Santa Monica City Council
July 14, 2026

1 David Yakobson
From: Chris Harding <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:05 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln; Denise Anderson-Warren; Mark Harding; Tom Larmore; Terry O'Day
Subject: Agenda Item No. 12.C (July 14, 2026) Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Addressing EV Charging for Autonomous Fleet Vehicles
Attachments: CC 2026-07-13.pdf; 2026.06.17 LA Times - Forced by courts, Hungtington Beach passes its overdue housing element plan.pdf; Expert Report of Terry O'Day December 2025.pdf; AG Legal Alert.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please see the attached letter on Agenda Item 12.C on tomorrow night’s City Council Agenda.

The attached letter focuses on legal issues and explains why SMF believes the proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (“EIZO”) violates State EV Charging Law. I suggest you pay particular attention to the Conclusion, which states:
“The proposed EIZO appears designed to severely restrict if not ban EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles in Santa Monica. In addition to the serious legal problems this would create for the City, the City Council should ask if this is sound as a matter of public policy. This is a serious issue that needs thoughtful review, data, and public input (including from businesses that provide EV rideshare services and their customers), not a hysterical overreaction grounded in fear. “Autonomous rideshare services such as Waymo are essential components of a smart, green transportation strategy. Santa Monica residents and those who work and visit here have come to rely upon Waymo in particular for many of their trips.

The City Council should be looking to welcome and accommodate such rideshare services and the EV charging they require.
“As a progressive city, Santa Monica should reject the proposed EIZO as a regressive measure that impedes EV rideshare services grounded in fear and misinformation. Having adopted (mostly) a smart-growth, environmentally-sound approach to housing, the City should take a similar approach when it comes to EV rideshare fleet vehicles.”
Sincerely,
Chris Harding
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Christopher M. Harding | Attorney at Law
1250 6th Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
July 13, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]
Re: Proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Addressing EV Charging for Autonomous Fleet Vehicles
Hearing Date: July 14, 2026
Agenda Item No. 12.C
Dear Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of SMF Property Holdings, LLC (“SMF”), owner of the two properties with EV charging facilities at 1222 and 1310 Broadway, Santa Monica. These two facilities are leased by SMF to Voltera Power and operated by Waymo. They were constructed pursuant to building permits issued by the City in 2023 approving EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles on a 24/7 basis, with certain ancillary services specified on the City-approved plans. SMF is informed that Voltera spent in excess of $10 million constructing these facilities in reliance on their City-issued building permits. These facilities have been operated by Waymo continuously since early 2025.

The proposed Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (“EIZO”) asks the City Council to embrace a new role as the Huntington Beach of EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles. (See attached Huntington Beach article.) The propose EIZO, if adopted, would place the City in conflict with State EV Charging Law (Government Code Section 65850.7(a)) and the California Attorney General’s Legal Alert dated March 18, 2025 placing cities on notice as to State EV Charging Law’s restrictions on municipal regulation of EV charging. If the City Council adopts the proposed EIZO as submitted, you will be inviting litigation and risking substantial financial exposure at a time when the City is struggling to recover financially.

Notably absent from the EIZO is a recital acknowledging the enormous environmental benefits of electricity-powered autonomous fleet vehicles, as well as regulatory provisions that facilitate and encourage the charging of such vehicles. To the contrary, the EIZO is clearly designed to impede EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
July 13, 2026

The proposed EIZO is a revised version of an IZO calendared for City Council consideration on May 26th. The prior IZO was pulled from your May 26th agenda in response to communications from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (“GOBiz”). The Staff Report indicates the revised EIZO addresses GO-Biz’s objections. SMF disagrees.

As explained below, the EIZO contains the same legal flaws as the prior proposed IZO.1

STATE EV CHARGING LAW
Our prior (May 26th) letter explained State EV Charging Law and its restrictions on municipal regulation of EV charging. The new Staff Report essentially ignores these restrictions, treating them as irrelevant to the newly-defined zoning/land use category: “Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles” (which appears to include all EV charging of autonomous fleet vehicles regardless of the actual activities occurring on-site).

But these State law restrictions on municipal regulation are pivotal here, and they preempt the proposed EIZO insofar as it attempts to evade State law’s protections for EV charging of autonomous fleet vehicles.

In particular:
 Cities May Not Restrict the Location of EV Charging. As the Attorney General explained: “Specifically, localities may not limit EV charging stations to commercial areas or refuse to site EV charging stations in residential zones or in locations where EV charging stations are not an allowed site use under local law.” (AG Alert at p.4)  Cities May Not Discriminate Against Autonomous Fleet Vehicles. According to the Attorney General, State EV Charging Law protects EV charging for all types of vehicles including autonomous fleet vehicles. The State EV Charging Law does not distinguish between “whether the EV charging stations are for personal, public or fleet use ….” (AG Alert at p.5)  Cities Must Allow EV Charging Facilities and Services Integral to EV Charging. The AG Alert also makes it clear that when it refers to “EV charging stations,” it includes related improvements and services that are “integral” to the operations of the EV charging facility. (AG Alert at p. 5) Thus, any municipal regulation addressing EV charging (including the proposed EIZO) must protect EV charging and related improvements and services that are integral to EV charging including EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles. 1 The Staff Report fails to indicate that GO-Biz has had an opportunity to review the EIZO and provide comments.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
July 13, 2026

THE PROPOSED EIZO VIOLATES STATE EV CHARGING LAW
The proposed EIZO conflicts with State EV charging law in at least two respects: (1) it seeks to define away State law’s protections for fleet vehicle EV charging by purporting to reclassify such charging as “Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles” regardless of whether more than EV charging is involved; and (2) it seeks to impose both geographic and operational standards on EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles that are incompatible with State law.

A. The Proposed EIZO’s Definition of “Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles” Violates State EV Charging Law.

The proposed EIZO attempts to evade State law’s protections for fleet vehicle EV charging through definitional “sleight-of-hand.” It does so by creating a new use category (“Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles”), defines it capaciously to be virtually allinclusive, and then treats this new use category as unprotected by State EV Charging Law.

This new use category includes any of the following activities associated with fleet vehicles: “parking, dispatching, storage, fueling, cleaning, software servicing, vehicles maintenance and servicing ….” This list is preceded by the phrase, “including but not limited to ….” Notably, the definition does not indicate whether one or more of these activities is necessary to constitute this new use.

This definition expressly excludes EV charging only. However, the EIZO’s recitals assume that EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles cannot constitute EV charging only. Thus, EV charging for such fleet vehicles can never be exempt from the EIZO’s requirements.

This core feature of the EIZO cannot be reconciled with State EV Charging Law, which as the Attorney General has recognized protects EV charging for fleet vehicles and activities integral to EV charging. The City cannot define away these State law protections in its Zoning Ordinance.

To address this legal deficiency in the EIZO, and bring it into compliance with State EV Charging Law (as explained by the Attorney General), the EIZO should be amended to include the following definition of “EV charging only”: “EV charging only includes EV charging and any services and facilities integral to EV charging. EV charging only includes such charging for all types of vehicles including autonomous fleet vehicles.” Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
July 13, 2026

B. The Proposed EIZO Includes Geographic and Other Restrictions that Violate State EV Charging Law.

The proposed EIZO seeks to impose onerous (arguably prohibitive) geographic and other restrictions on EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles that are incompatible with State EV Charging Law.

In particular, the proposed EIZO would limit EV charging of autonomous fleet vehicles to a small portion of the City only: the Industrial Conservation (“IC”), General Commercial (“GC”), and Transit Adjacent (“TA”) districts. These geographic restrictions violate EV Charging Law’s protections for EV charging in all zoning districts. (AG Alert at p. 4) In addition to the geographic restrictions, the EIZO includes a series of operational standards untethered to the limits imposed by State EV Charging Law. Under State EV Charging Law, such limits must be tied to specific adverse public health or safety (not welfare) impacts and constitute the least costly alternative. (Government Code Section 65850.7(a)(i)(1))2 The EIZO makes no attempt to meet this State law requirement, apparently based upon its fictional premise that EV charging of autonomous fleet vehicles is not protected by State EV Charging Law.

SMF is particularly concerned with the EIZO insofar as it looks to restrict nighttime hours of operation. EV charging expert (and former Councilmember) Terry O’Day prepared a report last December (copy attached) indicating that nighttime charging is essential to EV charging’s viability.3
THE PROPOSED EIZO CANNOT BE APPLIED TO SMF’S PROPERTIES The proposed EIZO and Staff Report ignore SMF’s prior (May 26th) request for a clear “non-retroactive” applicability provision confirming that the IZO does not apply to the existing EV charging facilities at 1222 and 1310 Broadway. Thus, SMF renews our request for such a provision.

As we explained before, the proposed EIZO cannot lawfully be applied to the EV charging facilities at SMF’s properties for two reasons:
2 Government Code Section 65850.7(i)(5) defines “specific adverse impact” as a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
3 This letter does not address these operational standards in depth because they apply to new permit applications, not existing uses like the EV charging at SMF’s properties.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
July 13, 2026

1. Because the City previously issued building permits specifically authorizing the construction and use of EV charging (and related services) at these two properties for fleet vehicles on a 24/7 basis, and SMF/Voltera/Waymo have collectively invested millions of dollars in reliance on these permits, SMF, Voltera and Waymo have a fundamental vested right to operate these facilities for autonomous fleet vehicles, 24/7, notwithstanding the proposed EIZO. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. 17 Cal.3d 785, 791 (1976).

2. State EV Charging Law establishes the sole procedure for the City to impose project conditions on EV charging facilities. This procedure is the Use Permit procedure established in Government Code Section 65850.7. In approving the SMF facilities, the City chose not to impose project conditions. State EV Charging Law precludes the City from imposing such conditions now, via the proposed EIZO.4
In this regard, the building permits for SMF’s properties approved EV charging use based upon State EV Charging Law, not the City’s Zoning Ordinance. State EV Charging Law has not changed -- it continues to make EV charging (including for autonomous fleet vehicles) a permitted use in all zoning districts including in the MUBL district where SMF’s properties are located. Thus, the proposed EIZO modifying the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not negate the legal status of EV charging at SMF’s properties: it is a permitted use under State EV Charging Law.5

CONCLUSION
The proposed EIZO appears designed to severely restrict if not ban EV charging for autonomous fleet vehicles in Santa Monica. In addition to the serious legal problems this would create for the City, the City Council should ask if this is sound as a matter of public policy. This is a serious issue that needs thoughtful review, data, and public input (including from businesses that provide EV rideshare services and their customers), not a hysterical overreaction grounded in fear.

Autonomous rideshare services such as Waymo are essential components of a smart, green transportation strategy. Santa Monica residents and those who work and visit here have come to rely upon Waymo in particular for many of their trips. The City Council should be 4 State EV Charging Law specifically limits conditions based on the standards, policies or conditions “as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Government Code Section 65850.7(i)(5)) For SMF’s properties, the applications were deemed complete about 3 years ago, thus precluding application of the EIZO standards to SMF’s properties. 5 It would violate State EV Charging Law for the City to treat the existing EV charging use at 1222 and 1310 Broadway as a nonconforming use rather than a permitted use subject to the Zoning Ordinance’s restrictions on nonconforming uses because EV charging at these sites was approved pursuant to State EV Charging Law (not the Zoning Ordinance).

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Santa Monica City Council
July 13, 2026

looking to welcome and accommodate such rideshare services and the EV charging they require.

As a progressive city, Santa Monica should reject the proposed EIZO as a regressive measure that impedes EV rideshare services grounded in fear and misinformation. Having adopted (mostly) a smart-growth, environmentally-sound approach to housing, the City should take a similar approach when it comes to EV rideshare fleet vehicles.

Sincerely,
Christopher M. Harding
Enclosures
cc: Oliver Chi
Jing Yeo
Heidi von Tongeln
City Clerk ([email protected])
Mark Harding
Thomas Larmore
Voltera
Waymo
Terry O’Day
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026














 

 





!
"#$%&
'$(
(

!
)#$!
%$
!*

$
+%,
%,
*%-##

"$%& ($
'$(
(-%,
,
!
(!- %,
!
,!##

$%
$% .
/-%$%&!%
01(
!$1$#
*!,
! 2

(!- $%&
#+%
-2,
!%
3- ,

%$&(.
4567589:;66<8=;>? @ABCDE;FG;CAHBIJ:;KHLIMLNIAL;ODPCQ;RPJJDJ;MIJ;ASDBEHD;QAHJMLN;DTDUDLI;RTPL;V;WAJ;>LNDTDJ;XMUDJ QIRJ<55YYYZTPIMUDJZCAU5JACPT5EPMTGVRMTAI5LDYJ5JIABG58[89V[9V645\ABCDEVFGVCAHBIJVQHLIMLNIALVFDPCQVRPJJDJVMIJVASDBEHDVQAHJMLNVDTDUDLIVRTPL 659 Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026








 


 

 




 







!





 

"
#
!$







 


%
" 


&



 '(




)









*




* (

+ 
,%
- 
'%


.

.
/*

$ 0







1








.






















.*


 


2
) +


 






$

34
456
 





 (

+ 
,%









73



78 2




 






74





$




 







  




% "

( 






 


9


1
!1  : 


 



+


 


 ;3<7
777





;7
777


=

 








  =





 
 


>?@A?BCDE@@FBGEHI JKLMNOEPQEMKRLSTDEURVSWVXSKVEYNZM[E\ZTTNTEWSTEK]NLORNE[KRTWVXEN^N_NVSE\^ZVE`EaKTEHVXN^NTEbW_NT [S\TF??cccd^ZSW_NTdMK_?TKMZ^?OZW^Q`\W^KS?VNcT?TSKLQ?BeBC`eC`@>?fKLMNO`PQ`MKRLST`[RVSWVXSKV`PNZM[`\ZTTNT`WST`K]NLORN`[KRTWVX`N^N_NVS`\^ZV B?C Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
























  






 









  
 


 

 


 




 


 




 


 




 





 









!

 





  








 










 

 " 




  

 




 

 


#$%&$'()*%%+',*-. /01234*56*207189)*:7;8<;=80;*>3?2@*A?9939*<89*0B31473*@079<;=*3C3D3;8*AC?;*E*F09*-;=3C39*G<D39 @8A9+$$HHHIC?8<D39I20D$902?C$4?<C6EA<C08$;3H9$98016$'J'(EJ(E%#$K01234E56E207189E@7;8<;=80;E53?2@EA?9939E<89E0B31473E@079<;=E3C3D3;8EAC?; &$( Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026












 




 












 



!
"






# 



 




$% 

#&'



 









(


  
  





'




$ )


*

 
+
,)-.


#
 
$/

  
 





0


 






1  




 

% 











)
 2

     
 3



 




,)-.+



4567589:;66<8=;>? @ABCDE;FG;CAHBIJ:;KHLIMLNIAL;ODPCQ;RPJJDJ;MIJ;ASDBEHD;QAHJMLN;DTDUDLI;RTPL;V;WAJ;>LNDTDJ;XMUDJ QIRJ<55YYYZTPIMUDJZCAU5JACPT5EPMTGVRMTAI5LDYJ5JIABG58[89V[9V645\ABCDEVFGVCAHBIJVQHLIMLNIALVFDPCQVRPJJDJVMIJVASDBEHDVQAHJMLNVDTDUDLIVRTPL =59 Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026



 




 
 



  

 

 




 













  
 




  
 



!"
  


 




#



 

 
 

$%








 
 




! &  



'(











 




 

! )*









 


 

'



 +

 
!),





!-


  
 
  !+ (




 .#







/



!




 





' 

 
 

 
  








 
 
 


   
 ! 


*



 

 

  
  



 



 
  


     
 


 0
 ! )*  $



$ 
  


 









 

  



 
 
+*

!)* 





 


 
 








 



!+ 1223456327468439:3;<7:=63>9?:4@3A<9B3;<7:=63>9?:4@C D7443EF7G9 HIJKILMNOJJPLQORS TUVWXYOZ[OWU\V]^NO_\`]a`b]U`OcXdWeOfd^^X^Oa]^OUgXVY\XOeU\^a`bOXhXiX`]Ofhd`OjOkU^OR`bXhX^OlaiX^ e]f^PIImmmnhd]aiX^nWUiI^UWdhIYdah[jfahU]I`Xm^I^]UV[ILoLMjoMjJHIpUVWXYjZ[jWU\V]^je\`]a`b]U`jZXdWejfd^^X^ja]^jUgXVY\XjeU\^a`bjXhXiX`]jfhd` qIM Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026









































 !
"


#$


$$%
!


&''(




"










$
 )*+,*-./0++1-2034 56789:0;<086=7>?/0@=A>BAC>6A0D9E8F0GE??9?0B>?06H97:=90F6=?BAC09I9J9A>0GIEA0K0L6?03AC9I9?0MBJ9? F>G?1**NNNOIE>BJ9?O86J*?68EI*:EBI<KGBI6>*A9N?*?>67<*-P-.KP.K+)*Q6789:K;<K86=7>?KF=A>BAC>6AK;9E8FKGE??9?KB>?K6H97:=9KF6=?BACK9I9J9A>KGIEA .*.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
EXPERT REPORT OF TERRY O’DAY
Mayor Pro Tempore 2012-2014 and 2018-2020.

Councilmember December 2009 to December 2020
Planning Commission Chair 2008-2009
Planning Commissioner 2003-2009
Founder of 5 EV charging companies since 1996
Neighborhood resident since 1998
Regarding the EV Charging Facilities
Serving Waymo at 1222 & 1310 Broadway
(Broadway & Euclid), Santa Monica, CA
Submitted to the City of Santa Monica
for City Council’s consideration of facility operations December 8, 2025
Prepared at the request of the landowner, SMF Property Holdings Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
2 I. Executive Summary
This expert report provides independent planning and EV infrastructure analysis to inform City Council deliberations on the operation of the Waymo fleet-charging facilities at 1222 and 1310 Broadway and its impacts on neighbors. It recommends continued nighttime charging (24/7 operations) with mitigations designed to meaningfully reduce noise, light, and circulation impacts on neighbors while maintaining lawful, permitted use consistent with City policy and State law.

Neighbors adjacent to the Broadway sites have reported sleep disruption from beeping and humming, intrusive light from vehicles and equipment, and queuing within the alley that can feel unpredictable and stressful late at night. These experiences deserve prompt, durable remedies.

The recommendations below focus on physical buffers, quiet-hours practices, lighting controls, and street access improvements that address the disturbancesresidents report (sound, light, and circulation at sensitive hours). In addition to finding that there are neighboring residents who have concerns that merit action, the report finds that economic impacts on the charging and vehicle operators from a proposed shutdown overnight are overly-broad and carry significant harms that are avoidable in a balanced resolution.

Mitigated 24/7 operations make sense and balance the interests effectively. The City’s Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) and Electric Vehicle Action Plan (EVAP) emphasize integrated land use and transportation, emission reductions, and expanded EV charging infrastructure to decarbonize trips that still require vehicles while safeguarding neighborhood quality of life.

Permits issued in October 2023 contemplate 24/7 operations, and California’s Gov. Code § 65850.7 requires administrative approval of EV charging unless there is a “finding, based on substantial evidence, that the electric vehicle charging station . . . could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” Continuing overnight charging with voluntary adoption of specific site-level mitigation measures that are agreed upon by all of the stakeholders advances City policy and reduces neighborhood impacts—especially the Euclid ingress/egress curb cut and noise/light screening.

Despite the difficult position the city faces, having already authorized 24/7 operation and being prohibited by state law in modifying, a balanced solution appears within reach because the operators have made proposals to the city that achieve a great deal of what is needed. In fact, some operational modifications have already been made and the stakeholders have indicated in recent correspondence now before the Council that they are willing to make additional operational modifications.

Recommendation to City Council
Direct City staff to negotiate and enter into a durable agreement with the operators that recognizes the operators’ legal rights to operate on a 24/7 basis, but mandates implementation of the operational changes and completion of the physical improvements offered in the November 26, 2025 letter from the operators with the modifications recommended herein.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
3 Recommended Site Modifications and Operational Controls • Continue in-place operational quiet-hours controls
o Ensure no vacuuming or use of power tools 11 pm–6 am; o Maintain reduced reverse-alert tones now provided voluntarily by Waymo; • Implement additional operational quiet-hours controls o Minimize parked-vehicle light cycling of headlights and blinking hazard lights; o Remove or disable lighting effects from charging stations that are not operationally required
• Implement additional physical screening and light control o Install opaque fencing wraps on the property borders at the southern property borders, and if insufficient,
o Install mature, dense and tall vegetation at the southern property borders and alleys, and if insufficient,
o Dim or shield ambient lighting spillover onto adjacent lots, and if insufficient, o Install additional awnings/canopies and/or masonry walls with absorptive liners at residential interfaces of sufficient height to screen the immediately adjacent multifamily housing across the alleys (subject to utility easements and other legal restrictions).
• Implement circulation changes
o Remove the one-way orientation of 12th Court during nighttime hours to allow vehicles to enter the lot from Boadway and avoid driving the length of 12th Court at night.
o Investigate and if feasible establish a Euclid Street ingress/egress for the western lot, which is authorized under SMMC § 9.28.120(B)(3)(c). ▪ Note: this will take time to implement; Council should direct staff to swiftly complete the steps (design review, permits, and Public Works coordination) necessary to expedite this improvement.
o Euclid Street ingress/egress may help the eastern lot also but is a lower priority than the western lot due to the immediate impacts to the west. • Facilitate communication
o Adopt a procedure such that if a specific, adverse impact is identified in the future, how the parties will work together to address it
These actions directly target the sources of disturbance that neighbors have described, reduce Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
4 late-night impacts, and keep charging available in a manner consistent with the City’s EVAP and LUCE frameworks. They achieve a balance of interests that permit the station owners to operate under an economically viable set of conditions. They require capital investment on behalf of the operators in exchange for continuing to enjoy the economic benefits of ongoing operations that the city has already granted, in compliance with state law.

II. Author Credentials and Relevant Experience
I served on the City of Santa Monica Planning Commission beginning in 2003 and was elected Chair in 2008, serving through August 2009 during the community's multi-year effort to produce the City's Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), adopted in 2010 and in effect today. I subsequently served on the Santa Monica City Council from December 2009 to December 2020, including terms as Mayor Pro Tempore in 2012-2014 and 2018-2020.

Professionally, I am Founder and Chief Operating Officer of lnCharge Energy, a fleet-focused EV charging provider that develops, builds, and operates charging solutions nationwide. I was on the founding team of EVgo, the nation's largest public DC fast-charging network, and I began my career in 1996 as an analyst at Edison EV working with early EV charging operations. I also cofounded Move LA; our coalition-building contributed to the success of Measure R, a breakthrough regional initiative that united business, labor, environmental, and civic leaders to fund transformative mobility investments. I provided expert advice in development of California’s groundbreaking EV charging streamlining laws (Gov. Code § 65850.7 and AB 970).

I have prepared this report at the request of SMF Property Holdings, the landowner of the subject properties as an expert in urban planning, City of Santa Monica policy, and EV infrastructure design/operations (not electrical engineering), at a customary expert consultant rate. My current company has developed and operated charging sites for Waymo and other autonomous operators (Cruise, Motional, Zoox), and for fleets such as FedEx, General Motors, PepsiCo, municipalities, and public school districts. I have not been compensated by Voltera or Waymo.

Beginning in 1998 until August 2025 I lived in Santa Monica no more than seven blocks from the Broadway lots. Since 2004, that has been at 1753 Euclid Street, just three blocks away. I continue to own that home. This personal residence is across the I-10 freeway from the Broadway lots and is not directly affected by noise and light from the facilities; however, this area is very much part of my neighborhood, and I first moved here in 1998 on 17th Street. My family frequents the adjacent Euclid park, and I have had immediate family members attend the grade school across the street.

III. Purpose and Scope
In this report, I provide professional opinions regarding the design, siting, and operation of the EV charging facilities at 1222 and 1310 Broadway, developed by Voltera for Waymo's Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
5 autonomous vehicle fleet, and the suitability of continued 24/7 operations in accordance with their City-issued permits with targeted mitigations that address neighborhood concerns while maintaining alignment with City policy and State law. I detail my process, findings, and recommendations.

This report incorporates consideration of the materials listed below, as well as my own site visits and knowledge of the neighborhood, in which I have lived since 1998.

IV. Methodology
This report attempts to capture all the publicly available correspondence about site operations at the subject properties as well as governing documents and laws. I have made multiple site visits over the last 18 months1 and have personal knowledge as a neighborhood resident. Where possible, I sought to examine data. I acknowledge, however, that this is a fast-moving public deliberation and at the time I began a complete study, the City had already initiated the threat of litigation. As such, I moved as quickly as possible to provide a comprehensive analysis from my perspective to promote dialogue.

Materials Relied Upon
o City letters (Sept. 9, 2025, Nov. 19, 2025)
o Waymo counsel letter (Nov. 25, 2025) and Joint proposal letter (Nov. 26, 2025) o LUCE (Executive Summary and City statements on LUCE process and intent) o Santa Monica Zoning Code Ch. 9.11 (MUBL purpose) and City planning resources o Gov. Code § 65850.7 and AB 970 streamlining guides/fact sheets o Public reporting on City directives and community concerns (e.g., KTLA, Santa Monica Daily Press)
o Professional experience and site visits as described
o Publicly available correspondence from neighbors to City officials as provided by California Public Records Act requests
1 My site visits included the time during construction and observations were made from the street, park and alleys.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
6 V. Findings and Observations
A. Site Background and Condition
The Broadway properties have been commercial in character, including prior use as inventory parking for an automobile dealership. In this use, the lots have experienced significant daytime operations, including parking with greater density and significantly more vehicles accommodated on the lot at a time. The transition to commercial fleet charging stations resulted in fewer vehicles and fewer staff, but significantly more trips and round-the-clock operation.

In my professional judgment, the stations are well-constructed and generally well-managed.

Compared to fleet charging stations nationwide, these are well lit, clean, operating reliably, and highly utilized. The stations operate particularly near one apartment building to the west, and the western site utilizes the alley to a significant degree.

Lot access is provided for both lots from their respective alleys, despite being bisected by Euclid Street. The eastern alley (Euclid Court) is mostly commercial and includes Euclid Park, a school, a pet hospital, a paint and body shop, other office and automotive uses and four or five apartment buildings. The western alley (12th Court) is mostly residential and includes apartment buildings, some offices and commercial. Nearly all the apartments were built mid-century, and many do not have central air conditioning.
12th Court appears to have the most significant conflicts with neighboring uses. 1208 Broadway and 1507 12th Street are closest to the stations. The proximity of operations to these buildings is uncommon in the charging industry, but not unique, as I address later in this report in comparison with stations in other jurisdictions.

The properties have one owner, SMF Property Holdings. The one developer and charging station operator, Voltera, leases the properties. The vehicle operator, Waymo is the customer of Voltera. Southern California Edison provides electric service.

B. Economic Model
The economic model for these stations relies on high utilization (also referred to as throughput).

Capital investment in the property is well above $10 million and includes site development, paving, boundary fences, landscaping, lighting, canopies, electrical infrastructure, and charging equipment. Operating costs include utilities, software, maintenance, staffing, and rent. All improvements were made after the City issued permits for the 24/7 operation of these facilities.

The vehicle operator (Waymo) is the customer of the developer and operator of the charging stations, Voltera. Voltera pays a leasing fee to SMF Property Holdings, the landowner.2 The facility operating expenses are mostly fixed. In addition to capital recovery, the fixed 2 In full transparency, I do not have access to any proprietary information about the economic relationship between the parties of Waymo, Voltera and SMF Property Holdings. My comments are limited to my understanding of industry practices and conventions, having personally developed and operated over 10,000 charging sites of various types in North America since 1996. Financial data provided are estimates based on my professional experience.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
7 expenses include staffing, maintenance, rent, software, and utility demand charges. The variable cost of electricity is not as significant as most people would believe. This is due to commercial utility tariff structures. Essentially, there are two components to a commercial electric bill. The first is the variable rate; it is the amount of “fuel” that is consumed. It is measured as volume as kilowatt hours (kWh) and can be understood as how much power (kW) is delivered over how long a period (hours). If this were your water faucet, imagine kWh as how much water flowed through your faucet to fill the bucket, and it is the result of how long you left the faucet running. The second is a peak power charge, or demand charge. This fee comprises most of a typical highpower charging station’s electricity bill and is set by the maximum energy drawn by the facility during any 15-minute interval in a month. In the water faucet metaphor, this is based on how big your faucet is and if you ever turned it all the way open. One peak energy event will set the monthly demand charge in some jurisdictions for the entire year. Station owners go to great lengths to limit these charges. For intermittent charging, like a public charging station, this cost is typically the primary operating expense, sometimes higher than capital recovery.

Due to the fixed cost structure of a charging station, high utilization is needed to maximize capital efficiency of the site.

Essentially, it amortizes this expense across more charging events.

Unlike in your home, a commercial charging station without subsidies would typically cost more than fueling your gasolinepowered vehicle. To be competitive with gasoline, the name of the game is utilization.

Autonomous vehicle fleets optimize the fixed capital and operating expenses of charging stations by achieving utilization rates that are not attainable through typical vehicle operation. In many cases, including the Broadway properties, utilization of the charging stations well exceeds 90% of all available hours. In other words, during a 24-hour period vehicles will be plugged into a charger and actively drawing electricity for more than 22 hours. With as many as 20 vehicles charging per day, one can imagine this provides for very brief transitions between charge events.

Such high-demand sites enable electric vehicles to compete with fossil fuel vehicles on cost, which is critical to achieving the policy goals of deploying electric vehicles and reducing emissions of localized pollutants and global-warming pollution. Station operators are betting on a future with more vehicles in operation, higher utilization, and economic viability. Waymo, as a start-up operator deploying groundbreaking new technology, is working to achieve sustainable uniteconomics of its operations to demonstrate the ability to scale its model globally, displacing both private vehicle ownership and gasoline. The subject sites are a key component of its early deployment and the success of EVs in autonomous vehicle fleets. It is important to note that autonomous vehicle technology is not inherently electric. Fleet operators can easily choose gasoline fueling, obviating many of the important potential benefits of this technology. In fact, the first Waymo vehicles were gasoline-powered and were operated for years during the research and development phase of the company.

In my estimation, fixed operating costs for the facility – rent, capital recovery, maintenance, and demand charges comprise more than 90% of the total operating expenses.

The cost structure of
high-power charging
stations is typically >90%
fixed costs.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
8 C. Impact of the City’s Demand to Eliminate Nighttime Operations Given this context, it is easy to understand the source of concern for the vehicle and charging operators. Closing EV charging operations from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am as proposed by the City reduces total operating time by roughly 30%. This creates serious adverse economic and environmental effects. In simple terms, that is 30% less revenue to cover those fixed expenses.

That almost certainly makes the stations unviable.

For two reasons, the operators only have limited control over market prices that they charge for their services. First, gasoline is a viable substitute for electric fuel. As described, nonresidential EV charging is only marginally competitive with gasoline fueling on price. Second, rideshare markets are now mature, with Uber and Lyft dominating pricing. Waymo cannot exceed prices for these substitutes.

Turning this station’s economics upside down has effects that would negatively impact the global deployment of EVs in autonomous fleets. Waymo is the far-and-away leader in the category, and it is still in an early proof-of-deployment period. Upending the unit economics and ability to scale with EVs disrupts the long-term potential of the technology.

Without a doubt, all parties involved have significant interest in getting the local operations right in Santa Monica. The lessons provided on these sites are valuable – including operating economics, siting and design, permitting, and importantly how to operate successfully in communities, especially when adjacent to residences. Success must include contributing positively to neighborhood wellbeing and vitality if the technology is going to scale. As I will examine in later sections, the City also has a strong stated policy interest in the success of these operations.

D. Comparison With Other Fueling Sites
Not far from the Broadway stations, Tesla and Electrify America operate public charging stations of a similar scale. Indeed, mid-city is the home to many of Santa Monica’s charging stations.

These sites provide an especially important service for local renters, who find their residential charging options limited.

The Tesla public charging site at 14th and Santa Monica Boulevard is two blocks away, covers two lots, like the Broadway stations, bisected by an alley, with 64 charging stations. It has little-to-no vegetation onsite but incorporates many other elements visible at the Broadway stations, such as ambient lighting and large solar canopies. The site operates unattended 24/7 drawing public users and is equally proximate to multifamily residences.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
9 The Electrify America public charging site at 18th and Santa Monica Blvd. is six blocks from the Broadway sites, with 20 charging stations. It has more vegetation than Tesla’s station, but significantly less than the Broadway sites. Each of the chargers has nighttime lighting in neon green that is used for marketing purposes and is far brighter than the Broadway chargers.

Significant ambient lighting at nighttime
The 20-station
Electrify America.
public charging
station six black
away is brightly lit
at night, including
branded lights on
each charger.

Multifamily on the northside
of Tesla lot with solar
canopies and 64 stations
Multifamily - northside
of Electrify America lot
The 64-station Tesla
public charging site two
blocks away at 14th and
Santa Monica Blvd. is
equally proximate to
multifamily housing and
operates 24/7 with
minimal controversy.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
10 In today’s market, these public charging stations are far more common. EVgo operates multiple similar sites in Santa Monica, clustered downtown, and Tesla has one other large site in the Pico Neighborhood. Public stations have similar lighting impacts, similar egress/ingress volume, but different impacts associated with noise. By offering public access, public sites contend with driver behavior that can range from smoking to loud talking or fighting, loud music, trash accumulation, and vehicle abandonment. They are typically unattended so can also produce impacts associated with vagrancy and property crime. Still, these sites are far less active overnight because most drivers are at home asleep.

FINDING: Although the Broadway sites have significantly greater nighttime activity, the presence of staff and absence of public access on these sites offers the City and the Broadway operators an advantage in controlling the local impacts that have earned the Council’s attention. There are many available mitigations that would not be possible on public sites with a different operating model and economic use case.

E. Policy Alignment
Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Although electric vehicles are encouraged in the
LUCE, they were not widely available at the time
the LUCE was developed. Charging operations
were in their infancy and vehicle adoption was
limited to private use, mostly in single family
homes. California policies to promote EVs date
back to 1991, however, and the LUCE was drafted
with full awareness and alignment with those
policies, which anticipated that most on-road
vehicles would be electrified by the present time.
“Encourage the use of alternative fuel
vehicles, including electric vehicles, by
providing infrastructure such as charging
stations in public and private parking
facilities.”
(Santa Monica LUCE, adopted July 6, 2010,
Policy: Sustainable Transportation)
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
11 The potential benefits and harms of autonomous vehicles, on the other hand, could not be fully considered in the LUCE, since at the time the technology existed only in the imaginations of engineers and a few of their laboratories. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of autonomous vehicles for the LUCE policy goals are staggering. For starters, autonomous vehicles are massively safer than human-driven vehicles. As articulated by Mark R. Rosekind, Ph.D., former NHTSA Administrator; former NTSB Member, “We have also recently determined through our research that in 94 percent of cases, the critical element in the chain of events before a crash is the human driver. Technology offers a huge potential in mitigating this statistic.”3 Secondly, commercial autonomous vehicle fleets have the potential to reduce overall land consumption from vehicles, ceding land back to human uses. This occurs because vehicles utilize less road space through efficient road behavior, and the potential reduction in personal vehicle ownership reduces the demand for parking. This produces enormous dividends in the long run as it frees up land for human uses. In the LUCE itself, one finds many references to carsharing, which is most nearly analogous to the modern shared mobility services exhibited by Waymo, but combined with the benefits of electrification.

None of these benefits, however, undermine the very real, localized impacts of a commercial fleet operation located next to residential properties. Many Santa Monica residences are adjacent to commercial body shops, parking lots for school buses or trucks, and other similar uses. Those impacts must be properly mitigated and considered. Noise, lights, ingress/egress, safe passage, odors, and more are common impacts of commercial vehicle operations.

Both lots are in the MUBL (Mixed-Use Boulevard - Low) zone, which seeks to transform autooriented corridors into highly walkable, mixed-use areas and establishes buffers and transition standards to protect adjacent neighborhoods. In the MUBL, the City has clearly identified conflicts in residential and commercial adjacency and sought to contain and mitigate those conflicts. In the Broadway lots, this would include appropriate noise/light screening and minimized vehicle-pedestrian conflicts via adequate street access. The MUBL exists explicitly in recognition of the conflict between commercial and residential uses and applies strategies to reduce the conflicts over time with zoning, site, and infrastructure improvements.

FINDING: The stations’ use is consistent with LUCE's integrated land use and transportation strategy to reduce congestion and emissions and promote sustainable mobility. The LUCE and MUBL were explicitly developed to protect neighborhoods and promote successful transitions from commercial to residential uses.

EV Action Plan
The EV Action Plan (EVAP) was adopted by the City Council November 14, 2017 after a full year of community meetings and outreach including deliberation by at least three formal bodies – the Task Force on the Environment, Planning Commission, City Council – and a public comment 3 Keynote remarks covered by Fleet Management Weekly,
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/05/predictions-for-self-driving-cars-in-harvard-discussion/ See also New York Times Opinion piece dated December 2, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/opinion/self-driving-cars.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
12 period. It calls for modernizing/expanding EV infrastructure, adding smart charging, managing turnover, and leveraging fees and incentives like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to sustain operations. It targets ~300 smart chargers by 2020 and ~1,000 by 2025.

FINDING: EV charging at Broadway contributes to EVAP goals and the City’s GHG-reduction goals.

Legal Framework (Permitting & Streamlining)
California's EV charging streamlining laws (Gov.

Code§ 65850.7) require administrative approval and
limit local authority to health and safety review,
taking away concerns over aesthetics, design,
neighborhood fit, or other considerations typically
within the City’s authority. They articulate a
statewide policy to promote and encourage EV
charging stations while limiting obstacles to their
installation. Denial or conditioning only can occur for health/safety reasons and requires written findings
supported by substantial evidence of a specific,
adverse health or safety impact that cannot be
feasibly mitigated. AB 970 (2021) adds binding
timelines (5-10 business days for application
completeness; 20-40 business days for approval)
with deemed approvals if no action is taken, which
is -applicable to charter cities like the City.

I contributed as an expert to the Legislature during the deliberations on these bills, as they were adopted, and as the agencies communicated and implemented them. At that time, charging infrastructure had fallen far behind vehicle adoption and was the primary limiting factor in broader adoption and achievement of California’s goals. For context, California has strict and high-profile regulations on the auto industry requiring EV sales. Automakers were challenging those regulations by pointing to the lack of progress installing charging infrastructure as both out of their hands and more in the direct control of the State. The legislature acted decisively to address this gap and quell the challenge to its authority. The permit streamlining laws are designed to prevent local governments from slowing down or blocking EV infrastructure, supporting California’s climate and transportation goals.

Imposing conditions beyond targeted health and safety requirements (after written findings supported by substantial evidence) is not allowed under state law. A sweeping prohibition of operations like the nighttime closure certainly would not appear to be a targeted health and safety condition in my opinion, particularly since it renders a station nonviable. Given that the City already provided the operators a 24/7 permit and is now attempting to impose such sweeping conditions is truly a mountain further to climb. “It is the intent of the Legislature to
achieve the timely and cost-effective
installation of electric vehicle charging
stations by removing obstacles to their
installation and use.”
“Streamlining local permitting and
inspection processes for electric vehicle
charging stations will facilitate the
deployment of this critical infrastructure
and support California’s goals for
greenhouse gas reduction and zeroemission vehicle adoption.” (California Assembly Bill 1236, Section 1)
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
13 FINDING: The City has very limited authority to impose conditions, hold hearings or otherwise impede development or operation of the subject stations. Doing so can expose the City to costly litigation and risk further restrictions in authority.

F. Documented Concerns of Neighbors
Complaints
I reviewed the correspondence provided to City officials from neighbors, which were obtained via a California Public Records Act request to ensure a comprehensive consideration of all viewpoints. The correspondence spans at least 7–8 months, with some references to issues beginning in January 2025.

I have summarized the concerns represented in the correspondence without rendering any opinions, attempting to validate whether the complaints are supported by facts to avoid misrepresenting residents’ actual statements. They are listed in order of frequency (i.e., the most frequent complaint is listed first, etc.).

1. Noise Pollution
• Reverse beeping from vehicles, especially at night (midnight–4am). • Continuous engine sounds from dozens of parked, running electric cars (unlike typical EV charging lots where cars are off).
• Cleaning/maintenance noise (including self-cleaning “tsk-tsk” and “whoosh” sounds, and vacuuming).
• Loud conversations, yelling, music from lot attendants and security, especially overnight.
• Noise complaints are ongoing; residents dispute City’s claim that complaints have subsided.

2. Light Pollution
• Headlights and hazard lights left on for parked/charging vehicles (“worse than the Vegas Strip”).
• Bright lights shining into homes, requiring blackout boards in windows. • No effective mitigation despite repeated requests.

3. Traffic, Circulation, and Alley Blockage
• Gridlock in the alley: Waymo vehicles queuing, beeping, and unable to navigate, causing congestion and frustration.
• Increased traffic volume: Vehicles now drive the entire block, enter from Colorado, and create “waves” of cars every 15 seconds.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
14 • Unsafe driving: Vehicles drive close to pedestrians and dogs at uncomfortable speeds.
• Airport runway-like behavior: Vehicles loop around the block, leave and return, increasing synthetic traffic.
• Parking on neighboring streets: Waymo vehicles idle for 20+ minutes waiting for rides, displacing resident parking.

4. Zoning and Land Use Violations
• Alleged illegal operation: Neighbors argue the lots are being used as a “Light Fleet taxicab depot,” not just for EV charging, which is not permitted in the MUBL zone. • Misrepresentation on permits: Applications described as “private fleet charging” but used for dispatch and storage.
• No active business licenses: Residents claim Waymo/Voltera lack proper permits for current operations.

5. Lack of Effective Enforcement
• Unclear or delayed enforcement: Residents express frustration with the City’s lack of clear, timely action.
• Burden on residents: Neighbors feel they are being drafted to monitor and report violations, with little follow-up from City agencies.
• Disengaged officers: Reports of officers refusing to cite violations, citing lack of interest or not wanting to spend time in depositions.

6. Quality of Life Impacts
• Sleep disruption: Noise and light prevent residents from sleeping. • Loss of enjoyment of homes and neighborhood: Residents feel they can’t enjoy their block, homes, or safety.
• Escalating tension: Neighbors are coming out to yell at cars and lot workers; frustration is high.

7. Privacy Concerns
• Waymo cameras: Residents report that vehicle cameras are left on, recording through windows and into homes 24/7.
• Requests for camera shielding have not been addressed.

8. City Process and Communication
• Lack of transparency: Residents feel the City has not been clear about the approval process or enforcement steps.
• Perceived favoritism: Some believe the City is prioritizing its relationship with Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
15 Waymo over resident concerns.
• Desire for engagement: Residents want to be included in drafting letters and compliance requests.

According to the City Attorney in their November 19 letter, “Since the beginning of this year, the City has received over 40 complaints about the Broadway Lots just to the 3-1-1 system, from at least 15 separate individuals, with more than half received since August 2025.” Some number of these complaints do not address operations at Broadway, rather they refer to Waymo operation in other parts of the city or unrelated to the charging activities at Broadway, leaving a few dozen that are specific to the Broadway lots from a handful of individuals with direct impacts that they have enumerated in detail.

The tone of these neighbor communications has
escalated from urgent to an emotionally heightened
state that reflects months of accumulated frustration
of the parties—neighbors, the City and Waymo—in
reaching a workable resolution. Residents describe the
situation in existential terms as “ruining lives” and
“destroying our community,” with their emails
evolving from detailed, organized correspondence
with itemized lists, timelines, and purported legal
citations into increasingly emotional demands that
reflect unrealistic expectations about reversing the
permitted development or halting all operations.

The activated neighbors’ sentiments are
understandable and valid. Unfortunately, the
responses have become divorced from what is legally
or practically achievable, with residents expressing
deep distrust and skepticism about the City’s willingness or ability to enforce regulations and rejecting partial fixes as insufficient. The correspondence is at times openly angry or sarcastic, with pointed remarks directed at both Waymo and the City, such as “All the best to everyone except for Waymo,” revealing a belief that the charging facilities can somehow be eliminated or fundamentally altered. Though some residents occasionally express a collaborative spirit and willingness to work with City officials, this is heavily tempered by clear exasperation at what they perceive as lack of meaningful progress, creating a situation where emotions are overriding the potential for practical resolution.

The situation has reached a critical inflection point, evidenced by neighbors moving beyond traditional advocacy to confrontational tactics that demonstrate the escalating nature of the dispute. In addition to direct correspondence with the City, neighbors have taken to news and social media and engaged in misconduct by physically blocking vehicles from entering the lots— actions that represent a fundamental breakdown in the dispute resolution process. I personally observed residents blocking Waymo vehicles on November 26th after 11pm. A widely circulated video of a separate incident captures a line of Waymo vehicles stuck in the alley due to residents “I would say that we need to
emphasize, at some point, that the
lights are a continual adverse effect on
us and that the noise continues. ... We
thought that ‘immediately’ meant that
if they did not comply with the
‘requests’ after receipt of the letter,
that the city would step in, but that
hasn’t happened nor have they
changed any of their behaviors in the
lot that I have observed.”
(Neighbor feedback, 9/12/25)
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
16 blocking access to the lot. These confrontational tactics, while reflecting the depth of neighbor frustration, also demonstrate how the prolonged period of inaction and unsuccessful resolution attempts by the parties has created an unsustainable crisis where neighbor expectations have become disconnected from the legal and operational realities.

FINDING: Neighbors organized and communicated a consistent list of disruptions to the City.

They are frustrated that they do not have more authority or input in the permitting and approval process and lack an understanding of how the state law modified what they see as the “normal” or “ordinary” process of city planning approvals.

G. Operational Responses to Date
Waymo and Voltera have already taken action to implement operational changes to respond to neighbor concerns. Waymo’s recent correspondence documents the steps already taken to address many impacts, including:
• Sound/Light measures: growing vegetation (incl. bamboo) as sound/light filters; turning off unnecessary lights when parked; situating cars away from Broadway pending vehicle feature updates; and willingness to install more substantial, tall and dense landscaping, awnings, and fencing/masonry.
• Quiet-hours: ceased vacuuming 9 pm–7 am since March 2025; daytime low-decibel vacuums; defer maintenance at night where practicable.
• Vehicle tones: in coordination with NHTSA, reverse-alert frequency reduced by >90%. • Circulation: one-way alley flow with >90% of vehicles spending <30 seconds; queue limits; non-intersecting gate paths; defleeting (5+ vehicles/hour) during congested periods; increased staff presence; ingresses <30s up from 87% to 94%, >60s down by 4%. • No storage/disptach: no long-term parking, servicing, or dispatch on site; vehicles arrive to charge and depart when complete; logs available on request.

These measures appear effective. Per the September 9 letter from City Planning Department (Jing Yao), “The City has received noise complaints in the past and we appreciate the cooperation we received from Waymo in addressing those complaints. In the last few weeks, it appears that complaints from residents regarding noise have subsided.” FINDING: The adjustments by the operators resolved the most serious concerns levied by the residents related to noise, and reduced the issues related to circulation and light.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
17 Communication and Perception
Unfortunately, not much can be done to address past communication failures. Trust has been eroded and can only be rebuilt with time and determination. As indicated below, to the best of its ability, the City followed state law and interpreted the law to mean that there would be no public hearing in advance of permitting.

Neighbors, having felt unheard, increased their volume. In a video shot in early November and widely distributed, a long line of more than ten Waymo vehicles idle in the alley awaiting entry to the western lot. In my site visits, I observed Waymo vehicle in the alley, street, intersections and around the block. I never directly observed anything like what occurred on this video. I did, however, observe activist residents blocking access for vehicles to the western lot. This produces a back-up of vehicles in the alley, and I believe that is how the video was created. It has been very effective in attracting attention to the cause, but like the summer video of a Waymo vehicle on the Penmar golf course in Venice,
4 the video is misleading. One cannot rely on the video for policymaking as it does not depict a daily or even regular happening and likely is a staged promotional event by the residents.

FINDING: Poor communications have eroded trust among the neighbors, operators and City officials and led to extreme actions and threats. Continuing dialogue and adding visible improvements will be needed to repair trust.

H. Traffic & Circulation (Euclid Ingress/Egress)
Reliance on alley access alone, while consistent with City policy, intensifies congestion at sensitive hours. It forces traffic (and its noise and lights) directly against the adjacent multifamily residences, and moreover, it exposes dozens of additional residences along the length of the block.

FINDING: Reliance on alley access alone for these sites is a significant flaw.
4 The Waymo vehicle crossing the fairway at Penmar Golf Course in summer 2025 was captioned with “Waymo goes wild,” and similar concepts. The truth, however, was that Waymo held a private event at Penmar and legally and intentionally drove a vehicle across the course as part of the event’s planned festivities.

Encoding only alley-access into
the design of the Broadway lots
is the original sin from which all
other perceived impacts flow.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
18 VI. Independent Assessment and Opinion
The City’s proposed response to neighbor concerns is to demand cessation of operations between 11 pm and 6 am. This approach will not be successful in achieving the goals of the City, the State, or the neighbors for various reasons.
o It does not conform with state law or longstanding City policy. o It does not address light impacts and only partially addresses noise impacts. o It does not address daytime circulation.
o It causes the charging stations to be economically unviable. o It will be immediately challenged by the operators, delaying any resolution for years. o It is likely to be overturned by a court of law.
o It does not restore trust among the parties.

The City, however, with the operators and neighbors now have a moment and space for a durable compromise. Solving this conflict is a learning opportunity for the City and the emerging autonomous vehicle industry for how to operate effectively in an established community and increase well-being, which is each party’s stated objective. Here is how it can be achieved… Recommendation to City Council
Direct City staff to negotiate and enter into durable agreements with the operators that recognize the operators’ legal rights to operate on a 24/7 basis, but mandates implementation of the operational changes and completion of the physical improvements offered in the November 26, 2025 letter from the operators with the modifications recommended herein. • Continue in-place operational quiet-hours controls
o Ensure no vacuuming or use of power tools 11 pm–6 am; o Maintain reduced reverse-alert tones now provided voluntarily by Waymo; • Implement additional operational quiet-hours controls o Minimize parked-vehicle light cycling of headlights and blinking hazard lights; o Remove or disable lighting effects from charging stations that are not operationally required
• Implement additional physical screening and light control o Install opaque fencing wraps on the property borders at the southern property borders, and if insufficient,
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
19 o Install mature, dense and tall vegetation at the southern property borders and alleys, and if insufficient,
o Dim or shield ambient lighting spillover onto adjacent lots, and if insufficient, o Install additional awnings/canopies and/or masonry walls with absorptive liners at residential interfaces of sufficient height to screen the immediately adjacent multifamily housing across the alleys (subject to utility easements and other legal restrictions).
• Implement circulation changes
o Remove the one-way orientation of 12th Court during nighttime hours to allow vehicles to enter the lot from Boadway and avoid driving the length of 12th Court at night.
o Investigate and if feasible establish a Euclid Street ingress/egress for the western lot, which is authorized under SMMC § 9.28.120(B)(3)(c). ▪ Note: this will take time to implement; Council should direct staff to swiftly complete the steps (design review, permits, and Public Works coordination) necessary to expedite this improvement.
o Euclid Street ingress/egress may help the eastern lot also, but is a lower priority than the western lot due to the immediate impacts to the west. • Facilitate communication
o Adopt a procedure such that if a specific, adverse impact is identified in the future, how the parties will work together to address it
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
20 VII.Conclusion
Neighbors who are both residential and commercial deserve peaceful enjoyment of their homes and offices and a neighborhood free from avoidable disruption; operators deserve lawful use of permitted facilities consistent with City permitting and State law. Purpose-built mitigationsrather than categorical shutdowns-best achieve this balance and align with LUCE/MUBL and EVAP policies to protect neighborhoods while supporting sustainable mobility.

It is my professional judgment that continuing 24/7 operations at 1222 and 1310 Broadway is consistent with City policy (LUCE), zoning (MUBL), goals (EVAP), State permit streamlining laws, and permits already issued by the City. To address neighbor concerns, the physical and operational mitigations described herein should be implemented and maintained as soon as feasible. These conditions buffer neighboring residences, reorient site lighting, reduce vehiclegenerated noise, and shift circulation from the alleys to primary streets in nighttime, when congestion on the roads is lower – achieving a workable balance between neighborhood quality of life and the lawful use of these properties for modern EV charging.

Further, it is my professional judgment that closing these sites from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am would have significant adverse economic effects on the operators, likely rendering Waymo’s use economically infeasible, while not mitigating the credible neighbor concerns about circulation, noise and lighting.

Despite the City having limited options due to state law, gains have already been made in reducing noise and light and improving circulation. Those gains along with the proposed additional mitigations offered by the operators and recommended in this report will provide the necessary improvements for a long and healthy operation of these facilities consistent with the prevailing uses in the neighborhood.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce's Letter for Proposed EIZO for AV/EV Fleet Charging
Attachments: EIZO City Council Meeting LOO.pdf
From: Alex Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 8:44 AM
To: Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Genevieve Morrill <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce's Letter for Proposed EIZO for AV/EV Fleet Charging

EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers,
Please see attached for the Chamber of Commerce's letter of opposition regarding item 12.C on July 14th City Council Agenda.

Alex Brown
Director of Government Affairs & Director of Rebuild
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
(c): 510-402-9767
From: Alex Brown
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 11:59 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Genevieve Morrill <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce's Letter for Proposed EIZO for AV/EV Fleet Charging

Dear City Councilmembers,
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
2 Please see attached for the Chamber of Commerce's letter regarding the proposed EIZO for AV and EV fleet charging.

Respectfully,
Alex Brown
Director of Government Affairs & Director of Rebuild
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
(c): 510-402-9767
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026

July 13, 2026
Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St. Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Strong Opposition to Item 12.C — Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Light FleetBased Service for Autonomous Vehicles (Council Meeting of July 14, 2026)
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers:

On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and its members, we write in strong opposition to Item 12.C on Tuesday's agenda and ask the Council to shelve it rather than adopt it. We are requesting a genuine conversation with the City, the Chamber, and the businesses this ordinance will directly affect before a decision is made regarding any ordinances or rezoning.

First, this EIZO is bad for business.

The EIZO was drafted with no advance stakeholder process and no consultation with the businesses it will directly affect. This ordinance risks deterring exactly the kind of new mobility investment and technology jobs Santa Monica says it wants to attract, in a city that positions itself as pro-business.

With the amount of investment already put into these expensive, technologically advanced charging stations this type of abrupt shift in regulation will scare future investors and entrepreneurs into thinking Santa Monica’s regulatory environment is unpredictable.

Second, this ordinance works against the environmentally conscious reputation the City of Santa Monica has built.

The EIZO’s overnight noise, lighting, and staffing restrictions effectively, and presumably purposefully, push AV fleet charging out of the overnight hours and into the day.

Overnight is when grid demand is lowest, renewable and off-peak power is most available, and charging is cheapest and cleanest. Forcing that load into daytime peak hours increases strain on the grid, raises the carbon intensity of the electricity used, and works directly against the City's own climate goals. An ordinance that makes clean-vehicle charging harder to do at the best possible time is not an environmental win, whatever its stated intent.

The Council should ask, before voting, whether this decision and outcome are consistent with Santa Monica’s climate action commitments.

Finally, we also do not accept, and do not believe the Council should concede, that this EIZO complies with State law. This may leave the City open to litigation.

As one attorney advising affected businesses noted after this week's Government Affairs Committee discussion, renaming the target from Board Executives
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore,
Kutcher & Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Charlie LopezQuintana
ETC Hotels
Incoming Chair
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Vice-Chair
Dustin Peterson
Fairmont Miramar
Hotel & Bungalows
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Directors
Eddie Guerboian
Jeweler
Neil Carrey Attorney
Directors
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars Sinai
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Affairs
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Michael Altchule
UCLA Health
Shari Davis
Santa Monica
College
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.

Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Doreen Lahav
Prism Places
Kara Block
DHF Architects
Carlos Madrid

SMPD POA
Jared Amerson
Providence Saint
John’s
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
“EV” to “AV” fleet operations does not change the fact that these are electric vehicle charging operations protected from local micromanagement under Government Code sections 65850.7 and 65850.71. There is no indication the revised EIZO is legally compliant.

We recognize the City has legitimate concerns about queuing and emergency access, but an emergency ordinance adopted overnight is the wrong tool. We respectfully urge the Council to:

1. Table Item 12.C rather than adopt it as an emergency ordinance;

2. Direct staff to convene a working session with the Chamber and affected businesses before any ordinance is redrafted.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to being part of the conversation.

Respectfully,
Genevieve Morrill
Interim CEO
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Mary Ann Vorasky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support for proposed ordinance concerning Waymo operations

EXTERNAL
Please include the message below as written public comment for City Council Agenda Item 12.C. I originally submitted it to Santa Monica 311 at 10:09 a.m. today. Thank you.~Mary Ann Vorasky "That childlike innocence within you is God." - Amma
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mary Ann Vorasky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 at 10:09:46 AM PDT
Subject: Support for proposed ordinance concerning Waymo operations Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I live in Santa Monica near 11th Street, between Olympic Boulevard and Pico Boulevard, and I am writing in support of the proposed ordinance concerning Waymo’s operations.

I have become increasingly concerned by the number of Waymo vehicles circulating through my neighborhood while I am walking. Although I do not live close enough to hear the charging-lot noise, I understand why nearby residents feel overwhelmed. Even several blocks away, the steady stream of Waymo vehicles has made my neighborhood feel overrun by an ever-circling fleet.

I also personally witnessed a Waymo vehicle run a red light at Pico Boulevard and 14th Street.

Because of the way 14th Street jogs over across Pico, the intersection is unusually long. I recognize that one incident does not by itself establish a broader pattern, but it contributed to my concerns about safety and accountability.

I support the city’s efforts to establish clearer local rules and oversight. Waymo appears to have established and expanded these operations without sufficient transparency, community consultation, or regard for the cumulative effects on nearby residents.

I would also encourage the city to study whether a publicly operated fleet of small electric vehicles could complement Big Blue Bus. Waymo reports providing hundreds of thousands of rides per week across all of its service areas, although it does not disclose Santa Monica-specific ridership or revenue. The scale of those operations raises a worthwhile question: could Santa Monica offer a smaller, publicly accountable service whose fares and benefits support local transportation rather than a private corporation?
Thank you for considering the perspective of a concerned resident. I hope the council will adopt meaningful safeguards that prioritize neighborhood quality of life, public safety, transparency, and local accountability.

Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
2 Sincerely,
Mary Ann Vorasky
Santa Monica Resident
"That childlike innocence within you is God." - Amma
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Hannah Goldsmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 12:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jing Yeo; Heidi von Tongeln
Cc: Gia Vacin; Heather Hickerson; Jessie Denver; Elsa Alves; Van Nguyen; Michelle M.

Hugard
Subject: GO-Biz Feedback on Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance - City Council Meeting Item

12.C.

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council, Director Yeo, and City Attorney von Tongeln, The Governor’s OƯice of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) has reviewed the revised Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Establishing Standards and Procedures for Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles (EIZO) (Agenda Item 12.C.) following its public release and appreciates the opportunity to provide additional feedback. Several elements in the updated draft reflect recommendations discussed during our June 4, 2026 meeting and included in our follow-up email on June 6. Primarily, GO-Biz suggested regulating the intended use separately from the electric vehicle charging station permit, among other feedback, as referenced in the City Council Report for the EIZO.

After reviewing the revised EIZO, we would like to provide additional high-level feedback to help ensure continued alignment with California’s electric vehicle (EV) charging station streamlining laws, Government Code sections 65850.7 and 65850.71, while supporting the City’s objectives regarding regulation of autonomous vehicle (AV) fleet operations.

As highlighted previously, EV charging station applications must be processed and approved ministerially, with review limited to objective public health and safety standards, and conditions limited to those that mitigate specific public health or safety impacts at the lowest cost. (Gov. Code, § 65850.7, subds. (b), (c), (e), (i)(5).) Government Code section 65850.71 reinforces this framework by establishing required review and approval timelines. Any conditions tied to an EV charging station permit must be directly related to a specific, adverse impact “based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards.” (Gov. Code, § 65850.7, subd. (i)(5).)
In this context, if the City of Santa Monica intends to tie the EIZO’s conditions to a charging station permit for a site serving an AV fleet, the City must ensure the EIZO conditions are objective health and safety standards intended to mitigate specific public health or safety impacts of that particular charging station. In other words, when the permit being sought is for charging infrastructure, but the charging infrastructure is intended to support AV fleet operation, the EIZO may be viewed as the source of objective, health and safety conditions permissible under Government Code section 65850.7 review, provided those conditions are objective and tied to specific, adverse public health or safety impact of the particular project. If the City intends to require a wholly separate permit for AV fleet operations and provide the charging station permit independently of that process (as GO-Biz previously suggested), then the charging station application must be reviewed and permit provided consistent with Government Code section 65850.7. If charging station permits are currently being held, then that would appear to mean that the City is not reviewing such permits in compliance with the requirements of Government Code sections 65850.7 and 65850.71.

With this in mind, particularly if the City intends to tie the EIZO to charging station permit applications, we note that some provisions of the revised EIZO may not meet the objective standard required Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
4 by Government Code section 65850.7 subdivision (i)(5) or be considered appropriate for every project that falls under the EIZO. For example, the overnight noise restriction includes a subjective standard. (See definition of “plainly audible” in subdivision (D)(10)(a)(iv)(B).) Additionally, the full prohibition of overnight services is likely not a condition that meets the standard of being “designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety at the lowest cost possible.” (Gov. Code, § 65850.7, subd. (e).) Finally, we recommend removing “fueling” from the definition of “Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles.” As related to charging station applications, fueling—or charging—by itself, cannot be the trigger for regulation like this, since such regulation of charging is preempted by Government Code section 65850.7. (See also, the Attorney General’s Legal Alert, OAG 2025-01.) Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feedback and we welcome any opportunities for further engagement.

Sincerely,
Hannah
Hannah Goldsmith (she/her)
Assistant Deputy Director, Legal Affairs
office: (916) 447-7942
1325 J Street, Suite 1800 | Sacramento, CA 95814
Follow: LinkedIn | YouTube
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026
Item 12-C
July 14, 2026