is hereby established. The Commission and members shall be subject to all of the terms of Article X of the Charter setting forth procedures for appointment of members, terms, and meetings.
(b) The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council.

All members shall be residents of the City, and all members shall have subject matter expertise or lived experience relevant to the powers and duties of the Commission. No member shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government.

2.74.020 Powers and duties of the Commission.

The powers and duties of the Commission are as follows:
(a) Advise on matters pertaining to the development and administration of a Restorative Justice Program and the associated Restorative Justice Fund, including eligibility criteria, policies, procedures, standards, and oversight. (b) Maintain contact with groups and individuals interested in addressing the historical and ongoing harms faced by communities that have experienced systemic loss of land, housing, and opportunity in the City, and hold meetings as necessary to receive input

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1938 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 15 from these groups and individuals, coordinating with the scheduled events of other City boards and commissions as appropriate.

SECTION 8. 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 9. 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 10. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 2026.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln, City Attorney

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 1939 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 1 City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES,

TASK FORCES, AND REGIONAL ADVISORY BOARDS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 11510 (CCS)
WHEREAS, maximizing public participation in government effectuates fundamental principles of democracy; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica have a strong commitment to participating in their local government; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) has established numerous boards, commissions, committees, and task forces to facilitate public participation in government and thereby ensure representation of diverse viewpoints and interest; and WHEREAS, setting term limits and establishing policies for boards, commissions, committees, and task forces ensures that opportunities for participation will be maximized and that boards, commissions, task forces and committees will function productively; and WHEREAS, the City Council (“Council”) desires to establish term limits and other policies in relation to participation in City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces and the conduct of board, commission, committee, and task force committee meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Council intends such policies to both maximize opportunities for participation in City government and provide the flexibility to ensure that boards, commissions, committees, and task forces have the expertise lived experience, and

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1940 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 2 qualifications necessary to discharge their duties.

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

SECTION 1. Appointments to City Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces.

Except as otherwise provided by motion of the City Council, the procedure for making appointments to City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall be as follows:

A. When a scheduled vacancy occurs, as a result of the expiration of the term of an appointment, on any City board, commission, committee, or task force, the City Clerk shall publish a notice of the vacancy at least once in The Santa Monica Daily Press, or a newspaper of general circulation, and post the notice of the vacancy on the City’s website. The City Clerk shall publish the notice of vacancy and post it on the City’s website no less than thirty (30) days before the vacancy occurs. The notice shall request that any interested party submit an application to the City Clerk. The notice shall also specify the position for which a vacancy has occurred, the term of office for the position to be filled, and a reasonable day by which interested parties must submit applications for the position. The deadline for submission of applications shall not be less than fifteen seven (157) days prior to the end of the term. Where the appointment is for the purpose of filling an unscheduled vacancy, a special vacancy notice shall also be published at least once in The Santa Monica Daily Press, or a newspaper of general circulation, and posted on the City’s website be posted at City Hall and Main Library not earlier than 20 days before or not later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs. Final appointment shall not be made for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1941 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 3 B. Applications for board, commission, committee, and task force positions shall be made on the City’s website or in writing to the City Clerk on forms supplied by the City Clerk. Applications submitted after the deadline shall not be considered. The applications shall be public records except for the portion of the application which is specifically described as confidential. Applications must be substantially complete in order for the applicant to be considered for appointment.

C. The City Clerk shall collect all written applications which are received by the deadline date and shall thereafter cause the matter of filling the board, commission, committee, or task force vacancy to be placed upon the City Council agenda. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Council the information contained on all written applications which have been received prior to the deadline date through their Council meeting packets.

D. Boards, commissions, committees, or task forces shall not take any official action to recommend any specific appointees to the City Council, although individual members may make recommendations as individuals.

E. Following consideration of the applications received by the deadline for each board, commission, committee, or task force vacancy, the City Council shall make appointments in open session at a City Council meeting to fill the vacancy. To accommodate Council’s schedule, Council may make appointments to annual vacancies in open session at a special meeting. Applicants will be invited to provide public comment about their qualifications at the Council meeting.

F. In compliance with California Government Code Section 54972 et seq. (the Maddy Act), the City Clerk shall prepare a Local Appointments List and make available

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1942 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 4 to the public. The Local Appointments List shall consist of the following:
1) a list of all current City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces; 2) a current list of all vacancies on all City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces;
3) the terms of all current individuals serving on City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces; and,
4) the qualifications for serving on all City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces.

The City Clerk shall maintain a current Local Appointments List on the City’s website.

G. A person is ineligible to serve on all City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces if that person is a close family relative of a current Councilmember. The term “relative” means wife, husband, registered domestic partner, son, daughter, mother, father, brother or sister.

SECTION 2. Term Limits for Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces.

The following definitions and policies shall apply to City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces, including the boards of the non-profit agencies, Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Santa Monica Travel and Tourism.

A. The length of term for each City-appointed board, commission, committee, and task force is set forth in the Municipal Code, the City Charter, or the by-laws of the board, commission, committee, or task force.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1943 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 5 B. A full term is defined as serving three-fourths or more of a term, whether it is an appointment to an annual vacancy or to an unscheduled vacancy.

C. A partial term is defined as serving less than three-fourths of a term, whether it is an appointment to an annual vacancy or to an unscheduled vacancy.

D. Term Limits for Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces

1. All members of boards, commission, and committees, except tenant members of the Housing Commission and task forces, are limited to serving two consecutive terms. However, a third consecutive term may be served if the member makes a written request to serve a third term, or a Councilmember nominates a member to a third term, and the City Council approves the third term by a two-thirds vote. Tenant members of the Housing Commission are limited to serving four consecutive, two-year terms, except that a fifth or sixth, two-year consecutive term may be served if the member makes a written request or a Councilmember nominates the member, and the City Council approves the fifth or sixth term by a two-thirds vote. Members of task forces may serve for an indefinite number of two-year terms. Members for Regional Advisory Boards such as Los Angeles County’s West Vector Control and Metropolitan Water Districts and may serve for an indefinite number of four-year terms. Term limits for directors on the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., are determined by the boards’ by-laws.

2. The total number of members that may serve a third consecutive term on a board, commission, or committee at the same time is limited to no more than one-third of the membership of that board, commission, or committee but the Council may, by two-thirds vote, make an exception in order to fill positions on boards,

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1944 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 6 commissions, and committees that have specific qualifications, such as professional standing or expertise.

3. After serving the maximum number of consecutive terms allowed, a member may not serve again on the same board, commission, committee, or task force until four one (1) years after the member’s final term has expired.

4. Members must wait at least one year after terming out of serving on a board, commission, committee, or task force before serving on a different board, commission, committee, or task force.

E. Term Limits for Regional Advisory Boards.

1. Members of the Los Angeles County West Vector Control District are limited to serving two consecutive terms. However, a third consecutive term may be served if the member makes a written request to serve a third term, or a Councilmember nominates a member to a third term, and the City Council approves the third term by a two-thirds vote. The current members of the Los Angeles County Vector Control District as of the date of adoption of Resolution No. 11396 shall serve the remainder of their term but shall be ineligible to serve any subsequent term.

2. Members of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Water District are limited to serving two consecutive terms. However, a third consecutive term may be served if the member makes a written request to serve a third term, or a Councilmember nominates a member to a third term, and the City Council approves the third term by a two-thirds vote. The current members of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Water District as of the date of adoption of Resolution No. 11396 shall serve the remainder of their term but shall be ineligible to serve any subsequent term.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1945 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 7 F. Recognition of Outgoing Members. Members of boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory bodies who leave service for reasons including terming out; not seeking re-appointment; or not securing the votes to be reappointed, shall be recognized for their service at the first available Council meeting after annual appointments take place.

SECTION 3. Membership on One Board, Commission, Committee, or Task Force.

No person shall serve simultaneously on more than one board, commission, committee, or task force, including the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and the regional advisory boards. This section shall not apply to advisory boards reporting to City staff or boards, commissions, or task forces.

SECTION 4. Reimbursement of Expenses.

Members of boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall be reimbursed for eligible for reimbursement of expenses in the amount of up to $25.00 per meeting, not to exceed the amount of $50.00 per month pursuant to the forms and administrative procedures established by the City.

SECTION 5. Use of City Funds.

Allocated funds are restricted to the following: Participation or sponsorship fees for local events; dues/memberships to other organizations that align with board, commission, committee, or task force goals; conferences/trainings that align with board, commission,

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1946 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 8 committee, or task force goals, costs related to board, commission, committee, and task force materials, including printing of materials, postage, giveaways for events, supplies for City-sponsored events, food for City retreats, and accommodation services such as signing and closed captioning.

SECTION 6. Biennial Review of Agendas and Minutes and Five-Year Comprehensive Review.

The City Clerk is hereby directed to conduct biennial reviews of board, commission, committee, and task force agendas and minutes, including the agendas and minutes of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., and Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and to act, as needed, to ensure that they comply with legal requirements, including the Ralph M. Brown Act, and maintain uniform content and format with the City Council’s agendas and minutes. The City Clerk is also hereby directed to conduct a comprehensive review of all advisory bodies every five years, except that no such review shall occur in an election year.

SECTION 7. Annual Dinner and Presentation of Annual Reports Evaluation and Workplan.

The City Clerk is directed to organize and hold an Annual Dinner which shall serve as the annual report to Council by the gather and transmit to Council an Annual Evaluation and Workplan from City-appointed boards, commissions, committees and task forces, and the appointees to the regional advisory boards. If the Annual Dinner is unable to be held in a given year, annual reports shall may be presented during the Council meetings

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1947 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 9 scheduled in the first quarter of the fiscal year. The schedule shall be at the discretion of the City Clerk. If Council’s meeting schedule cannot accommodate presentations, then written reports may be submitted to Council as Information Items. Evaluations must evaluate work over the preceding year. Workplans should set priorities for the upcoming year and align with that body’s corresponding City Department’s goals and objectives.

This does not apply to bodies already mandated to report to Council in accordance with federal, State, or local law, such as the Transit Security Advisory Committee, Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee.

SECTION 8. Written Communications.

No City-appointed board, commission, committee, or task force shall send any official resolution or other correspondence of the board, commission, committee, or task force on any matter to City policy to any non-City agency, board, commission, committee, or task force unless the board, commission, committee, or task force voted to do so and obtains prior approval of the City Council.

All City-appointed board, commission, committee, and task force members are issued City emails addresses, which must be utilized for all City business.

SECTION 9. Secretaries Staff Liaisons
In compliance with the Brown Act and Section 1004 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Manager shall designate a City employee to act as secretary, or a Staff Liaison, for each of the boards, commissions, and task forces, including their

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1948 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 10 subcommittees, which are subject to the Brown Act, for the purpose of keeping a record of their proceedings and transactions. Additional duties include generating meeting materials, maintaining advisory body records, facilitating meetings, advising members, and ensuring compliance with the Brown Act and Parliamentary Procedure. Ad hoc committees, or committees established for a period of no more than one year, are not required to have appointed secretaries or Staff Liaisons.

SECTION 10. Conduct of Meetings, and Drafting of Agendas and Minutes Templates, and Web Posting Standards.

The Rules of Order and the Procedures for the Conduct of the City Council meetings, as may be amended from time to time, shall serve as a general guideline for the conduct of meetings of the City-appointed boards, commissions, committees, and task forces which have not adopted their own rules or bylaws. All City-appointed boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall adopt their own rules or bylaws in accordance with the template prescribed by the City Clerk. All boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall use the agenda and minutes templates prescribed by the City Clerk. Agendas for posting must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 4:30 p.m. in advance of the 72 hours (for Regular meetings) or 24 hours (for Special meetings) notification deadlines under the Brown Act. Failure to do so may result in the cancellation of the meeting.

City-appointed boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall maintain an up-to-date webpage on the City’s official website. Webpage shall include meeting agendas, executed minutes, and video or audio recordings of meetings.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1949 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 11 Agendas shall be posted to the respective webpages promptly upon submission of the posting notice to the City Clerk’s Office. At the beginning of each calendar year, all scheduled meetings of City-appointed boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall be added to the City’s public Calendar of Events and updated to reflect any changes, including cancellations, rescheduled meetings, or special meetings.

City-appointed boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall also post the audio or video recording of each meeting on the respective webpages within a reasonable time following the adjournment.

SECTION 11. Attendance at Meetings.

The following attendance policies apply to all members of City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces, including the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and the regional advisory boards.

A. An absence is defined as a failure to attend at least two-thirds of a regular or special meeting.

B. An absence is considered excused when a member communicates the member’s absence to the Chair or staff liaison prior to the start of a regular or special meeting.

C. An absence is considered unexcused when a member does not communicate that member’s absence to the Chair or staff liaison prior to the start of a regular or special meeting, or, in the event of an emergency, as soon as practicable after the emergency but in no event later than two calendar days after the start time of the

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1950 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 12 meeting.

D. In special circumstances, prolonged absences may be excused upon approval of the board, commission, committee, or task force, which shall then be reported by the City staff liaison to the City Clerk.

E. Except for the regional advisory board appointments, City staff liaison to all boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall report all absences to the City Clerk.

F. The City Clerk shall provide the City Council with a summary of attendance for all board, commission, committee, and task force members in June and December of each year with the Annual Appointments packet.

G. For boards, commissions, committees, or task forces that meet monthly, uUpon the accumulation of two unexcused absences from regular meetings occurring over the course of six consecutive regular meetings a fiscal year, a member of a board, commission, committee, or task force automatically vacates membership on the board, commission, committee, or task force.

H. Additionally, the Chair shall warn any member who has more than two excused absences from any six consecutive regular meetings a fiscal year. If another two meetings are missed, whether as the result of excused or unexcused absences, the Staff Liaison shall inform the City Clerk, who will then inform the City Council.

SECTION 12. All boards, commissions, committees, and task forces must produce an annual workplan setting priorities for the upcoming year. Each workplan shall align with that board, commission, committee, or task force’s corresponding City

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1951 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 13 department’s goals and objectives. In addition, all boards, commissions, committees, and task forces shall produce an annual one-page evaluation of their work over the preceding year.

SECTION 1312. Attendance at Ethics Training - Government Code Section 53235 (AB 1234).

Government Code Section 53235 (AB 1234) mandates two hours of ethics training for local officials every two years. The City Clerk shall provide the City Council with a summary of attendance by City Council-appointed board, commission, committee, and task force members, including members of the Santa Monic Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and the regional advisory boards after the biennial training and before making annual appointments. All newly appointed members are required to take the mandated ethics training as soon as practicable, but no later than within 30 days of being appointed.

SECTION 1413. Other Trainings
The City Clerk in conjunction with the City Attorney shall develop and implement onboarding training for new members and annual training for members, chairs, and vicechairs of boards, commissions, and task forces, and shall provide City staff liaisons with training guidelines. All members are required to complete the onboarding or annual training, trainings required by Resolution 11605 (CCS), and future mandated trainings as as soon as practicable.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1952 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 14 SECTION 15. Council Liaisons
Each Council member may serve as a liaison to no more than two boards or commissions each year. Council liaisons serve as connections between the City Council and boards and commissions, but Council liaisons are neither required to attend board and commission meetings or maintain any voting power on boards and commissions.

Council members cannot serve as Council liaisons to any board or commission with quasi-judicial authority (i.e. Planning Commission, Landmarks Commission, Architectural Review Board).

SECTION 1614. The City Clerk will provide an annual report to inform the City Council on the aggregate demographic profile of the City’s boards, commissions, and task forces in June with the Annual Appointments Packet.

SECTION 17. City boards, commissions, committees, and task forces, including the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, and the regional advisory boards shall adhere to all applicable rules of the City Council, as amended from time to time, unless inconsistent with their adopted bylaws.

SECTION 1815. Resolution Number 11510 (CCS) is repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 1916. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 15 ______________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: Proposed Resolution [Revision 3] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) Regulations of the Fair Political Practice Commission, Title 2, Division 6, California Coda of Regulations)
§ 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property. (a) The reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest, other than a leasehold interest, is material whenever the governmental decision:
(1) Involves the adoption of or amendment to a development plan or criteria applying to the parcel;
(2) Determines the parcel's zoning or rezoning, other than a zoning decision applicable to all properties designated in that category; annexation or de-annexation; inclusion in or exclusion from any city, county, district, or local government subdivision or other boundaries, other than elective district boundaries;
(3) Would impose, repeal, or modify any taxes, fees, or assessments that apply to the parcel;
(4) Authorizes the sale, purchase, or lease of the parcel; (5) Involves the issuance, denial or revocation of a license, permit or other land use entitlement authorizing a specific use of or improvement to the parcel or any variance that changes the permitted use of, or restrictions placed on, the property; (6) Involves construction of, or improvements to, streets, water, sewer, storm drainage or similar facilities, and the parcel will receive new or improved services that provide a benefit or detriment disproportionate to other properties receiving the services;

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and (7) Involves property located 500 feet or less from the property line of the parcel unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the decision will not have any measurable impact on the official's property; or
(8) Involves property located more than 500 feet but less than 1,000 feet from the property line of the parcel, and the decision would change the parcel's:
(A) Development potential;
(B) Income producing potential;
(C) Highest and best use;
(D) Character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity of use, parking, view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality; or
(E) Market value.
(b) The financial effect of a governmental decision on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest involving property 1,000 feet or more from the property line of the official's property is presumed not to be material. This presumption may be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence the governmental decision would have a substantial effect on the official's property.
(c) Leasehold Interests. The reasonably foreseeable financial effects of a governmental decision on any real property in which a governmental official has a leasehold interest as the lessee of the property is material only if the governmental decision will:
(1) Change the termination date of the lease;
(2) Increase or decrease the potential rental value of the property; (3) Change the official's actual or legally allowable use of the property; or (4) Impact the official's use and enjoyment of the property.

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and (d) Exceptions. The financial effect of a governmental decision on a parcel of real property in which an official has a financial interest is not material if:
(1) The decision solely concerns repairs, replacement or maintenance of existing streets, water, sewer, storm drainage or similar facilities.
(2) The decision solely concerns the adoption or amendment of a general plan and all of the following apply:
(A) The decision only identifies planning objectives or is otherwise exclusively one of policy. A decision will not qualify under this subdivision if the decision is initiated by the public official, by a person that is a financial interest to the public official, or by a person representing either the public official or a financial interest to the public official. (B) The decision requires a further decision or decisions by the public official's agency before implementing the planning or policy objectives, such as permitting, licensing, rezoning, or the approval of or change to a zoning variance, land use ordinance, or specific plan or its equivalent.
(C) The decision does not concern an identifiable parcel or parcels or development project. A decision does not “concern an identifiable parcel or parcels” solely because, in the proceeding before the agency in which the decision is made, the parcel or parcels are merely included in an area depicted on a map or diagram offered in connection with the decision, provided that the map or diagram depicts all parcels located within the agency's jurisdiction and economic interests of the official are not singled out. (D) The decision does not concern the agency's prior, concurrent, or subsequent approval of, or change to, a permit, license, zoning designation, zoning variance, land use ordinance, or specific plan or its equivalent.

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and (e) Definitions. The definitions below apply to this regulation:
(1) A decision “solely concerns the adoption or amendment of a general plan” when the decision, in the manner described in Sections 65301 and 65301.5, grants approval of, substitutes for, or modifies any component of, a general plan, including elements, a statement of development policies, maps, diagrams, and texts, or any other component setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals, as described in Sections 65302 and 65303. (2) “General plan” means “general plan” as used in Sections 65300, et seq. (3) “Specific plan” or its equivalent means a plan adopted by the jurisdiction to meet the purposes described in Sections 65450, et seq.
(4) Real property in which an official has a financial interest does not include any common area as part of the official's ownership interest in a common interest development as defined in the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code Sections 4000 et seq.)
Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 87100, 87102.5, 87102.6, 87102.8 and 87103, Government Code.

HISTORY

1. New section filed 7-24-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 85, No. 30).

2. Repealer of subsection (h) filed 6-22-87; operative 7-22-87 (Register 87, No. 26).

3. Amendment filed 10-17-88; operative 11-16-88 (Register 88, No. 43).

4. Change without regulatory effect amending subsection (a)(2) filed 11-27-95 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 95, No. 48).

5. Amendment of subsections (a)(1)-(3) and (d) filed 10-23-96; operative 10-23-96 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 96, No. 43).

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and

6. Repealer and new section filed 11-23-98; operative 11-23-98 pursuant to the 1974 version of Government Code section 11380.2 and title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18312(d) and (e) (Register 98, No. 48).

7. Editorial correction of History 6 (Register 2000, No. 25).

8. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 10-26-2004; operative 11-25-2004 (Register 2004, No. 44).

9. Change without regulatory effect renumbering former section 18702.2 to section 18704.2 and renumbering section 18705.2 to section 18702.2, including amendment of section heading and subsections (a)(5) and (a)(11), filed 4-27-2015. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2015, No. 18).

10. Amendment of subsection (a)(8) filed 7-10-2015; operative 7-10-2015 pursuant to section 18312(e)(1)(A), title 2, California Code of Regulations. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2015, No. 28).

11. Amendment filed 2-20-2019; operative 2-20-2019 pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, section 18312(e). Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2019, No. 8).

This database is current through 6/14/19 Register 2019, No. 24 2 CCR § 18702.2, 2 CA ADC § 18702.2

11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: In Support: 11.A

EXTERNAL
As a recent applicant to a City commission, I support the proposal of having a special meeting for annual appointments, where applicants can make their case and introduce themselves—and not have to wait until near midnight for a vote on their appointment (or worse, do so twice when the initial vote is postponed during the first meeting, as happened to me). Thanks for the process improvement! Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 12:42 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11.A. (Airport Commission Composition, Cost, and Scope of Staff Review)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I write to respectfully raise a concern regarding the City’s recent staff report, specifically its treatment of the Airport Commission.

The discussion on pages 9–11 of the staff report focuses almost exclusively on prior FPPC findings related to airport closure and conflict analysis. While that issue may have historical relevance, it is not the primary function of the Airport Commission between now and December 31, 2028. The Commission’s advisory role extends broadly to “all matters pertaining to the Municipal Airport and to aviation matters generally to the extent that they affect the City,” including operational issues such as noise, safety, and community impacts.

Notably absent from the staff memo as well as the January 13, 2026, staff report, is any meaningful evaluation of the Airport Commission’s effectiveness in addressing these ongoing operational concerns. This omission is significant. The community continues to raise concerns about noise and airport operations, yet the report does not assess whether the Airport Commission, as currently constituted, is equipped to address them.

Equally concerning is the cost of the Airport Commission. At approximately $67,270 annually, it is the most expensive advisory commission in the City. Despite this, the report does not evaluate whether the Airport Commission is delivering commensurate value or whether its composition contributes to inefficiencies.

The staff report itself acknowledges that other municipal airport commissions commonly include members with aviation expertise. Yet rather than prioritize qualifications in appointments, the report suggests that meaningful reform would require a costly Charter amendment, estimated at over $77,000.

That conclusion is not supported by the record. The City Charter does not require the appointment of commissioners lacking subject matter expertise, nor does it prohibit the Council from prioritizing qualified candidates during the appointment process. No Charter amendment was required to appoint the current Airport Commissioners, none of whom have aeronautical expertise. Similarly, no Charter amendment is required to replace Airport Commissioners who lack relevant aeronautical knowledge or to prioritize the appointment of those who possess it.

Just as the City Council previously addressed concerns with DTSM Board on July 29, 2025, by making changes based on effectiveness and diversity, similar action can be taken with the Airport Commission. No ballot initiative is required to do so, despite what the staff report appears to suggest.

In other words, the City already has the tools necessary to improve the Airport Commission’s effectiveness without incurring additional public expense.

For so long as the airport remains operational, the Airport Commission’s role is practical and immediate, not theoretical. It should be focused on operational realities, noise mitigation, safety, and community interface. Those issues require informed, technically grounded input. Continuing to staff the Airport Commission without regard to subject matter expertise risks both inefficiency and public frustration, while unnecessarily increasing staff burden and cost.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1962 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 2 I respectfully urge the Council to:

1. Acknowledge that improved Airport Commission performance can be achieved through a diverse and balanced composition that includes, rather than excludes, commissioners with relevant aviation knowledge and prioritize a balanced Airport Commission;

2. Avoid unnecessary expenditure on a ballot initiative when the Council already has the authority to improve the Commission’s composition by appointing qualified commissioners in place of existing members; and

3. Ensure that, given its cost, the Airport Commission delivers meaningful, informed, and efficient advisory so long as the airport remains operational.

The issue here is not policy preference, it is governance. The City should expect that one of its highest-cost advisory bodies is structured to provide the expertise necessary to fulfill its mandate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1963 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry Rubin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 12:56 PM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall
Subject: Thank you for respectfully making the Santa Monica Urban Forest Task Force a standalone Commission! 💚🤗

EXTERNAL
곒곓곔곕뱑뱍뱎뱏뱒뇪뇫뱐Thank you tree-mendously for your ongoing full support for our Santa Monica trees! Your support is truly needed and deeply appreciated!
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1964 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 2 Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1965 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 3 Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1966 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete
Subject: City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Agenda Item: 11.A - Boards & Commissions

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
Read the room.

We are living in an unprecedented time of nepotism, grift, and erosion of democracy. And yet this is the time you choose to:
 Remove limits on appointing family members to boards and commissions;  Remove term limits for regional boards and reducing the waiting period to restart terms; and  Remove public meeting structure and consistency.

These changes beg the question: Why?
Which family member are you trying to appoint? Who are you trying to keep on? Surely in a city of 90,000 people, we have many qualified applicants who aren't nepotism hires and haven't already been in the position for 12 years. Frankly, the only changes you should be making are those that give residents our speaking time back, so we can participate in our own government.

Shame on you for wasting staff time and our time on undemocratic policies to solidify your control, and giving me another opportunity to use my No Kings sign, right here in Santa Monica.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1967 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 2 Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1968 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 3 Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1969 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 4 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Fw: City Council 5/12 Ítem11-A: OPPOSE

EXTERNAL

May 11, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 5/12/26 agenda item 11-A

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
A. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Policies for Boards and Commissions and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending and establishing various Boards and Commissions Resulting from the 2025 Comprehensive Review and Establishment of a Restorative Justice Commission
The FOSP Board opposes the following proposed revisions to the Policies for Boards and Commissions.

Removing Section 1.G -- It currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on Boards and Commissions.

We see no good reason to remove that provision.

Amendments to Sections 2.D.1 ad 2.E.1-2 -- The amendments would remove term limits and allow members of regional advisory boards to serve an indefinite number of 4-year terms.

With the current term limits, appointments can be extended to additional terms with the approval of 5 City Council members.

Therefore, we see no good reason for these amendments.

Removing Section 17 -- It currently requires adherence to applicable City rules, in order that the various Boards, Commissions, etc., operate in a consistent manner.

We see no good reason to remove this section.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1970 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 5 Again, the FOSP Board opposes these three changes to the Policies for Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1971 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 6 Mitchell Kois
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A - OPPOSE - May 12, 2026 Council meeting

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11A, Council meeting of May 12, 2026 I am writing to challenge the changes proposed in Agenda Item 11A, Council meeting of May 12, 2025.

Why end term limits for boards and commissions? Why open the door to family members? What's the truth here? Who stands to benefit from these strange proposed changes in Agenda Item 11A? The public has a right to know.

I am concerned that City Council will weaken the value and independence of boards and commissions if the City implements the changes proposed in Agenda Item 11A (below):

Section 1.G (page 4) removes ineligibility for those who are CLOSE RELATIVES of City Council members;
Question: Which City Council relative is seeking a position on a board or commission? Section 2.D.1 (page 5) and 2.E.1-2 (page 6): adds the provision that members of regional advisory boards MAY SERVE FOR AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF FOUR-YEAR TERMS;
Question: How is this beneficial?
Section 17 (page 14): REMOVES the REQUIREMENT that all boards, commissions must adhere to all applicable City Council rules.

Please explain to the community why this is an improvement of the current process and procedure.

Who stands to benefit from these proposed changes?

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1972 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 7 Mitchell Kois
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Agenda Item: 11.A - Boards & Commissions

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’m writing to express deep opposition regarding the several proposed revisions included in the proposed Resolution Amending the Policies for Boards and Commissions.

For a council that consistently extols the merits of good governance, these proposed changes reflect the Council’s choice to implement the absolute worse of governance practices.

These changes all go in only one direction: they weaken important safeguards intended to preserve public confidence, independence, accountability, and effective oversight. They reduce the resilience of the city by institutionalizing a single viewpoint governance framework. It is the opposite of what democracy intends.

There is no way to defend the proposed changes that:

1. Enable and encourage nepotism (proposed removal of Section 1.G, which currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on City boards and commissions)

2. Limit resident participation and viewpoint diversity by:
a. Effectively eliminating term limits through the reduction of the wait time for between appointments for termed-out board members (proposed amendments to Sections 2.D.1). b. Outright elimination of term limits for Regional Boards and Commissions (proposed amendments Sections 2.E.1-2)

3. Eliminate fair dealing and accountability of Board and Commission members (proposed deletion of Section 17, which currently requires City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards to adhere to applicable City Council rules unless inconsistent with their bylaws.) NONE of these changes should be approved. Frankly, it is appalling that these proposed changes have even made it to the Council’s agenda.

Respectfully,
Marc L. Verville
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1973 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 8 Mitchell Kois
From: Teresa Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Teresa Clark
Subject: Public Comment on Reducing Number in Disabilities Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Esteemed Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members, First I’d like to thank each and all of you for your Ɵreless and selfless service to our city that you do everyday to make it a beƩer place for everyone. I can literally see it improving in my walks and it’s amazing. Thank you so much.

I wanted to write in on an item that’s being touched on this evening that’s 11 A.3. If I believe it I got it correctly it is the staff recommendaƟon to cut the disabiliƟes commission membership from 11 members to 7 members. I am a disabiliƟes commission member and I speak from experience when I say I believe it should remain at 11 members and I will explain why.

First the purpose of the disabiliƟes commission is to be inclusive of Santa Monicans with disabiliƟes that includes having representaƟon on the commission of people with disabiliƟes. I believe it has been recommended at four. Also there is interest, naturally, such as our vice chair Gerald, in interest in the commission when there is a family member with a disability.

When folks have disabiliƟes or take care of those with disabiliƟes they are not on a level playing field to those without and so you could say that having the 11 seats works as an accommodaƟon for the disability community so that it permits absences and yet a quorum can be met and it permits ad hoc work commiƩees in such a structure such as not to overwhelm our community.

With Respect,
Teresa Clark
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1974 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 9 Mitchell Kois
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:26 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11.A. (Proposed Repeal of Resolution 11510)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I write to respectfully express concern regarding several proposed revisions to the Resolution governing City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards. While modernization of governance policies is appropriate, several of the proposed changes would weaken important safeguards intended to preserve public confidence, independence, accountability, and effective oversight.

Family Relatives:

First, I am concerned by the proposed removal of Section 1.G, which currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on City boards and commissions.

That provision serves an important governance purpose. Boards and commissions function most effectively when the public has confidence that appointments are based on merit, qualifications, and independence, rather than personal or political relationships. Even where no actual conflict exists, allowing close family relatives of Councilmembers to serve on City-appointed bodies unnecessarily creates the appearance of favoritism, insider access, or political influence. Public trust in advisory bodies is fragile and depends not only on avoiding actual impropriety, but also avoiding circumstances that reasonably create the appearance of impropriety.

Santa Monica’s boards and commissions routinely weigh issues involving land use, housing, airport operations, public expenditures, environmental policy, ethics, and quality-of-life concerns. Residents should not be left questioning whether commissioners were selected because of qualifications or because of familial relationships with elected officials. The existing restriction is modest, clear, and entirely consistent with sound governance principles designed to protect public confidence in the integrity and independence of City advisory bodies.

Removal of Term Limits
Second, I strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Sections 2.D.1 and 2.E.1-2, which would allow members of regional advisory boards to serve an indefinite number of four-year terms.

Term limits exist for a reason. They encourage fresh perspectives, prevent institutional stagnation, reduce entrenchment, and create opportunities for broader civic participation. Regional advisory boards often address issues involving infrastructure, utilities, vector control, water policy, environmental matters, and intergovernmental coordination that have substantial impacts on Santa Monica residents. Those positions should not effectively become permanent appointments.

Allowing indefinite terms risks concentrating influence in a small number of long-serving individuals and undermines the City’s longstanding policy favoring rotation in public service. It also creates inconsistency within the broader framework of the Resolution itself, which repeatedly recognizes the importance of maximizing participation in local government and ensuring productive, accountable advisory bodies.

Importantly, expertise and continuity can already be preserved under the existing framework, which allows additional terms through a supermajority Council vote where justified. There is no demonstrated governance need to eliminate meaningful term limits altogether.

City Council Rules
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1975 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 10 Finally, I am deeply concerned by the proposed deletion of Section 17, which currently requires City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards to adhere to applicable City Council rules unless inconsistent with their bylaws.

This provision is one of the core mechanisms ensuring that advisory bodies remain accountable to the City’s broader governance framework. Eliminating this requirement risks creating fragmented and inconsistent practices across boards and commissions, with varying procedural standards, inconsistent conduct rules, and diminished oversight.

Without a requirement that advisory bodies adhere to applicable Council rules, the City risks weakening transparency, consistency, accountability, and procedural uniformity across its advisory system.

The proposed deletion is particularly concerning given the significant authority and influence exercised by some commissions, as well as the substantial staff time and public resources devoted to supporting them. Governance structures work best when expectations are clear, consistent, and uniformly applied. Removing this language would move the City in the opposite direction.

I respectfully urge the Council to retain:

1. The prohibition on close family relatives of Councilmembers serving on City advisory bodies;

2. Meaningful term limits for regional advisory boards; and

3. The requirement that boards and commissions adhere to applicable City Council rules.

These existing provisions promote transparency, independence, accountability, and good governance, all of which are essential to maintaining public trust in Santa Monica’s Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1976 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 11 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: RE: 5/12/26 agenda item 11-A

Family Relatives:

First, I am concerned by the proposed removal of Section 1.G, which currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on City boards and commissions.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1977 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 12 Importantly, expertise and continuity can already be preserved under the existing framework, which allows additional terms through a supermajority Council vote where justified. There is no demonstrated governance need to eliminate meaningful term limits altogether.

City Council Rules
Finally, I am deeply concerned by the proposed deletion of Section 17, which currently requires City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards to adhere to applicable City Council rules unless inconsistent with their bylaws.

Boards and commissions are creations of the City Council. They exercise delegated advisory authority and frequently speak on matters affecting public policy, expenditures, land use, transportation, public safety, and community welfare. Without a requirement that advisory bodies adhere to applicable Council rules, the City risks weakening transparency, consistency, accountability, and procedural uniformity across its advisory system.

Governance structures work best when expectations are clear, consistent, and uniformly applied. Removing this language would move the City in the opposite direction.

I respectfully urge the Council to retain:

1. The prohibition on close family relatives of Councilmembers serving on City advisory bodies;

2. Meaningful term limits for regional advisory boards; and

3. The requirement that boards and commissions adhere to applicable City Council rules.

These existing provisions promote transparency, independence, accountability, and good governance, all of which are essential to maintaining public trust in Santa Monica’s Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1978 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) 13 Mitchell Kois
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 8:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose proposed changes to Boards and Commissions- Agenda Item 11A - Council meeting of May 12, 2026

Why end term limits for boards and commissions? Why open the door to family members? What's the truth here? Who stands to benefit from these strange proposed changes advanced in Agenda Item 11A? The public has a right to know.

I am concerned that City Council will weaken the value and independence of boards and commissions if the City implements the changes proposed in Agenda Item 11A (below):

Please explain to the community why this is an improvement of the current process and procedure.

Who stands to benefit from these proposed changes?

11.A.i
Packet Pg. 1979 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7521 : Adoption of Boards & Commissions Ordinance and Policies) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Measure GS Resident Oversight Committee for a term ending on June 30, 2029
Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.A
Packet Pg. 1980
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Measure GS Resident Oversight Committee
Name Application Date
Gerwitz, Richard* 10/07/2025
Lazar, Alexander* 03/26/2026
Waterfall, Dave 06/18/2025
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3
* Ineligible

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1981 Attachment: Applicant List (7687 : 16.A. Appointment to Measure GS Resident Oversight Committee (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Housing Authority Board for a term ending on June 30, 2026. (Continued from 03/24/2026) Prepared By: David Yakobson, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List

16.B
Packet Pg. 1982
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Housing Authority Board
Name Application Date
Eady, Jonathan 05/07/2026
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 1

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1983 Attachment: Applicant List [Revision 2] (7717 : 16.B. Appointment to Housing Authority Board (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmember Hall that Council approve use of up to $5,000 of discretionary funds to support the Santa Monica Public Library’s LEGO Club programming
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Supporting the Library's LEGO Club Program - Hall
B. 20260506-Discretionary Funds Balance
C. Written Comments

16.C
Packet Pg. 1984
Meeting: May 12, 2026
16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBER DAN HALL
Request of Councilmember Hall that Council approve use of up to $5,000 of discretionary funds to support the Santa Monica Public Library’s LEGO Club programming.

The Santa Monica Public Library plays a central role in supporting the educational, creative, and social development of children and families across our community. Each Library branch maintains buckets of LEGO bricks available for free play by kids from 18 months to 11 years old, and Library staff have, since restarting LEGO Club programming in August 2024, held the program approximately once a month. To date, those efforts have totaled 16 programs and 794 attendees.

Library Youth Services staff have outlined a range of potential expansions for this programming as new branch staff complete their initial training, including a series of guided programs with a LEGO Master Builder who could work with kids on more intricate, specific designs; the purchase of a display case to temporarily showcase participants’ work; the commissioning of a LEGO sculpture for the children’s area; multiple LEGO kits dedicated to in-program use; “Take and Make” at-home kits for kids who can’t attend in person; and additional books and materials in the Library’s collection focused on LEGO building. Programs of this kind enhance youth creative problem solving, building, and design skills, and the Library provides an environment where kids and families can connect, build, and play together.

Council has historically supported Library programming as a core component of the City’s investment in youth, education, and equitable access to enrichment opportunities. A modest discretionary contribution at this stage is intended to give the Library flexibility to deepen and expand LEGO programming in whatever form Library staff judge most useful.

In order to support the Library’s continued investment in youth programming and the creative, educational, and community-building role it plays in Santa Monica, I THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:

1. Allocate up to $5,000 from Councilmember Hall’s share of Council discretionary funds to the Santa Monica Public Library in support of LEGO programming, with the specific use of the funds to be determined by Library staff. # # #

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1985 Attachment: Supporting the Library's LEGO Club Program - Hall (7715 : Library’s LEGO Club) FY 2025-26 Council Discretionary Funds
Updated: 4/23/2026 Council Discretionary Funds 01100001.532330.Project# FY 2025-26 - New Appropriation and allocations
Entered
Into Tyler
Project#
Description Amount Programmed Date Negrete Torosis Hall Raskin Snell Zernitskaya Zwick FY 2025-26 - New Appropriation 140,000.00 Budget Adoption FY25-26, 6/24/25, Council meeting, 10/14/25, Item 11B $ 20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 11/26/25 12095 Legado Latino-2025 Dia de Muerto Celebration (6,000.00) Council Meeting 11/18/25, Item 16C (3,000.00) (3,000.00) 12/15/25 12096 SMC Annual Givnig THANKS(giving) Event (3,000.00) Council Meeting 11/18/25, Item 16D (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) 04/02/26 12097 Summer Willis Foundation Denim Run (4/12) (7,000.00) Council Meeting 03/24/26, Item 16I (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) 4/23/26 12098 The Giving Place 40th Anniv. Celebrarion (4/18) (5,000.00) Council Meeting 04/14/26, Item 16I (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) (1,000.00) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total $ 119,000.00
$ 119,000.00 Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 18,000.00 $17,000.00 $15,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $14,000.00 $19,000.00

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1986 Attachment: 20260506-Discretionary Funds Balance (7715 : Library’s LEGO Club) 1 Mitchell Kois
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox
Subject: In Support: Item 16.C

EXTERNAL
As a parent of young kids who play with LEGOs, a LEGO fan myself, and a happy user of Santa Monica Public Libraries, I am glad to see LEGO activties being funded at the library. Thanks, Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 16-C
May 12, 2026
Item 16-C
May 12, 2026

16.C.c
Packet Pg. 1987 Attachment: Written Comments (7715 : Library’s LEGO Club) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Torosis that Council approve use of up to $10,000 of Council discretionary funds, on a 1:1 matching basis, to support Santa Monica High School’s Legado Latino and Black Student Union in offsetting expenses incurred for graduation activities for participating students
Prepared By: Sergio Ramirez, Chief of Staff
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Financial Support for Legado Latino and Black Student Union Grad Activities - Hall, Torosis, Snell
B. Discretionary Funds Balance

16.D
Packet Pg. 1988
Meeting: May 12, 2026
16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, BARRY SNELL, AND MAYOR

CAROLINE TOROSIS
Request of Councilmembers Hall, Snell, and Mayor Torosis that Council approve use of up to $10,000 of Council discretionary funds, on a 1:1 matching basis, to support Santa Monica High School’s Legado Latino and Black Student Union in offsetting expenses incurred for graduation activities for participating students.

In past years, Council has periodically allocated funding from its discretionary budget to support youth-led cultural and educational programming in our community.

Building on that tradition, we are requesting a total allocation of up to $10,000 to support Santa Monica High School’s Legado Latino and Black Student Union on a 1:1 matching basis to offset expenses incurred for graduation activities. This builds on the 16 Item supporting Legado Latino in November 2025 put forward by Councilmembers Hall and Zernitskaya.

In order to reinforce the City’s commitment to inclusion, education, and the arts, and ensure that our local students continue to see themselves and their culture reflected in civic life,
WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:

1. Allocate up to $5,000 of Council discretionary funds, on a 1:1 matching basis against funds raised by Legado Latino, to defray costs incurred by Legado Latino students for Santa Monica High School graduation activities. Costs shall be drawn from Councilmember discretionary allocations as follows:

1.1. up to $2,000 from Councilmember Snell,

1.2. up to $2,000 from Mayor Torosis,

1.3. and up to $1,000 from Councilmember Hall.

2. Allocate up to $5,000 of Council discretionary funds, on a 1:1 matching basis against funds raised by the Black Student Union, to defray costs incurred by Black Student Union students for Santa Monica High School graduation activities. Costs shall be drawn from Councilmember discretionary allocations as follows:

2.1. up to $3,000 from Councilmember Hall,

2.2. up to $1,000 from Mayor Torosis,

2.3. and up to $1,000 from Councilmember Snell.

3. Direct staff to disburse the matched Legado Latino funds to the Association of Mexican American Educators, care of Dr. Guadalupe Mireles-Toumayan, which acts as the tax ID entity for Legado Latino, upon confirmation of the corresponding community-raised matching funds.

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1989 Attachment: Financial Support for Legado Latino and Black Student Union Grad Activities - Hall, Torosis, Snell (7716 : Legado Latino and Black 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS HALL, SNELL, AND MAYOR TOROSIS Supporting Samohi’s Legado Latino and Black Student Union for Graduation Activities

4. Direct staff to disburse the matched Black Student Union funds to the Samohi Associated Union, which acts as the tax ID entity for the Black Student Union, upon confirmation of the corresponding community-raised matching funds. # # #

Page 2 of 2 ends

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 12, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
May 12, 2026