Trust Board planned to have
seven (7) total members, with
one director per member city
and three (3) technical
members.
Technical board members
have voting rights per the JPA
Technical members will be
appointed to the Trust Board
by the City-representative
Trust Board members.
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust)
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST
Member Cities will not pay to join the Trust. Funding to support general administrative expenses are anticipated to come from Measure A & other sources being explored.
Will not create higher/additional taxes. Trust will utilize existing funding sources for its programs.
Trust will more effectively & quickly deploy funding in amounts that are impactful to affordable housing projects while balancing geographic equity.
By pooling resources while maintain local decision-making authority, Trust Member Cities can advance housing solutions that reflect community priorities and unlock housing opportunities on public and private land.
Trust programs will source/deploy expertise in RFPs, Site Evaluations, Affordable Housing services, etc. without increases to City costs and needed Staff time.
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust)
TRUST STRATEGIC PLAN
Create Deals: Technical Assistance & Pipeline
Development
Finance Deals: Capital Funding, Deployment & Growth
Track & Communicate
Deals: Systems, Data & Communications
Build Relationships to
Enable Deals:
Regional Partnerships & Member
Engagement
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) PROJECTED FY 26-27 TRUST FUNDING
Funding Source Annual Funding Amount
Proposed Operating Budget $470,492
PPO – Admin $264,992
Technical Assistance (TA) $205,500
Est. NOFA Amount Up to $7,976,194
LACAHSA PPO FY 25-26 $3,667,435
LACAHSA PPO FY 26-27 $4,308,759
• LACAHSA Funding Amounts are dependent on sales tax revenue generation. • Funding amounts are contingent on all four cities joining the Trust. COG action is needed if one of the four cities does not join the Trust.
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust)
TRUST FORMATION TIMELINE
7/21
Beverly Hills
City Council
Study Session
7/28
Santa Monica
Council Meeting
8/13
WSCCOG
Regular Board
Meeting
8/17
West Hollywood
Council Meeting
Aug/Sept
Culver City
Council Meeting
Aug/Sept
Beverly Hills
City Council
Meeting
~Sept
Trust Board Mtg:
Issue NOFA &
Admin
~Oct
Trust Board Mtg:
Admin Policies
~Nov
Trust Board Mtg:
Project Funding
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) OPEN
DISCUSSION
+
Q&A
Contact Information:
Dima Galkin
Email: [email protected]
Zaire Marin
Email: [email protected]
Thank you!
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
Item 11-A
July 28, 2026
11.A.d
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) 1 David Yakobson
From: Daklass1 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 9-8-26 Council Agenda Item 11.A
EXTERNAL
Don't approve resolution to join Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust. Don't further dilute Santa Monica control over its housing policy and density.
David Klass
Wellesley Dr. 90405
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cecilia Haggerstrom <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick
Subject: 11. A.- Adoption of a resolution to appoint membership into Westside affordable housing Trust
EXTERNAL
Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. My name is Cecilia Haggerstrom and I am a lifelong resident of Santa Monica.
I am here to urge this council to look beyond the slick marketing of the Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust and deeply consider the severe burdens and structural transparency issues this agreement forces upon our community.
While the concept of regional cooperation sounds noble, the reality of this Joint Powers Agreement is a direct attack on local oversight. By joining this trust, we are handing over critical financing and land-use decisions to an unelected, unaccountable board. Our local tax dollars—funds that Santa Monica residents specifically voted for through local measures to fix our schools and build our own community—will be tossed into a pooled regional pot. This means our tax dollars could easily be diverted to bankroll luxury-adjacent "affordable" projects in Beverly Hills, Culver City, or West Hollywood, while Santa Monica’s own Housing trust fund remains severely stretched thin.
Even more alarming is the exposure to financial liability. We have already watched locally funded projects, like the Virginia Avenue Apartments rehab, run millions over budget. If this regional trust encounters multi-million dollar cost overruns, Santa Monica taxpayers will be the ones forced to foot the bill for projects we didn't even vote for or approve.
But we cannot talk about this trust without addressing the massive elephant in the room: the glaring lack of transparency and systemic conflicts of interest plaguing this council. We are being asked to trust leadership on housing policy when state regulators at the California Fair Political Practices Commission recently had to step in and [rule that our own Mayor Pro Tem had a disqualifying conflict of interest] due to his employment with a powerful pro-development lobbying group.
Furthermore, residents have repeatedly raised alarms and formal complaints regarding other council members' relationships with developers, specifically concerning massive taxpayer expenditures and ground leases passed with minimal transparency. When council members are deeply entangled with pro-developer agendas, pushing for policies like the Off-site Affordable Housing Program, that lets market-rate builders buy their way out of inclusionary requirements, the public loses all faith.
This regional trust is a developer's dream. It creates a centralized, unelected clearinghouse to bypass local zoning, crowd neighborhoods with high-density complexes, and strip residents of their voice.
Before you hand over our local authority and tax dollars to an independent board, you must first clean up Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) 2 the ethical cloud hanging over our city's housing decisions. I ask that you do not just postpone this vote to tweak the edges—you need to reject this structural overreach entirely until absolute transparency and local accountability can be guaranteed to the residents who actually live here.
Thank you.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) 1 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 City Council Agenda Item 11A - OPPOSE Westside Community Land Trust Attachments: 2026-04 Pico_Corridors_of_Opportunity_Final.pptx; Pico_Corridors_of_Opportunity_Project_Context_and_Status.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I am asking you to oppose joining a Westside Cities Affordable Housing Trust when Mayor Caroline Torosis and Staff have not been forthcoming about what the ultimate goal is all the components of this plan. The full plan needs to be presented for community feedback, especially in the impacted neighborhoods.
Mayor Torosis has been methodically pushing each piece of her plan without disclosing the plan. Attached is her "Pico Corridors of Opportunity" presentation to Harvard in April. This is for a program she applied for months before that, and brought Oliver Chi with her to present.
Most galling is that she presents this as something the Pico residents have been asking for, but she didn't work at all with the Pico Neighborhood Association! And nowhere in any City Council Agenda item has she used the project name "Pico Corridors of Opportunity". Instead she had pushed the components of her plan deceptively independently, including:
- Rand deal
- Restorative Justice Commission
- Funding of Restorative Justice Commission to be used to buy property for the CLT - Exploring CLTs
- Freeway cap
It's worth noting that Caroline's presentation includes data re rent v own statistics and displacement data that staff claimed not to have for the SB79 item and that Caroline did not produce.
Caroline's pitch statement calims this is merely her plan being offered as a suggestion to the Restorative Justice Commission to consider, but she is the Mayor and the City Manager traveled with her to the presentation, giving the impression it's a city program. How much did this duplicity cost the residents?
It should be noted that Caroline Torosis proudly posted images of her making this presentation on social media but then refused to provide the materials upon the request of a resident. These attachments had to be obtained via PRA.
Please vote NO and require Mayor Torosis to be transparent with the Santa Monica residents, especially the Pico community that is the subject of her pet project, before moving forward on any piece of Caroline's personal plan.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) 2 Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust)
SANTA MONICA PROJECT
Pico Corridors
of Opportunity
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Proposed Project: Pico Corridors of Opportunity
Program Overview
Pico Corridors of Opportunity is Santa Monica's Restorative Justice & Wealth-Building Program — one of the nation's most ambitious locallyfunded efforts to address historical racial harm through direct economic action.
Rooted in a $3.5M Restorative Justice Fund seeded by funding from the Ebony Beach Club settlement, the program targets residents of Pico, Santa Monica's most diverse and historically displaced community.
Key strategies: stabilizing legacy businesses, investing in Pico Blvd, and piloting a Community Land Trust to create permanently affordable housing and commercial space.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG PART 1:
STATE OF THE CITY
5-6 MINUTES
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Population: City & Pico Neighborhood
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census (2000, 2010, 2020); ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates 91,535
Santa Monica
Population (2023)
11,019
Pico Neighborhood
Population (2023)
+3.7%
SM Citywide Growth
2010–2020
Pico Growth 2010
–1.5%–2020
vs. +3.7% citywide
0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
2000 2010 2020 2023
Santa Monica Pico Neighborhood
KEY FINDING
Pico's population dipped 2010–2020 even as
the city grew - an early signal of
displacement. At 18,000 people/sq mi, it is
already one of the densest neighborhoods in
Santa Monica.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Racial & Ethnic Composition and Change
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census (2000–2020); ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates 35%
35%
12%
11%
7%
Pico Neighborhood (2023)
White (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino Black/African American Asian Other/Two+
62% 16%
9%
5%
8%
Santa Monica Citywide (2023)
White (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic/Latino Asian
Black/African American Other/Two+
64.6%
of Pico
residents
are nonwhite
vs. 38.2%
citywide
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Median Income: City & Pico Neighborhood
Source: ACS 2018 & 2023 5-Year Estimates; Decennial Census 2000, 2010 0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2000 2010 2018 2023
Santa Monica Pico Neighborhood
$109K
SM Median Income (2023)
$85K
Pico Median Income (2023)
22.8%
Pico Homeownership
(vs. 29% citywide)
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Poverty & Displacement Risk
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project
15.9%
Pico Poverty Rate
(vs. 11.6% citywide)
77%
Pico Renters
(vs. 71% citywide)
$2K+
Median Gross Rent
Pico (2023)
81 CalEnviroScreen –85%
Percentile (State)
KEY JUSTICE FINDING
UC Berkeley identifies Pico tracts as Santa Monica's highest displacement risk. Low homeownership (22.8%) means most residents have no owned asset as values rise. I-10 freeway compounds environmental harm daily.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG State of the City Justice/Injustice SWOT
STRENGTHS / ASSETS
• Most racially diverse neighborhood in SM — decades of documented stable integration
• Strong Pico Neighborhood Association & grassroots civic engagement • Vibrant Latino-owned Pico Blvd corridor, cultural anchors, walkable retail
• Virginia Ave Park (9.3ac), Memorial Park (10.3ac), Gandara Park • Big Blue Bus, Metro E Line, bike infrastructure — mobility without a car
OPPORTUNITIES
• Expand homeownership via shared equity & down payment assistance • Business Ownership Fund for local Pico entrepreneurs
• Pico Community Land Trust pilot for permanent affordability • I-10 freeway cap / reconnective infrastructure study
• Youth workforce & entrepreneurship pathways
• Replicable national model for place-based restorative investment
CHALLENGES
• ~$85K median income vs. $109K citywide — gap persists 30+ years • 22.8% homeownership — lowest in Santa Monica
• 15.9% poverty rate — 37% above citywide
• Freeway proximity: elevated pollution & health risks
• Educational achievement gap; resource inequity persists
THREATS
• Highest displacement risk in SM — UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project
• ~$1.6M median home price fueling gentrification
• Loss of Black & Latino cultural anchors
• Airport conversion (post-2028) projected to spike adjacent land values • State limits on local tenant protections
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG PART 2:
MAYOR'S JUST CITY
MANIFESTO
3-4 MINUTES
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG
MAYOR'S MANIFESTO
My Just City is Santa Monica
Santa Monica is a coastal city where prosperity is truly shared, and where historic harms, especially those endured by the Pico Neighborhood, are actively repaired through community ownership, cultural recognition, and inclusive economic opportunity.
Restorative Justice Community Ownership Anti-Displacement Economic Inclusion Cultural Recognition Health & Environmental Justice Community-Led Governance Poverty Alleviation
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Mayor's Manifesto: Conditions of Injustice We Must Address Historic Displacement
Belmar Triangle demolished via eminent
domain. I-10 freeway bisected Pico,
displacing hundreds of families.
Persistent Income Gap
$85K Pico median vs. $109K citywide — a
structural gap persisting for 30+ years with no
intervention.
Low Homeownership
22.8% — the lowest in Santa Monica. Most
Pico residents have no appreciating asset to
anchor them.
High Poverty
15.9% poverty rate — 37% above citywide.
Child poverty disproportionately high.
Environmental Burden
Two Pico tracts at 81–85th CalEnviroScreen
percentile statewide. I-10 pollution is a daily
harm.
High Displacement Risk
UC Berkeley: Pico tracts are Santa Monica's
highest displacement risk. Median home price
~$1.6M.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Mayor's Manifesto: What a Just Pico Looks Like
PLACES
Neighborhood Needs
• Safe, affordable & habitable housing
for all
• Community-owned commercial spaces
• Revitalized Pico Blvd corridor
• Freeway cap / reconnective
infrastructure
• Cultural landmarks and memorial
spaces
• Quality public education & outdoor
recreation
PEOPLE
Wellbeing Needs
• Workforce development programs
• Small business capital & technical
assistance
• Down payment assistance programs
• Youth career pathways
• Anti-displacement housing protections
• Healthy food options & affordable
childcare
PARTICIPATION
Governance Needs
• Community-led Restorative Justice
Commission
• Accessible opportunities for public
input
• Participatory design processes
• Capacity building for local
organizations
• Inclusion of displaced
families/descendants
• Transparent funding and decisionmaking
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG PART 3:
PRIORITY PROJECT
SITE
10-12 MINUTES
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Priority Project Site: Pico Neighborhood Today
Virginia Avenue Park
9.3 acres — Pico's anchor park, home to after-school
programs, youth sports, and community events serving
10,000+ annually
Pico Blvd Commercial Corridor
The spine of neighborhood commerce — home to
Latino-owned restaurants, family shops, service
businesses, and cultural institutions for decades
18th Street Arts Center
National artists-in-residence program anchoring creative economy and cultural identity on the west side of Pico
McCabe's Guitar Shop
50+ year Pico institution — live music venue and
independent music retailer that has defined the
neighborhood's cultural character
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Priority Project Site: Cultural Assets & Legacy Sites
01 Site of the Belmar Triangle
Now: Civic Auditorium & parking lot, Pico/4th St
Interpretive installation + memorial designation
at Historic Belmar Park. Storytelling that names
what was destroyed.
02 Silas White's Ebony Beach
Club
Now: The Viceroy Hotel, 1819 Ocean Ave
Silas White Day (Oct. 12) + Silas White Street
at Vicente Terrace + permanent exhibit at Main
Library — all underway.
03 Pico Youth & Family Center
(PYFC)
2781 Pico Blvd
Priority anchor tenant for any CLT commercial
space. Youth workforce & entrepreneurship
pipeline to Pico businesses.
04 McCabe's Guitar Shop
3101 Pico Blvd — 50+ year legacy business
Priority stabilization candidate for Business
Ownership Fund. Long-term commercial lease
lock-in or acquisition support.
05 18th Street Arts Center
1639 18th St — national artists-in-residence
program
Cultural anchor for creative economy corridor.
Explore CLT partnership to protect institutional
space from redevelopment pressure.
06 Virginia Avenue Park &
Gandara Park
2200 Virginia Ave / 1819 Pico Blvd
Program delivery hubs for workforce, youth, and
community services. Partnership sites for
outdoor activation and cultural programming.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Priority Project Site: Land Use, Income & Displacement Maps Source: ACS 2023; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project; City of Santa Monica Low-to-Moderate Income Population by Census Tract Pico Neighborhood Land Use — Opportunity Site Identification Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Priority Project Site: Existing Conditions
B.P.O. Elks #906 — Civic & Community Institution Vacant Pico Blvd storefront — Opportunity site Pico Blvd commercial corridor retail Julio's Upholstery — Legacy small business Gilbert's — Latino-owned neighborhood restaurant Pico neighborhood residential housing stock Commercial Corridor Under Pressure
Pico Blvd hosts a mix of legacy Latino-owned businesses, civic institutions, and small retail, but rising rents and vacancies signal active displacement risk. Without intervention, these anchors will not survive the next cycle of appreciation.
Legacy Businesses Need Stability
Julio's Upholstery, Gilbert's Restaurant, and dozens of familyowned businesses represent decades of community investment.
Many operate without long-term leases. A single rent increase can end a 30-year institution overnight.
Housing Stock: Renters Dominant
The Pico neighborhood's mix of single-family homes and small multifamily buildings reflects 77% renter occupancy. With homeownership at just 22.8% — the lowest in Santa Monica — residents have no asset to anchor them as values rise.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Neighborhood/Site History: A Timeline of Displacement & Repair
Pre-1950s
Racist Covenants
Covenants confined Black
residents to Pico/Belmar — the
only area where they could legally
rent or own.
1950s
Belmar Erasure
City demolished Belmar Triangle
via eminent domain. Silas White's
Ebony Beach Club seized. Site is
now the Viceroy Hotel.
1960s
I-10 Freeway
Freeway bisected Pico, displacing
hundreds more families and
severing neighborhood
connections.
2022
Formal Apology
Santa Monica formally
apologized, acknowledging its
role in condemning Belmar
Triangle properties.
Nov 2025
Ebony Beach Settlement
$350K settlement with Constance
White. Named Silas White Day &
Silas White Street.
Jan 2026
$3.5M RJ Program
City Council unanimously
approved one of the largest
locally-funded reparations
initiatives in the country. Seed
funding from land use deal.
← HARM REPAIR →
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Existing Conditions & Program Pillars
Low-to-Moderate Income Population by Tract
1 Small Business Stabilization and Growth
Provide grants, technical assistance, and access to capital to help neighborhood-serving businesses start, grow, and remain in the Pico Boulevard corridor. 2 Ownership and Community Wealth Building
Create pathways to homeownership and business ownership and pilot a Pico Community Land Trust to support permanently affordable housing and commercial space. 3 Workforce and Youth Opportunity Pathways
Expand workforce training, youth career pathways, and local hiring opportunities that connect Pico residents to quality jobs.
4 Corridor Investment and Revitalization
Invest in streetscape improvements, public spaces, and neighborhood activation to strengthen the Pico Boulevard corridor as a thriving community hub.
5 Community Capacity and Leadership
Support and increase capacity for community organizations and neighborhood leadership that provide services, advocacy, and cultural connection for Pico residents.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Shared Ownership Models: The Framework for Pico
5x
more households served
per dollar vs. traditional
down payment programs
(Champlain Housing
Trust)
RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERSHIP
Community Land Trust (CLT)
Nonprofit holds the land in perpetuity. Homeowner buys the structure at below-market cost and builds equity. When they sell, resale formula keeps the home affordable for the next buyer forever.
Breaks the speculation cycle. Every dollar of public subsidy serves multiple households over generations, not just one. $49K
avg. seller equity gain
at Champlain Housing
Trust
(2019–2023, 115 sales)
DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE + DEED
RESTRICTION
Shared Equity Homeownership
City or nonprofit provides down payment gap funding. In return, buyer agrees to a resale restriction — they keep a portion of appreciation, the rest stays in the affordable pool for the next buyer.
Immediately deployable with existing $3.5M RJ Fund. Fastest path to moving the 22.8% homeownership rate in Pico.
9,300
sf
permanently affordable
commercial space built
by Rondo CLT, St. Paul
MN
SMALL BUSINESS STABILIZATION
Commercial CLT / Ground Lease
CLT acquires commercial buildings or ground leases along Pico Blvd. Businesses lease at below-market rates long-term.
Owners build equity in their business without paying
speculative rent.
Addresses the core threat: even if we help businesses grow, rising rents on Pico will displace them unless the land is removed from the speculative market.
388
member-owners in
PREC
Oakland model — Black,
Indigenous & POC-led
COMMUNITY CO-OWNERSHIP MODEL
Permanent Real Estate
Cooperative (PREC)
Hybrid of CLT and member cooperative. Community
members buy shares in a portfolio of properties — housing and commercial. Builds collective wealth while keeping
individual properties affordable.
Allows Pico residents who can't buy a home to still build wealth from neighborhood investment. Pioneered by EB PREC in
Oakland specifically for communities displaced by redlining.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Best Practices: Residential Shared Equity & CLT
Homeownership
RESIDENTIAL CLT
Champlain Housing Trust
Burlington, Vermont — founded 1984 with $200K city seed investment 650+
shared-equity
homes stewarded
68%
of sellers go on to
market-rate ownership
$49K
avg. equity gain
per seller (2019–23)
5x
more households served
vs. traditional subsidy
"The big idea: affordable housing is a community asset too valuable to be left to the shifting winds of the speculative market." The model has helped families earning 30% below area median access homeownership — and kept those homes affordable for 40+ years.
PARALLEL STORY TO PICO
Rondo Community Land Trust
St. Paul, Minnesota — named for the Black corridor destroyed by I-94 Origin story mirrors Pico: I-94 sliced through Rondo Avenue in the 1950s — displacing hundreds of Black families and thriving Black-owned businesses, exactly as I-10 did to Pico.
Right to Return: "Right to Return to Rondo" is a reparative justice effort for descendants of I-94 displaced families — guided by a Rondo Elders Council. A direct model for Pico's descendant household priority.
CLT + commercial combined: First CLT in Minnesota to apply the model to commercial development. Built 9,300 sf of permanently affordable commercial space + 34 affordable senior apartments on two long-vacant parcels.
Legacy business stewardship: In 2023, Rondo CLT purchased Golden Thyme Coffee & Café from its owner of 25 years to steward the legacy business and ensure it remains in community hands — a model for McCabe's and other Pico anchors.
rondoclt.org · Founded 1993
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Project Goals, Objectives & Desired Just City Outcomes
SHORT-TERM
1–2 Years
• Launch with community-informed
governance
• Business fund: support 10–15 Pico
entrepreneurs
• Pilot Pico Community Land Trust
exploration
• Home acquisition assistance in highestrisk tracts
• Pico Blvd streetscape improvements
• Launch Silas White exhibit & cultural
installations
MEDIUM-TERM
3–5 Years
• Increase homeownership: 22.8% →
30%
• Support 30+ Pico businesses
• Complete harms report; expand claims
process
• Advance I-10 freeway cap study
LONG-TERM
5–10 Years
• Measurable reduction in income gap
• Pico tracts removed from 'high
displacement risk'
• Pico corridor vacancy ≤ citywide
average
• Improved CalEnviroScreen & HPI
scores
Ultimate measure: Pico residents themselves
report the neighborhood reflects their history,
their ownership, and their belonging.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Design Scope of Work Needed
GOVERNANCE
Community-Led: A Restorative Justice Commission including Pico residents and descendants of displaced families will govern the program, not City staff alone.
DESIGN
Interpretive installations at Historic Belmar Park telling the story of the Belmar Triangle and Ebony Beach Club
Permanent Silas White Exhibit at Santa Monica Main Library (underway)
Silas White Street designation at Vicente Terrace (underway) Community-participatory design process for any capital improvements in Pico
Freeway Cap Exploration: I-10 freeway land reuse for restorative justice Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG PART 4:
MAYOR'S DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS
2 MINUTES
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Key Questions for Design Resource Team Members
01 What does a governance model look like that centers community voice without creating an unaccountable body? 02 How do we design physical interventions — installations, renamed streets, a freeway cap — that do real commemorative work, not performative gestures?
03 What spatial strategies can prevent the Business Ownership Fund from being undermined by rising commercial rents on Pico Blvd?
04 How do we structure the Home Acquisition Program to prioritize descendant households while navigating fair housing law?
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG SANTA MONICA · PICO CORRIDORS OF OPPORTUNITY
Backed by $3.5M, one of the nation's most
ambitious locally-funded acts of repair.
Pico residents deserve investment that lifts them, not displaces them. Santa Monica is ready to become a national model for equitable, place-based development.
Mayor Caroline Torosis · Just City Mayoral Fellowship · 2026 Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Pico Corridors of Opportunity Project Context and Status Earlier this year, I was honored to be selected as one of a small group of mayors from across the country for the 2026 Just City Mayoral Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. I pursued the fellowship because here in Santa Monica, we have begun real restorative work, and I wanted to bring back the best thinking available to help us do it well
My fellowship project, Pico Corridors of Opportunity, examines how Santa Monica might invest in the Pico Neighborhood. And just as importantly, the project studies how we can do so without contributing to the displacement of the residents who live there now. Because a public records request has been made for these materials, I am sharing them openly, along with the context I believe they need.
First, I wanted to describe what these materials are. They are my academic work product from the Harvard fellowship and constitute an exploration of ideas and of approaches other cities have tried, including places like St. Paul, where the I-94 freeway cut through the Rondo neighborhood, much as the I-10 did here.
Of note, this work is not adopted City policy, it was not produced by City staff, and it does not commit the City of Santa Monica to any specific project, site, business, or course of action. The materials constitute a contribution of ideas to a conversation that belongs to the whole community.
Second, and most important to me, I wanted to share a word about history. The Pico Neighborhood’s story holds several distinct chapters that are too often collapsed into one. Racist housing covenants confined Black families to a small part of our city. The City of Santa Monica then used eminent domain to condemn and clear the Belmar Triangle, a harm the City caused directly and for which it formally apologized in 2022. Then, in the 1960s, the construction of the I-10 freeway cut through Pico and displaced even more families.
Today, the residents of Pico continue to carry environmental burdens that deserve to be understood and addressed on their own terms. These chapters are connected and they fell on the same neighborhoods, and often the same families, but they are not the same. They involved different actors, different decades, and different responsibilities. Honest repair has to begin by telling each of them accurately.
That leads to my final point. Repair is not a single thing, and it is not mine to define. What repair means to the descendants of the families displaced from Belmar is not identical to what it means to a longtime Pico renter facing rising rents today, or to a family concerned about the air near the freeway. A presentation can only paint in broad strokes. The real work is specific, and it must be led by the people most affected.
That work now has a home. In January, the City Council unanimously created a $5 million Restorative Justice Fund. This month, the Council established a Restorative Justice Commission to lead a genuine public process and to recommend the City’s next steps. The materials that were developed out of the Harvard fellowship I participated in are offered to that process as one source of ideas among many.
I want to reiterate that nothing has been decided, and nothing will be decided without the input from our residents. I am releasing these materials now because transparency is part of doing this work with integrity, and I welcome the conversation ahead.
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
Item 11-A
September 8, 2026
11.A.e
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7860 : WSCCOG Housing Trust) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 33
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Christopher Dishlip, Director of Public Works, Mobility Division Subject: Vision Zero Study Session: Transition to a Safe System Approach and Direction on Future Roadway Safety Priorities
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that this study session is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
2. Conduct a study session regarding the City’s Vision Zero program, the transition to a modified Safe System approach, and the next phase of roadway-safety implementation; and
3. Provide direction regarding the following items:
a. Adoption of the modified seven-element Safe System framework as the organizing structure for the next phase of the City’s Vision Zero program; b. Development and evaluation of a complementary High-Risk Network through the Local Roadway Safety Plan to enable proactive identification of, and response to, emerging locations that present vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety issues ;
c. Implementation of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, including the hybrid intake model, the proposed 51 percent / 25 percent neighborhoodsupport framework, and continued delivery of the early implementation projects identified in this report ;
d. The proposed approval framework for traffic diversion treatments, including the administrative pathway for qualifying diverters, clarification of the 2014 Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway Council-approval requirement, and a multifamily temporary-installation pathway ; and
e. Administrative implementation approaches under which Council establishes policy and program parameters and staff advances qualifying safety and mobility improvements under administrative approval processes, including a Residential Preferential Parking modernization framework .
Summary
11.B
Packet Pg. 1201
2 of 33
In February 2016, the City adopted a Vision Zero commitment through the Pedestrian Action Plan, establishing a goal of eliminating fatal and severe-injury collisions by 2026.
During the past decade, the City has advanced that commitment through engineering, encouragement, education, enforcement, and evaluation. Work has included completestreet and corridor projects, intersection improvements, signal and signing changes, speed-management projects, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Safe Routes to School programming, transportation demand management, targeted enforcement, and ongoing review of crash trends.
The City has not achieved the aspirational goal of reducing fatal and severe-injury crashes to zero by 2026. Total fatal and severe-injury (FSI) crashes declined from 62 in 2024 to 52 in 2025, but pedestrian-involved FSI crashes increased in every year of the 2021–2025 period, during which time pedestrians and bicyclists accounted for 20 of the City’s 21 traffic fatalities.
Moving forward, the underlying premise of Vision Zero remains unchanged: deaths and life-altering injuries are not an acceptable consequence of mobility. The City Council has directed staff give greater priority to roadway safety and to advance implementable safety improvements more quickly. With the Mobility Division now integrated into Public Works, staff is shifting toward a modified Safe System approach while establishing clearer policies, standardized tools, and administrative processes that can move qualifying safety and mobility improvements from identification to implementation more efficiently.
The integration of the Mobility Division into Public Works was completed in early 2026 as part of the City’s Realignment Plan, blending civil engineering, capital project delivery, and quick-build construction capability with the City’s mobility planning and operations functions. Over the past six months, that structure has delivered an initial series of near-term safety projects, and preliminary 2026 collision data and strengthened traffic-safety enforcement coordination with the Police Department have provided early, encouraging signals, as Q2-2026 data indicates improved safety
11.B
Packet Pg. 1202
3 of 33
outcomes. These indicators cover a limited period and will be further validated through the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).
Given these factors, staff is proposing that the City transition from the traditional five-E framework to a modified Safe System approach. A Safe System approach has been incorporated into roadway-safety practice by federal and state transportation agencies, including FHWA1 and Caltrans, as well as local agencies and professional organizations. It recognizes that people make mistakes, that the human body has limited tolerance for crash forces, that responsibility for safety is shared, and that multiple proactive and redundant layers of protection are needed. Santa Monica’s proposed framework would use seven interdependent elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Vehicles, Post-Crash Care and Learning, Safe Land Use, and Safe and Viable Transit.
This study session is intended to establish direction for the next phase of Vision Zero implementation. Council has already directed staff to prioritize human life over vehicle throughput in design and engineering decisions involving the public right-of-way.
Questions about how that direction should be applied when roadway safety affects emergency response, transit, goods movement, parking, loading, business access, neighborhood circulation, or other public purposes will be developed through the LRSP and updated Vision Zero Action Plan and returned to Council with more specific technical analysis and implementation choices.
The report describes the proposed Safe System framework, recent crash trends, proactive risk identification through the LRSP, and near-term implementation work already underway. It also describes the processes being developed to support faster project delivery, including:
• The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit
1 During the writing of this staff report the Federal Highway Administration published an updated National Roadway Safety Strategy that identified three core objectives – Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles. Safe Speeds and Post-Crash appear to have been removed from the FHWA Safe Systems approach.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1203
4 of 33
• A clearer traffic-diversion approval framework
• Implementation of an Automated Traffic Enforcement System (red-light camera) program
• Smart Curb Management
• Updates to Personal Delivery Device regulations
• Modernization of the Residential Preferential Parking Program The report also recognizes that some Safe System tools are controlled or limited by State and Federal law and summarizes several recent and pending legislative authorities relevant to Santa Monica.
Council direction from this study session will inform the LRSP, final Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, near-term greenway and traffic-calming implementation, related program and regulatory actions, and development of an updated Vision Zero Action Plan. The LRSP will provide the detailed technical analysis and risk-based prioritization; the subsequent Vision Zero Action Plan will translate those findings and Council policy direction into specific actions, responsibilities, project priorities, timelines, funding strategies, and performance measures. Broader project-level tradeoffs will return to Council with that more concrete technical and implementation context.
Background
Vision Zero Commitment
The City’s Vision Zero commitment was adopted on February 23, 2016, as an element of the Pedestrian Action Plan. The commitment was founded on the premise that fatal and severe-injury collisions are unacceptable and established a guiding goal of reducing
11.B
Packet Pg. 1204
5 of 33
fatal and severe-injury crashes to zero by 2026. The Pedestrian Action Plan placed traffic safety within a broader effort to improve health, wellbeing, accessibility, and equitable mobility for people of all ages and abilities.
Vision Zero originated in Europe in the 1990s and was later adopted by a growing number of United States cities. Although local programs vary, the central principle is consistent: transportation systems should be designed and operated so that human mistakes do not result in death or life-altering injury.
Related Plans, Policies, and Council Direction
Santa Monica’s Vision Zero work has been advanced through multiple plans, policy documents, corridor studies, and Council actions. These include the Pedestrian Action Plan, Bicycle Action Plan, Bicycle Action Plan Amendment, Vision Zero Action Plan and High Priority Intersections work, Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway Concept Plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and safety studies for Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard. Together, these efforts identified priority networks and locations, established design and programmatic strategies, and supported implementation through capital projects and operational changes.
On February 10, 2026, Council directed staff to return with a study session on the City’s Vision Zero work, with the goal of prioritizing human life over vehicle throughput in design and engineering decisions involving the public right-of-way. Staff has also heard clear interest from Council and the community in faster implementation of lower-cost, quicker-build safety projects. Since that direction, staff has advanced speedmanagement projects, stop-sign evaluations, speed-feedback signs, automated redlight enforcement, neighborhood traffic-calming tools, Smart Curb Management, and project-delivery process improvements. More detailed project-level tradeoffs will be developed through the LRSP and updated Vision Zero Action Plan, when Council can consider them alongside updated technical analysis, project priorities, and implementation options.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1205
6 of 33
Vision Zero Work Since 2016: The E’s
For much of the past decade, the City’s Vision Zero program has been organized around the complementary areas of: Education, Encouragement, Engineering, Enforcement, and Evaluation. The framework supported public information and education, programs that support non-drive alone trips, physical roadway improvements, and targeted enforcement, and data review.
Education
The Mobility Division has administered transportation-safety education and outreach programs including Safe Routes to School, Safe Routes for Seniors, the Take the Friendly Road campaign, school-based programming, family bicycle rides, bike rodeos, and project-specific walks and rides. These programs increase awareness and reinforce safe travel practices, while recognizing that education is one layer of a broader safety strategy.
Encouragement
Encouragement programs have looked beyond the physical street network to the services, incentives, and amenities that make it practical for people to walk, bicycle, use transit, share rides, or avoid vehicle trips. Examples include employer and developer transportation demand management programs, employer shuttles, transportation allowances, unbundled parking, parking cash-out, secure bicycle parking, showers, transit promotions, Bike Month activities, Rides with the Mayor, and participation in Week Without Driving. The City’s transportation demand management regulations seek to reduce vehicle trips by requiring or encouraging customized transportation-benefit programs for employees and residents.
Engineering
Engineering work has included capital improvement projects, speed surveys, stop-sign evaluations, signal timing changes, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian recall, turn restrictions, bus-stop placement and relocation, signing and striping changes, curbramp improvements, traffic calming, crosswalk improvements, bicycle facilities, intersection redesign, and changes to lane configuration. Project selection and design
11.B
Packet Pg. 1206
7 of 33
have been informed by planning and engineering judgment, community feedback, crash history, corridor studies, the Local Roadway Safety Plan, network-completion goals, accessibility needs, access to schools, jobs, parks, housing, transit, and major destinations, and City direction.
Enforcement
The Police Department has conducted enforcement tied to primary collision factors and has participated in capital-project planning and multidisciplinary safety discussions. The City has also pursued tools that can provide more consistent and data-based enforcement, including Automated Bus Lane Enforcement and Automated Bike Lane Enforcement. A separate companion item on the September 8, 2026 agenda requests introduction of an ordinance establishing the legal framework for an Automated Traffic Enforcement System Program for red-light violations.
Evaluation
Staff reviews crash trends and project performance and uses that information, together with adopted plans, community input, roadway context, and other available data, to inform engineering, education, and enforcement efforts. Severe crashes are relatively rare events at any single location, which reinforces the value of supplementing crash history with proactive analysis of roadway and operating characteristics. Larger and heavier vehicles, distracted and impaired driving, dependence on private automobiles, and incomplete recovery of transit ridership have also made the roadway-safety challenge more complex.
Recent Fatal and Severe-Injury Crash Trends
All Modes Bike-Involved Crashes Pedestrian-Involved Crashes Year Total FSI Fatal
Severe
Injury
Total FSI Fatal
Severe
Injury
Total FSI Fatal
Severe
Injury
2021 29 2 27 5 0 5 9 2 7
2022 33 6 27 5 1 4 10 5 5
2023 38 5 33 6 1 5 15 3 12
2024 62 5 57 10 2 8 21 3 18
11.B
Packet Pg. 1207
8 of 33
2025 52 3 49 5 0 5 22 3 19
Total 214 21 193 31 4 27 77 16 61
In the five years from 2021 through 2025, Santa Monica saw a total of 214 Fatal or Severe Injury (FSI) crashes, with 31 of these crashes involving bicyclists and 77 involving pedestrians. Within this total, 20 of the 21 fatal crashes involved a bicyclist (4) or a pedestrian (16).
In reviewing the Public Safety Department crash records, of the 31 bike-involved FSI crashes, the bicyclist was deemed to be at fault in 11, a motorist was deemed to be at fault in 16, and fault was not assigned in 4. The most common Primary Collision Factors for driver-at-fault bike crashes were Improper Turning (5) and Driving Under Influence (3). The most common Primary Collision Factor for bike-at-fault crashes was Unsafe Speed (3).
Of the 77 pedestrian-involved crashes, the pedestrian was deemed to be at fault in 21, a motorist was deemed to be at fault in 48, and fault was not assigned in 8. For driverat-fault pedestrian crashes, Ped R/W Violation (23), Other Hazardous Movement (8), and Unsafe Speed (7) were the most common Primary Collision Factors. For pedestrian-at-fault crashes, Pedestrian Violation (15) was by far the most frequent collision factor.
The FSI crashes from 2021 through 2025 were widely dispersed throughout the City, with no single intersection seeing more than 3 FSI crashes (there were 6 such intersections, along with another 29 intersections with 2 FSI crashes). Looking at corridor crash counts, no single corridor saw more than 12% of the total FSI crashes; 26 FSI crashes occurred along Ocean Ave and Santa Monica Blvd each, while 22 crashes occurred along Pico Blvd. This dispersion indicates that the City’s remaining safety challenge cannot be resolved through a small number of hot-spot projects, and instead requires a systematic approach across the entire network.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1208
9 of 33
Figure 1. Density Map of 2021–2025 Fatal and Severe-Injury Crashes and 2022 LRSP Priority Locations The City did not achieve the adopted goal of eliminating fatal and severe-injury crashes by 2026. While total FSI crashes declined from 62 in 2024 to 52 in 2025, pedestrianinvolved FSI crashes increased in each year of the period, rising from 9 in 2021 to 22 in 2025. Failure to meet the target does not mean the work completed was without value, or that any individual treatment was ineffective. It does demonstrate, however, that continued progress – particularly for people walking and biking – requires clearer performance measures, faster implementation where warranted, and a more systematic method for identifying and addressing risk, while recognizing that the City cannot control every factor contributing to a crash.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1209
10 of 33
Preliminary data from 2026 has provided some early, encouraging signals under the City’s new delivery structure. Data from Q2-2026 indicates improved safety outcomes, however, these indicators reflect a limited reporting period and should not be interpreted as anything more than temporal data, all of which will be validated through the five-year analysis conducted as part of the LRSP.
In addition, the data also serves as one indication that the organizational and project delivery changes described below are beginning to produce tangible results. Further, improved coordination between the Mobility Division and the Police Department has also strengthened the enforcement layer of the City’s safety program, with enforcement activity increasingly aligned to primary collision factors and high-injury corridors.
Discussion
As part of the City’s Realignment Plan, the Mobility Division was reorganized into the Public Works Department in early 2026. The reorganization was designed to blend civil engineering, capital project delivery, and quick-build construction capability with the City’s mobility planning and operations functions, so that the time period between identifying a safety concern and implementing a field treatment is as short as possible.
The relocation of the Mobility Division within Public Works has integrated transportation planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance more closely. Staff has established on-call design agreements, and Council recently awarded an on-call construction agreement to expand capacity for quick-build delivery. The organizational change also creates an opportunity to standardize how lower-cost safety concerns are screened, designed, approved, constructed, monitored, and adjusted. The intent is for Council to establish policy and program parameters, while staff develops transparent technical and engagement processes that allow qualifying projects to move forward administratively without repeatedly returning to Council for the same policy decision.
Over the past six months, staff has begun applying this more implementation-focused approach through a series of near-term roadway-safety actions. Work has included:
11.B
Packet Pg. 1210
11 of 33
• Design and construction of speed humps on Berkeley Street; • Design of speed tables on Neilson Way;
• Deployment of speed-feedback signs on Yale Street and Marine Street; and • Evaluation of approximately 30 intersections for potential stop-sign installation.
Staffing capacity remains an implementation consideration: quick-build delivery, proactive analysis, maintenance of temporary materials, project evaluation, and performance reporting all require staff time and funding. The LRSP and updated Vision Zero Action Plan will identify the scale of work, priority actions, and resource implications for future Council consideration.
1. Transition to a Modified Safe System Approach
The transportation planning and engineering profession has increasingly shifted from approaches centered primarily on changing individual behavior and conventional roadway operating measures toward a Safe System approach that considers human injury tolerance, roadway context, vulnerable users, operating speeds, vehicle characteristics, and proactive risk reduction. This reflects an evolution in professional practice rather than a rejection of engineering, education, enforcement, or operations.
Applicable industry standards are evolving and are a necessary consideration when implementing policy direction. As the transportation sector evolves, the central question becomes how the transportation system and underlying land uses can reduce the likelihood that errors and unsafe behavior result in fatal or severe injury.
In practical terms, the proposed framework considers three related dimensions of risk:
exposure, likelihood, and severity. Exposure reflects how many people encounter potentially harmful interactions and how often or how far they travel. Likelihood reflects the probability that an interaction becomes a crash and can be influenced by roadway
11.B
Packet Pg. 1211
12 of 33
geometry, visibility, operating conditions, and conflict points. Severity reflects the energy transferred when a crash occurs and is strongly affected by vehicle speed, vehicle mass, crash angle, and physical separation. These dimensions are interdependent, and the appropriate combination of strategies will vary by context. The objective is to reduce exposure to high-energy risk, reduce the likelihood of harmful crashes, and reduce the severity of crashes that do occur.
The transition does not eliminate education, encouragement, enforcement, or evaluation. Those tools remain important, but they are used within a broader framework that does not assume perfect behavior and does not rely on compliance as the only layer of protection. Likewise, no single Safe System element can achieve Vision Zero independently. Land use affects trip length and mode choice; transit access affects whether longer trips can be made without a private automobile; roadway design affects speed and conflict; vehicle design affects mass, visibility, and crash avoidance; and post-crash care provides a final layer of protection when prevention fails.
Safe System Principles
The Federal Highway Administration identifies six principles that form the basis of the Safe System approach. The following principles and descriptions are reproduced from FHWA’s The Safe System Approach (FHWA-SA-20-015):
Humans Make Mistakes.
People will inevitably make mistakes that can lead to crashes, but the transportation system can be designed and operated to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances and avoid death and serious injuries.
Humans Are Vulnerable.
People have limits for tolerating crash forces before death and serious injury occurs; therefore, it is critical to design and operate a transportation system that is humancentric and accommodates human vulnerabilities.
Responsibility is Shared.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1212
13 of 33
All stakeholders (transportation system users and managers, vehicle manufacturers, etc.) must ensure that crashes don’t lead to fatal or serious injuries. Safety is Proactive.
Proactive tools should be used to identify and mitigate latent risks in the transportation system, rather than waiting for crashes to occur and reacting afterwards. Redundancy is Crucial. Reducing risks requires that all parts of the transportation system are strengthened, so that if one part fails, the other parts still protect people. Death/Serious Injury is Unacceptable. While no crashes are desirable, the Safe System approach prioritizes crashes that result in death and serious injuries, since no one should experience either when using the transportation system.
Santa Monica’s Modified Safe System Framework
A widely used Safe System framework has been organized around five elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Vehicles, and Post-Crash Care. Staff proposes to retain those elements while adding Safe Land Use and Safe and Viable Transit because land use and transportation choices influence trip length, mode choice, access to daily needs, and exposure to higher-energy motor-vehicle travel. The proposed seven-element framework is a local adaptation intended to make these upstream influences explicit; the elements are interdependent and the City’s ability to influence them varies substantially.
• Safe Road Users. Design, education, communication, enforcement, and accessibility practices that account for people of different ages, abilities, experiences, gender identities, incomes, and travel modes. • Safe Vehicles. Policies and programs that consider crash-prevention technology, vehicle size and mass, direct visibility, fleet characteristics, emerging mobility technology, and other vehicle-related factors. Many of the most important vehiclesafety standards are established at the state or federal level, limiting direct local authority.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1213
14 of 33
• Safe Speeds. Projects and operations would be designed to lower vehicle speeds and reduce crash forces, including vertical deflection, narrowed travel lanes, targetspeed and speed-limit review, signal timing, turn management, and self-enforcing street design.
• Safe Roads. Street designs and operational practices that would manage speeds and conflicts, improve visibility, create predictable space for different users, and provide multiple layers of protection. Safe-road design should consider the energy and context of interactions, not simply the number of conflict points in isolation. • Post-Crash Care and Learning. Rapid emergency response, crash investigation, accurate data collection, victim support, and processes that allow the City to learn from fatal and severe-injury crashes while appropriately protecting active investigations, claims, and legally privileged information. • Safe Land Use. Land use patterns that reduce trip length, place everyday needs closer together, support connected street networks and increase the likelihood that trips can be made by lower-energy modes. Land use decisions also influence where pedestrian, bicycle, transit, loading, and vehicle activity are concentrated and therefore where exposure occurs. Compact, multimodal land use can also reduce household dependence on private automobiles and the associated costs of vehicle ownership, while recognizing that these benefits are only meaningful when nonautomobile options are safe, accessible, and practical. • Safe and Viable Transit. Transit service that is frequent, reliable, competitive in travel time, accessible, and connected to safe first- and last-mile routes. Santa Monica is a regional employment destination, and many employees who work in the City travel distances that are beyond a practical walking or bicycling trip. For many of these trips, transit is the most plausible alternative to private automobile travel, but its ability to reduce vehicle exposure depends on regional service quality and safe connections in the communities from which riders begin and end their trips.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1214
15 of 33
Figure 2. Santa Monica Modified Safe System Framework
The City's ability to influence Safe System outcomes varies by element: some decisions, such as local street design, curb management, traffic calming, and project prioritization, are substantially within City control, while others, including vehicle regulation, portions of regional transit service, state law, and some design and funding requirements, depend on external partners.
The City’s workforce composition highlights the importance of external partners.
According to the 2024 5-year American Community Survey, there are 92,869 people age 16+ who work in Santa Monica, with 19,315 of those being Santa Monicans who work from home. Of the remaining 73,554, only 9,013 (12.2%) live within Santa Monica, while 64,541 (87.8%) commute in from elsewhere. This means that much of the City’s travelling workforce lives outside of practical walk- and bike-sheds making regional transit and safe first/last-mile connections especially important to reducing vehicle exposure.
Organizational and Delivery Changes
11.B
Packet Pg. 1215
16 of 33
The relocation of the Mobility Division within Public Works has integrated transportation planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance more closely. Staff has established on-call design agreements, and Council recently awarded an on-call construction agreement to expand capacity for quick-build delivery. The organizational change also creates an opportunity to standardize how lower-cost safety concerns are screened, designed, approved, constructed, monitored, and adjusted. The intent is for Council to establish policy and program parameters, while staff develops transparent technical and engagement processes that allow qualifying projects to move forward administratively without repeatedly returning to Council for the same policy decision.
Staffing capacity remains an implementation consideration. Quick-build delivery, proactive analysis, maintenance of temporary materials, project evaluation, and performance reporting all require staff time and funding. The LRSP and updated Vision Zero Action Plan will help identify the scale of work, priority actions, and resource implications for future Council consideration.
Near-Term Implementation Since Council Direction
Over the past six months, staff has begun applying this more implementation-focused approach through a series of near-term roadway-safety actions. Work includes design and construction of speed humps on Berkeley Street; design of speed tables on Neilson Way; deployment of speed-feedback signs on Yale Street and Marine Street; and evaluation of approximately 30 intersections for potential stop-sign installation. Staff has also continued signal, signing, pedestrian, and operational safety work where improvements can be advanced within existing authority and available resources.
These are the types of focused neighborhood safety requests that the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit is intended to process more consistently in the future, so that routine qualifying treatments can move more quickly while more consequential treatments receive the additional analysis and review appropriate to their network effects. The projects below represent the first wave of implementation delivered through the quick-build capacity established under the Realignment.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1216
17 of 33
# Project Description Status
1 Chelsea Ave / Santa Monica Blvd
left-turn improvement
Quick-build treatment to manage left-turn conflicts
and improve pedestrian crossing safety at the
intersection.
Deployed
2 Berkeley Street speed humps
Vertical deflection to reduce operating speeds
through physical street design.
Under construction
3 Neilson Way speed tables
Vertical deflection sized for a higher-volume
roadway context, with monitoring of transit and
emergency operations.
In design
4 Speed feedback signs – Yale St
& Marine St
Driver feedback signage to reinforce target speeds
on residential corridors.
Deployed
5 Stop-sign evaluations (approx.
30 intersections citywide)
Evaluation of approximately 30 intersections for
potential stop-sign installation against adopted
criteria to reduce conflict severity.
Under evaluation
6 No-right-turn-on-red signage
Turn restrictions at selected intersections to reduce
vehicle-pedestrian conflicts during crossing
phases.
Deployed at various
locations
7 Pedestrian recall installations
Signal operations changes so pedestrian phases
are served automatically without push-button
actuation.
Deployed at various
locations
8 2nd & 4th Street curb transition
Conversion of existing 15-minute parking spaces
to designated loading and passenger drop-off
zones as an interim step while Smart Curb
Management procurement and enabling authority
are completed.
In process of
deployment
9 Neighborhood diverter pilot
program
Resident-initiated and program-based diversion
treatments under the approval framework
described in this report.
Framework outlined
in this report
The draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit speed-hump cut sheet illustrates how future requests can be evaluated against consistent selection and site criteria.
Monitoring remains important to understand operating speeds, user behavior, emergency response and municipal operations, maintenance needs, and unintended effects.
2. Proactive Risk Identification and the Local Roadway Safety Plan The City is initiating a Local Roadway Safety Plan that will analyze approximately five years of crash data, update the City’s High Injury Network and priority locations,
11.B
Packet Pg. 1217
18 of 33
evaluate crash types and contributing factors, and recommend countermeasures and project priorities. The LRSP is the appropriate process for developing the detailed technical methodology that will guide future safety investment.
Consistent with the proactive principles of the Safe System approach, staff proposes that the LRSP develop and evaluate a complementary High-Risk Network in addition to the traditional High Injury Network. A High Injury Network identifies streets and intersections where fatal and severe-injury crashes have already occurred. A High-Risk Network would use data such as roadway design, operating speeds, exposure, land use, vehicle characteristics, and other safety-related contextual factors to identify locations with characteristics associated with elevated future crash risk even where a severe-crash pattern has not yet developed. The methodology, variables, weighting, terminology, documentation, and use of the network would be vetted through the LRSP technical process, with additional legal review as appropriate before the network is finalized or used for formal prioritization.
The purpose of the High-Risk Network is to supplement, not replace, crash-history analysis. Severe crashes are relatively rare at any individual location, and a proactive framework can help identify locations that share characteristics associated with severe outcomes before a crash pattern is established. Equity and social vulnerability may also inform how the City prioritizes among identified needs, but the LRSP should distinguish those policy considerations from crash-risk variables unless the technical analysis demonstrates a direct relationship.
The LRSP should also consider community-reported transportation safety concerns as supplemental information. Santa Monica’s 311 system and other community input can identify conditions that are not fully captured in collision or roadway datasets and can help validate or refine technical analysis. Because reporting rates vary across neighborhoods and populations, request volume should not by itself determine safety priority.
3. Near-Term Safe System Implementation
11.B
Packet Pg. 1218
19 of 33
As Council considers the transition to a Safe System approach, this section presents the policy, regulatory, and program work now underway through the realigned mobility operation. Several items are advancing as companion or parallel formal actions on the September 8 agenda, and the remainder are presented for Council direction or awareness, with formal actions returning to Council as required.
Automated Traffic Enforcement System (Red-Light Camera) As a separate item on the September 8, 2026 agenda, Council will consider introduction of an enabling ordinance for an Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES) program compliant with Senate Bill 720 and California Vehicle Code Section 21455.9.
The companion item is intended to establish the legal framework; this Vision Zero report provides additional implementation context. Staff has established a multidisciplinary project team, initiated analysis for an initial deployment at two signalized intersections, evaluated procurement pathways, and begun development of the required operational and administrative framework. Staff is currently advancing vendor procurement and site analysis and will return with the required location findings, ATES Impact Report, contract award and other program actions before citations begin. The enabling ordinance is intended to support a citywide program over time, with locations selected, added, removed, or relocated based on documented safety criteria, collision history, operational considerations, available funding, and state-law requirements.
Smart Curb Management
Curb space is increasingly a dynamic transportation resource rather than a static location for private-vehicle storage. Pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, commercial freight and delivery vehicles, passenger pick-up and drop-off, personal delivery devices, transportation network companies (TNCs), autonomous vehicles, people with disabilities, and private motorists all rely on access to limited curb space.
Smart Curb Management uses data, designated operating zones, pricing or time restrictions, technology, and ongoing monitoring to allocate curb space more predictably. Strategically located loading and passenger zones can reduce double parking and unpredictable maneuvers, preserve operating space for transit and bicycle
11.B
Packet Pg. 1219
20 of 33
facilities, and improve intersection visibility. The City is developing a pilot on 2nd and 4th Streets.
Existing authority under Senate Bill 532 allows Santa Monica to establish automated mobile-device parking payment zones and test new approaches to curb pricing.
However, that authority does not extend to automated citation-based curb enforcement.
While a technology system may be capable of identifying when a vehicle enters a regulated curb space, determining the length of stay, and verifying payment, California cities may not use stationary cameras or sensors to automatically initiate and mail a parking citation based on that information.
This limitation creates an implementation gap between curb-management technology and parking enforcement. Short-duration violations may begin and end before a parking enforcement officer can respond. At the same time, officers must also be able to determine in the field whether a vehicle has a valid digital session or has otherwise complies with applicable curb regulations. As a result, implementing the technology under the existing legal framework would require close integration of payment technology, officer-based enforcement, administrative procedures, and applicable state parking laws.
Pending Senate Bill 1292 would address a significant portion of this gap by expressly authorizing Santa Monica to use stationary cameras and sensors for specified curbmanagement and parking-enforcement purposes. The legislation would also establish a process for authorized personnel to review detected violations and mail citations.
Together, the provisions would create a clearer statutory framework connecting automated curb management and enforcement, while still requiring the City to establish appropriate local policies and operating procedures.
Staff will continue developing the pilot within existing authority while tracking the legislation and returning to Council for any required enabling ordinance, contract award, or other formal action.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1220
21 of 33
Speed Management and Stop Control
Staff is advancing speed-management treatments, including speed humps on Berkeley Street and speed tables on Neilson Way, and has deployed speed-feedback signs on Yale Street and Marine Street. Over 30 intersections are being evaluated for potential stop-sign installation. These projects provide near-term examples of a Safe System approach that reduces vehicle speeds or addresses neighborhood safety concerns through physical design and operational changes rather than relying only on posted speed limits or enforcement. The draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit speedhump cut sheet illustrates how future requests can be evaluated against consistent selection and site criteria. Monitoring remains important to understand operating speeds, user behavior, emergency response and municipal operations, maintenance needs, and unintended effects.
Neighborhood Greenways
Neighborhood greenways are continuous routes on low-speed, low-volume local streets that prioritize people walking, bicycling, and rolling while maintaining local vehicle access. They use traffic calming, traffic diversion, enhanced crossings, wayfinding, and related treatments to provide comfortable connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, commercial areas, transit, and the broader bicycle and pedestrian network.
The 2011 Bicycle Action Plan established a broader citywide network of neighborhood greenways and other low-stress bicycle routes. Its 5-Year Implementation Plan identified the Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway, Michigan Wiggle Neighborhood Greenway, and Ashland Avenue Neighborhood Greenway for near-term implementation. The longer-term 20-Year Vision identified additional neighborhood greenway projects, including Washington Avenue and 24th Street, as well as extensions and connections to the Michigan and Ashland greenways. Some additional bikeway corridors also incorporated neighborhood-greenway treatments or branding as part of broader bikeway projects.
• Michigan Avenue
11.B
Packet Pg. 1221
22 of 33
o In February 2014, Council unanimously approved the Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Greenway Concept Plan, known as MANGo, and directed staff to pursue phased implementation through grants, community benefits, and capital projects. Council requested a long-term goal of 1,500 or fewer daily automobile trips on the greenway and required Council approval before installation of a traffic diverter. Multiple phases have since been implemented, and additional work is advancing toward the Bergamot Arts District and E Line station.
• Washington Avenue
o The City has also secured funding through the Southern California Association of Governments Sustainable Communities Program for additional neighborhood greenway work, including a quick-build greenway along Washington Avenue and further implementation on the Michigan Avenue corridor. The current project is intended to test traffic-calming elements and evaluate their effects before permanent changes are made.
The original Bicycle Action Plan also recognized an issue that remains central to today’s traffic-calming discussion: measures used to reduce cut-through traffic on one street should be evaluated so that the problem is not simply shifted to an adjacent street, and complementary measures may be appropriate where diversion occurs. That network perspective is particularly important when considering equity, because residents on a street receiving traffic calming may have greater capacity to organize and request improvements than residents on a nearby street that receives diverted traffic. It is also relevant to emergency response. Santa Monica’s connected street grid can provide multiple response routes and redundancy, but diverters and other circulation changes should be evaluated at the network level to understand whether they reduce, preserve, or constrain alternate emergency access routes rather than judging a treatment solely by its effect on one street segment.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1222
23 of 33
Figure 3. Neighborhood Greenway Network: Existing, Funded, and Planned Improvements
4. Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Diversion Implementation Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit
The City has been working with Toole Design to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit that will establish a consistent intake, analysis, engagement, design, approval, implementation, and monitoring process for quick-build neighborhood safety treatments. Potential tools include signs and markings, daylighting, modular curb extensions, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, speed humps and cushions, neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, turn restrictions, diverters, and other treatments intended to reduce speeding, discourage cut-through traffic, improve visibility, and support neighborhood greenways. Draft cut sheets for speed humps and traffic diverters are included as examples.
Staff proposes a hybrid intake model. Residents would identify the transportation problem or concern rather than select the treatment, and staff would validate the concern using available data and determine the appropriate response based on
11.B
Packet Pg. 1223
24 of 33
adopted engineering and policy criteria. This approach preserves community knowledge while allowing limited resources to be prioritized consistently based on conditions such as speeds, crash and risk information, vulnerable users, traffic volumes, network effects, equity, emergency access, and implementation feasibility.
Equity and network effects remain important considerations. A purely request-driven process may favor neighborhoods with greater familiarity with City processes or greater capacity to organize. Traffic calming can also alter travel patterns and shift vehicle trips to adjacent streets. Evaluation should therefore consider the affected network, including potential diversion, emergency-response routing, transit, sanitation and other essential services, rather than treating each request as an isolated street segment.
The proposed framework would distinguish among routine traffic-calming measures, diversion treatments that are already contemplated by an approved plan, and diversion proposals that represent a new circulation change. For previously approved programs or locations meeting adopted standards, staff proposes an administrative pathway after neighborhood support and technical review. For locations that are not previously approved or do not meet adopted standards, the same neighborhood-support process would initiate technical analysis, but a supported proposal would return to Council for approval before installation.
The level of engagement should correspond to the magnitude, reversibility, and network effects of the treatment. The Toolkit would define the affected petition area, verification method, technical screening, notice requirements, and monitoring criteria.
Diverter Approval Framework
Recent community discussion about diversion supports a clearer distinction between diversion treatments that have already been contemplated by adopted policy and those that represent a new circulation decision. The proposed framework outlined below distinguishes among routine traffic-calming measures, diversion treatments that are already contemplated by an approved program or adopted standards, and diversion proposals that represent a new or nonstandard circulation change. Of note, the draft
11.B
Packet Pg. 1224
25 of 33
traffic-diverter cut sheet reinforces why this treatment requires a more structured process than many routine traffic-calming measures. Diverters change where vehicles travel rather than simply how fast they travel, so staff must evaluate the surrounding street network, potential traffic redistribution, transit and emergency operations, bicycle connectivity, driveway access, and effects on nearby streets and neighborhoods.
Emergency response and roadway crash prevention are both public-safety objectives that should be evaluated together as part of that network analysis.
Accordingly, for diversion, staff proposes developing an approval framework that is built on the City’s existing Block Party Street Closure framework as a model for neighborhood-support thresholds, with an approval framework concept outlined below. • Qualifying Diverters: Administrative Pathway
o Staff proposes that a diverter that is part of a previously approved diverter or greenway program, or a location that meets previously approved diverter standards, be eligible for administrative approval after staff completes engineering analysis, interdepartmental review (including Fire/EMS and Police), public notice and outreach, and a defined monitoring and evaluation process. Monitoring would evaluate volumes, speeds, adjacent-street effects, and emergency access, with adjustment or removal where adopted performance criteria are not met. • New or Nonstandard Proposals: Council Approval
o For locations that are not part of a previously approved program and do not meet adopted standards, a neighborhood-support process would initiate technical analysis, but a supported proposal would return to Council for a public hearing and approval before installation. o It is proposed that the applicable support thresholds follow the Block Party Street Closure model, where 51% of residents and / or businesses would be required where the majority of parcels in the affected area are zoned R-1; and 25% where the majority of parcels are zoned other than R-1.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1225
26 of 33
• Council Clarification Requested: Michigan Avenue Greenway o Where prior Council direction established a project-specific approval requirement, including the 2014 MANGo requirement for Council approval before installation of a diverter, Council clarification through this study session would be needed before staff relies on the new administrative pathway.
o Staff requests that Council clarify that qualifying diverters on adopted neighborhood greenways may be implemented administratively under the framework described above, superseding the 2014 project-specific approval requirement.
o Absent this clarification, the administrative pathway could not be applied to the Michigan Avenue corridor, which is the City’s most mature greenway.
Personal Delivery Devices
The City’s current Personal Delivery Device (PDD) framework was developed around remotely piloted devices and does not fully accommodate newer autonomous delivery technology now operating in neighboring jurisdictions. Staff is drafting Municipal Code amendments and corresponding updates to the PDD Administrative Regulations so that Council may consider authorizing current-generation remotely controlled, semiautonomous, and autonomous devices while retaining appropriate safety, accessibility, operating, insurance, data-reporting, emergency-response, enforcement, and fleetmanagement requirements. Proposed Municipal Code amendments are anticipated to be presented at an upcoming Council meeting with detailed operating standards maintained through administrative regulations and operator requirements so the framework can adapt as technology changes.
The proposed modernization is not intended simply to remove restrictions. Expanded PDD use may reduce some short vehicle delivery trips, double parking, circling, and competition for commercial loading space, but additional devices in the pedestrian environment can create concerns involving sidewalk accessibility, pedestrian comfort, device speed and weight, fleet concentration, obstruction, storage, enforcement, and
11.B
Packet Pg. 1226
27 of 33
interactions with people using wheelchairs or other mobility devices. The updated framework should therefore pair greater technological flexibility with clear operating conditions, monitoring, and enforcement authority.
Residential Preferential Parking
The Residential Preferential Parking Program has evolved over several decades to address localized parking impacts and preserve on-street parking for residential use.
The current framework generally relies on Council designation of preferential parking zones and was developed when curb regulations were treated more statically.
Complete-street and roadway-safety projects can remove or reallocate parking on commercial corridors and create new parking pressure on nearby residential streets, while some wide residential streets may also have opportunities to increase parking supply through alternative parking configurations.
Staff proposes modernizing the program so Council establishes the policy, eligibility areas, and program standards up front and staff can administratively establish or modify qualifying zones within those parameters. The updated framework could also expressly allow portions of preferential parking areas to be converted to metered, time-limited, loading, or other less-restrictive curb uses where appropriate to help manage parking impacts associated with safety and mobility projects. Consistent with prior direction, the updated standards should expressly contemplate modifying preferential parking protocols during daytime hours to permit business and commercial parking in appropriate zones, thereby providing replacement parking capacity for corridors where safety projects reallocate on-street parking, while preserving residential priority during evening and overnight hours. In addition, on streets with sufficient width and appropriate operating conditions, staff also plans to evaluate perpendicular or back-in angled parking as a means of increasing on-street parking supply. Proposals outside Council-approved eligibility or standards would continue to require Council consideration. Proposed Municipal Code amendments would be presented at an upcoming Council meeting.
State and Federal Regulatory Context
11.B
Packet Pg. 1227
28 of 33
Implementation of a Safe System approach depends in part on the legal authority available to local agencies. While Santa Monica can improve many internal processes and implement a range of roadway-safety treatments under existing local authority, other tools are enabled, limited, or regulated by state or federal law. Recent and pending legislation illustrates this relationship.
Senate Bill 720 established a newer statewide framework for civil automated red-light enforcement. Assembly Bill 382 provides additional authority for local agencies to establish 20 mph speed limits in qualifying school zones, creating another tool for the City’s speed-management strategy. Assembly Bill 645 authorizes automated speedsafety enforcement in a limited number of named jurisdictions, but Santa Monica is not currently eligible. Pending Senate Bill 1292 would authorize Santa Monica to test enhanced automated curb-management and enforcement tools that are not fully available under the existing SB 532 framework.
These examples illustrate that achieving Vision Zero requires both effective local implementation and continued attention to the evolving state and federal regulatory framework. Staff will continue to identify opportunities to implement newly available authority and to evaluate legislative changes that could provide additional tools to advance roadway safety.
5. Items Identified for the LRSP and Updated Vision Zero Action Plan.
The February 2026 Council direction identified important questions about how roadway safety should be weighed alongside emergency response, transit operations, goods movement, parking and loading, business access, neighborhood circulation, projectdelivery speed, community engagement, and limited staff and funding capacity. This study session focuses on establishing the Safe System framework and clearer implementation processes rather than resolving all project-level tradeoffs. The LRSP will provide updated technical analysis and a prioritized safety program, and the subsequent Vision Zero Action Plan will use that work to present Council with more specific choices, implementation priorities, and resource implications. Having the broader roadway-safety
11.B
Packet Pg. 1228
29 of 33
tradeoff discussion with review of the LRSP and updated Action Plan will allow future Council direction to be grounded in current locations, crash patterns, systemic risks, countermeasures, costs, operational effects, and implementation opportunities.
6. Future Policy and Accountability Framework
Updated Vision Zero Action Plan
Staff anticipates returning to Council with an updated Vision Zero Action Plan after completion of the LRSP. The Action Plan would establish a new planning horizon, priority projects and programs, interim performance targets, responsible departments, funding strategies, implementation schedules, and a manageable set of outcome and delivery measures.
The Action Plan could establish a recurring multidisciplinary Safe System review process and define how the City responds when implementation or safety outcomes are not on track. Potential responses could include accelerating quick-build work, revising project-selection criteria, redirecting resources, seeking additional funding, modifying operations or maintenance practices, or returning to Council when policy barriers or significant tradeoffs require direction.
Annual Performance Reporting
The updated Action Plan should include a concise annual reporting framework so Council and the community can track both safety outcomes and delivery of adopted actions. Measures could include fatal and severe-injury trends, progress on priority networks and projects, speed-management and traffic-calming implementation, and other indicators that can be maintained consistently over time.
The Action Plan should determine the final measures and reporting format, balancing transparency with staff capacity and focusing on indicators that are directly useful for evaluating progress and adjusting the work program.
Relationship to Street Repaving, Capital Planning, and Grants
11.B
Packet Pg. 1229
30 of 33
Roadway-safety work is most efficient when coordinated with paving, utility work, signal upgrades, accessibility improvements, private development, and grant opportunities.
The updated framework should identify how safety priorities are incorporated early enough to influence project scope and funding applications. It should also establish when the City should advance a quick-build treatment rather than wait for a future permanent project and how temporary improvements should transition into permanent capital work when they prove successful.
Next Steps
Following the study session, staff will document Council direction and incorporate it into the LRSP, final Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, greenway implementation, related program updates, and development of an updated Vision Zero Action Plan. Staff anticipates the following next steps:
• Complete the Local Roadway Safety Plan, including the detailed five-year crash analysis, updated High Injury Network, development and evaluation of a complementary High-Risk Network, countermeasure assessment, and projectprioritization framework. The High-Risk Network methodology and its use will be further vetted through the LRSP process.
• Finalize the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, including the intake process, treatment-specific engagement thresholds, the proposed 51 percent/25 percent neighborhood-support framework for diversion, equity and network-effect criteria, emergency-access and route-redundancy review and monitoring standards. • Continue development of the Washington Avenue and Michigan Avenue neighborhood greenway work and use the Toolkit and standard plans to advance appropriate traffic-calming and diversion treatments. Following Council direction on the neighborhood-support for framework for diversion, qualifying diverters that are part of previously approved programs or meet adopted standards could be advanced
11.B
Packet Pg. 1230
31 of 33
administratively after the applicable neighborhood-support threshold, engineering analysis, interdepartmental review, notice/outreach, and monitoring. • Continue development of the Smart Curb Management pilot on 2nd and 4th Streets under existing SB 532 authority, refine the relationship among digital payment, officer-based enforcement, and available automated tools, and return to Council with any required enabling ordinance, contract action, or other approval. Continue monitoring SB 1292 and adjust the pilot framework if additional authority becomes available.
• Return to Council with proposed changes to the Personal Delivery Device Municipal Code and Administrative Regulation and Residential Preferential Parking Municipal Code reflective of Council direction.
• Continue vendor procurement, analysis of the initial two intersections, preparation of the required ATES Impact Report, administrative procedures, and program development for the SB 720-compliant Automated Traffic Enforcement System, and return to Council for contract award, site findings, and other required actions before enforcement begins.
• Evaluate implementation of Assembly Bill 382 school-zone speed authority and continue monitoring state legislation affecting automated speed enforcement, curb management, vehicle regulation, and other Safe System tools, including opportunities to seek or support expanded local authority where appropriate. • After completion of the LRSP, develop an updated Vision Zero Action Plan with a prioritized list of projects and programs, measurable actions, responsibilities, timelines, funding strategies, performance reporting, multidisciplinary implementation practices, and any project-level tradeoffs or policy questions that warrant Council direction.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1231
32 of 33
Staff will return to Council for formal action when an ordinance, budget action, contract award, plan adoption, or other approval is required.
Environmental Review
This Vision Zero study session is not a “project” subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the study session does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA because it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) provides that a “project” does not include general policy and procedure making. The study session concerns planning and potential future actions that have not been approved, adopted, or funded. Implementation of future projects or programs would be subject to any required environmental review and approval. City Attorney staff will confirm the appropriate CEQA finding and citation before publication.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action associated with conducting the study session and receiving Council direction. This is a study session and staff is seeking further Council guidance. Feasibility of proposed courses of action is not guaranteed and remains subject to staff resources, funding, and engineering analysis to be determined later. Staff will identify financial impacts and request budget action when specific plans, programs, projects, or procurements return to Council.
Implementation pace will continue to depend on available staff, consultant support, construction capacity, maintenance resources, and funding. The LRSP and updated Vision Zero Action Plan will identify future resource needs and any corresponding program tradeoffs for Council consideration.
11.B
Packet Pg. 1232
33 of 33
Prepared By: Colleen Stoll, Transportation Demand program Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Santa Monica Bicycle Action Plan & Bicycle Action Plan Amendment - Web Link B. Pedestrian Action Plan 2016 (link)
C. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022
D. Traffic Calming Toolkit Cutsheets_Speed Humps
E. Traffic Calming Toolkit Cutsheets_Traffic Diverter
F. Written Comments
G. PowerPoint Presentation
11.B
Packet Pg. 1233
Local Road Safety Plan
April 2022
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
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 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).
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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
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.
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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
Figure 1 Vision Zero Priority Map, 2017
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Figure 6 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1258 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) Local Road Safety Plan | 202
2 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28
Figure 28 Traffic Volumes and Weighted Crash Locations
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) Local Road Safety Plan | 202
2 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 38
Figure 41 The Priority Network and CalEnviroScreen Scores
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
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 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) 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.
11.B.c
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan 2022 (7862 : Vision Zero) Speed humps are raised sections of pavement installed across the roadway at regular intervals.
They are designed to encourage drivers to slow down over longer sections of neighborhood streets.
Unlike raised crosswalks, speed humps are intended primarily for speed management rather than pedestrian crossings. They are typically installed in a series to create consistent, slower travel speeds along an entire corridor.
Speed Humps
1 Ramps include “v”-shaped markings.
| TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
DRAFT
1 11.B.d
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Traffic Calming Toolkit Cutsheets_Speed Humps (7862 : Vision Zero) Issues Addressed
Speed-related crash patterns
Vehicle speeding
Common Selection Criteria
Speed humps are considered where one or more of the following conditions exist:
There is a documented history of speed-related crashes or repeated reported near-misses involving excessive vehicle speeds.
Vehicle speeding has been identified as a recurring issue along a longer section of neighborhood street, generally one-quarter mile or longer. The desired outcome is to reduce vehicle speeds along an entire street segment rather than at a single location.
The roadway is not intended to accommodate frequent transit service or high volumes of heavy vehicles.
Speed humps are most effective when installed as a series at regular spacing along a corridor. Where speeding is limited to a single location, consider other traffic calming measures such as a raised crosswalk, chicane, or pinch point.
Site Requirements
The following are general planning-level guidelines. Formal design requirements are provided in the City of Santa Monica’s Speed Hump Standard Plan.
There is at least 22 feet of uninterrupted roadway between driveways to accommodate the speed hump.
The roadway grade is generally 8 percent or less.
The roadway alignment provides adequate visibility for approaching drivers. Speed humps are located at least 100 feet from an intersection.
Speed humps should generally be spaced at regular intervals no more than 500 feet apart to provide consistent speed reduction along the corridor. Isolated speed humps are less effective and may result in uneven driver behavior between treatments.
Complementary Treatments
Lane narrowing
| TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
DRAFT
11.B.d
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Traffic Calming Toolkit Cutsheets_Speed Humps (7862 : Vision Zero) Traffic Diverter
Directional diverters block traffic from
proceeding onto a street in one direction.
Median diverters prevent traffic on the side
street from proceeding straight through the
intersection.
1 2
Traffic diverters limit certain vehicle movements at an intersection to discourage cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets. Depending on the design, they may restrict left turns, through movements, or access from one direction while continuing to allow people walking and bicycling to pass through.
By reducing unnecessary vehicle traffic, diverters can create quieter, lower-speed neighborhood streets that are more comfortable for people walking, biking, and rolling. 1 2
| TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
Note: The area highlighted in blue is intended only to illustrate the extents of the treatment and does not indicate or imply any colored surface treatment.
DRAFT
11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Traffic Calming Toolkit Cutsheets_Traffic Diverter (7862 : Vision Zero) Issues Addressed
Traffic diverters are most effective at addressing the following issues:
High volumes of vehicular traffic on neighborhood streets, especially cut-through traffic Broadside type crash patterns
Common Selection Criteria
A traffic diverter is considered where one or more of the following conditions exist:
Vehicle volumes are too high to maintain a comfortable and safe environment for people walking and biking on a neighborhood street.
Cut-through traffic has been identified as a recurring issue because drivers are using the neighborhood street as an alternative to nearby collector or arterial roadways. The desired outcome is to reduce vehicle volumes by changing travel patterns rather than by reducing vehicle speeds.
The surrounding street network can accommodate the redistribution of vehicle traffic.
Traffic diverters change where vehicles travel rather than how fast they travel. Because they redirect traffic to other streets, they should be evaluated as part of the surrounding transportation network rather than as an isolated intersection improvement. Traffic diverters are often most successful when there is broad community support and they are implemented as part of a neighborhood traffic management plan or bicycle boulevard, rather than as a standalone treatment.
Site Requirements
The following are general planning-level guidelines. Formal design requirements are provided in the City of Santa Monica’s Traffic Diverter Standard Plan. Median diverters require sufficient roadway width to accommodate the diverter while maintaining space for pedestrian crossings and emergency vehicle access. This may include repurposing an existing two-way left-turn lane or other excess pavement. Transit operations, emergency response routes, bicycle connectivity, and driveway access should be evaluated during project design.
Because traffic diverters redistribute vehicle traffic, additional traffic analysis and community outreach will be required to evaluate potential impacts on nearby streets and neighborhoods.
Complementary Treatments
High-visibility crosswalk
Crossbike markings
| TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLKIT
DRAFT
11.B.e
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Traffic Calming Toolkit Cutsheets_Traffic Diverter (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Stu Selonick <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 9:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Absolutely Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stop-sign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.
Stuart Selonick
90405
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 2 David Yakobson
From: Karen Meyer-Roux <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 10:15 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stopsign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.
Best wishes,
Karen Meyer-Roux
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 3 David Yakobson
From: Leonora <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 2:15 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stop-sign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 4 David Yakobson
From: Boris Suchkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 1:18 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stop-sign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.
There may be those who will claim that passing these items will create an instantaneous Pandora's Box where numerous and unvetted changes will be made disrupting transportation around the city. I know that is not true. A yes vote here is a vote for a thoughtful, intelligent, and comprehensive approach to study and potentially make future changes to our public right of way. These items will empower city residents to have better conversations around street safety that can benefit all transportation users across modes.
I think it is especially critically important to have the Traffic Calming Toolkit be available for safety improvements around schools. Many parents are already clamoring for changes, especially concerning morning drop-off. The Toolkit would help to channel safety discussions and standardize treatments, while reducing ad hoc requests and the workload on city staff.
Additionally, newer, faster and larger cars unfortunately have put us in an arms race, where if we stick with the status quo our streets will continue to get more dangerous. While the city can't control federal policy on vehicle weight, size, or safety features, both safe streets items, if passed, will help the city make better decisions over what we CAN control.
Thanks,
Boris Suchkov
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 5 David Yakobson
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 2:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Let's make our streets safer! Items 11B and 10A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council members, I support adopting the Safe Systems Framework update to Vision Zero a Safe System approach, as the next phase of roadway-safety implementation.
I also support adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.540 to establish an Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES) Program.
There is nothing more important than making our streets safer for all people who walk, bike, ride scooters, and drive motorized vehicles of every kind.
These two items will help move us in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 6 David Yakobson
From: Allon Percus <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 5:03 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stop-sign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.
Allon Percus
90403
--
Allon G. Percus
Joseph H. Pengilly Professor of Mathematics
Director, Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Claremont Graduate University
E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 909-607-0744
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 2:03 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support 11.B - Vision Zero Transition
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Forward strongly supports the City’s proposed transition to the Safe System Approach and the direction outlined in the Vision Zero study session, and believe it could be further strengthened with some tactical adjustments. In particular, we applaud staff for adding Safe Land Use and Safe and Viable Transit to the framework and for creating tools that can allow proven safety improvements to move forward administratively rather than repeatedly returning to Council.
This is an important change, but its success will ultimately depend on implementation. Santa Monica adopted Vision Zero a decade ago, yet fatal and severe-injury crashes remain far above zero. The City should pair this new framework with clear accountability and the authority to act quickly when safety problems are known.
We urge Council to support the item with the following direction:
Empower staff to implement diverters where safety needs are established. Safety should not be subject to a popularity contest. Corridors with documented safety problems, as well as Washington Avenue and other greenways identified in the 2011 Bike Action Plan, should be eligible for administrative approval of diverters following appropriate engineering and network review. Make green space part of the traffic-calming toolkit. Staff should be able to consider conversion of travel lanes—and, where appropriate, entire roadway blocks—to parks or public space as diversion and traffic-calming strategies.
Commit to completing the Bike Action Plan network. Implementation has taken too long. Council should ask staff to establish a timeline for completing the remaining network and identify the staffing or other resources necessary to accelerate delivery through the CIP process. Strengthen accountability and crash analysis. Annual reporting is essential, but the City should go beyond assigning fault and systematically examine serious crashes to identify street-design and other systemic changes that could have prevented them. A recurring crash-analysis process modeled on a “Crash Analysis Studio” deserves consideration.
Support preferential-parking modernization, including shifting parking to adjacent streets where excess roadway width can accommodate alternatives such as angled parking, rather than allowing parking concerns to prevent safety improvements.
We also strongly support moving forward with automated red-light enforcement. Near-certain civil enforcement can deter dangerous behavior while allowing limited police resources to focus elsewhere.
Santa Monica has demonstrated that it can design safer streets. The challenge now is moving from good plans to consistent, rapid implementation. The Safe System Approach gives the City a stronger framework and better tools. Council should adopt it—and ensure staff has the direction, authority, and accountability necessary to use those tools aggressively.
Sincerely,
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 2 Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 7:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: item 11B Vision Zero Study Session
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
From: jim gerstley <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 2:00 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: item 11B Vision Zero Study Session
EXTERNAL
Some additional safety thoughts
1] Narrower lanes are not safer. They force the driver to concentrate on the roadway rather than signals, bicycles, pedestrians and other potential hazards. Some parts of PCH for example are a bit scary to navigate for fear of hitting center posts. Potentially slowing traffic does not make up for added driver distraction.
2] Weaving traffic lanes, such as on Broadway, are not safer. They force the driver to concentrate on changes in the lane, which is an unnecessary distraction. Straight lanes are safest. The potential for slowing traffic does not make up for the added driver distraction. 3] Protected bicycle lanes are a hazard to motorists getting in and out of their cars on our narrow streets. Passengers exiting the right side of the car must stand in the bikeway. Getting children and handicapped and groceries [such as at the Co-Op] in and out of a car next to a protected bike lane can be hazardous and by necessity blocks the bike lane. 4] To increase safety, keep the lane divider lines well maintained. Some are nearly invisible at night and truly invisible in wet weather. Either keep them painted or put reflectors so the lane dividers can be easily seen. This allows drivers to pay more attention to surrounding traffic and hazards such as bicyclists and pedestrians.
5] Consider putting speed bumps in bike lanes at dangerous intersections to force bicyclists to slow down. I've been nearly hit several times crossing Ocean Ave where bicyclists speed down the bike lane, knowing there is no cross-traffic on the Palisades side of the street. Pedestrians and bicyclists may have the right-of-way but it is very dangerous for them to just assume it. 6] Encourage bicyclists and pedestrians to give the right of way to cars trying to make a right turn.
This greatly reduces driver distraction and increases safety. Or put in greeen and red lit right turn arrows for cars. The NO RIGHT TURN ON RED signs are not always obvious, especially at night.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 2 7] Encourage pedestrians at night to wear arm/leg reflectors. The police used to pass these out for free, and will make pedestrians much more visible at night. It's important for pedestrians not to assume the right-of-way at night.
8] Consider improving street lighting at intersections to illuminate pedestrians better. Often the way pedestrians are seen at night as shadows walking in front of other car's headlights. Pedestrians need to be educated for their own safety that just because they see cars [headlights] doesn't mean the driver sees them wearing dark clothing against dark roadways. 9] Consider the seemingly impossible--better traffic signal synchronization. Many turn red on approaching the intersection, doubling driving time. You can set the MPH for the signal synchronization [and post it]. Drivers would get home sooner, streets would be less congested, drivers would be more alert and less frustrated, increasing safety. Posted signal synchronization speed would also slow traffic down as drivers would not speed to make the next signal. Synchronized signals would also result in less polution, resulting in a greener city. 10] The laws governing where to make right turns from [bike lanes, bus lanes etc] can be confusing.
How can the street markings be improved to help motorists make appropriate right turns? Basically reducing distractions for drivers, and encouraging bicycists and pedestrians to follow the laws and use some common sense, could greatly help the city achieve its accident/fatality goal.
Traffic calming can help if it's not an added distraction.
Don't put all the responsibility on the drivers when the bicyclists, pedestrians and city can also independently improve safety via street lighting, roadway markings, reflectors for pedestrians, reducing distractions.
Thank you
Jim Gerstley
Santa Monica 90403
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce's Letter of Support Item 11. B - Vision Zero Study Session: Personal Delivery Device Modernization
Attachments: LOS Serve robotics 2026.pdf
Mitchell Kois
Staff Assistant III | City Clerk’s Office
(310) 458-8211 x5518
From: Alex Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:45 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: Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce's Letter of Support Item 11. B - Vision Zero Study Session: Personal Delivery Device Modernization
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing to support the upcoming Agenda Item 11.B.
Specifically, for Council direct staff to open Santa Monica's Personal Delivery Device (PDD) program to additional qualified operators, including Serve Robotics, alongside Coco Robotics. These are the robots that drive on the sidewalk to make deliveries.
Expanding PDD use, with the accessibility and operating safeguards staff has outlined, will be hugely beneficial for our restaurants AND will cut vehicle trips and give local businesses more affordable delivery options. The letter attached outlines this in full detail.
Thank you,
Alex Brown
Director of Government Affairs & Director of Rebuild
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
(c): 510-402-9767
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) September 4 2026
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 11.B (September 8, 2026 City Council Meeting) - Vision Zero Study Session - Personal Delivery Device Modernization - SUPPORT Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and in support of Serve Robotics, we request that the City Council direct staff to modernize Santa Monica's Personal Delivery Device (PDD) program, as raised in the staff report for Agenda Item 11.B (page 26 of staff report) at the September 8 Vision Zero Study Session.
The City's current PDD framework was developed around remotely piloted devices and does not fully accommodate the newer semi-autonomous and autonomous delivery technology already operating in neighboring communities.
Today, Santa Monica sidewalks are limited to a single authorized operator, Coco Robotics. The Chamber supports Council directing staff to open the program to additional qualified operators, including Serve Robotics, so that Santa Monica businesses and residents can benefit from a more competitive, innovative delivery marketplace.
Since 2019, Serve Robotics' battery-powered autonomous delivery devices have safely served the Greater Los Angeles region. The company now operates in eight major U.S. markets nationwide and partners with thousands of local restaurants through various delivery platforms.
As the City's own staff report observes, expanded PDD use can reduce short vehicle delivery trips, double parking, circling, and competition for scarce commercial loading space, all while giving local restaurants and small businesses another affordable way to reach customers.
We appreciate that any expansion should be paired with the operating standards, accessibility protections, and enforcement tools staff has outlined, particularly given the legitimate concerns raised around sidewalk accessibility and interactions with people using wheelchairs or other mobility devices. With those safeguards in place, opening Santa Monica's PDD program to additional operators is an opportunity for the City to reaffirm its leadership in innovation, sustainability, and small business support.
We respectfully urge the Council to direct staff to continue advancing the PDD modernization effort described in the staff report and return with Municipal Code amendments that open the program to additional qualified operators.
Sincerely,
Genevieve Morrill
Interim CEO
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
2525 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90405 · www.smchamber.com Board Executives
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore, Kutcher &
Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Incoming Chair
Kara Block
DFH Architects
Treasurer
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties (BXP)
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Vice-Chair
Shari Davis
Santa Monica College
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Relations
Directors
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars Sinai
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Michael Altschule
UCLA Health
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.
Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Carlos Madrid
SMPD POA
Sajd Sindha
Providence Saint John's
Simone Acciani
Dolcenero Gelato
Graham Fandrei
Broad Stage
Cambria Mendez
Fairmont Miramar
Adora Manalo
Regent Santa Monica Beach
Andre Jackson
Jonathan Club
Christophe Baraton
Shutters on the Beach
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Carlos Allende González <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I have been carless and mainly riding my bike or taking the bus or train since I moved to Santa Monica in 2009. I am grateful for all the changes the city has made to make cycling safer.
I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stop-sign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Please vote yes.
I also hope you continue to enhance the safety of cycling paths by installing metal rods, concrete dividers, or other measures to prevent cars from riding or parking on them.
Carlos Allende González, PhD
310-463-2531
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Matt Maas Brundin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Item 11.B — Vision Zero study session
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I’m a Santa Monica resident writing in support of the Safe System framework staff is presenting, with one request about how the Council’s direction is written.
The City adopted Vision Zero in 2016 with a 2026 target; 2024 set a record with 60 fatal and severe-injury crashes. The framework wasn’t the problem. The gap is machinery: nothing in the 2016 plan carried a “shall.” No rule that a repave brings a street up to standard, no rule that a new signal controller runs safe phasing. Cambridge, Massachusetts closed the same gap in 2019 with an ordinance that replaced “when possible” with “shall” whenever a street on its bike plan is reconstructed, then in 2020 added named corridors with completion deadlines — and Cambridge is now finishing the network Santa Monica is still planning. The proof that the approach works on outcomes is Hoboken, New Jersey: a dense city of about 60,000 that has gone nine consecutive years without a traffic death, mostly by applying daylighting, curb extensions and signal timing to every corner as a matter of course rather than as a plan.
My request: that the direction include two binding rules rather than a new plan. (1) A repave trigger — any resurfacing or reconstruction on the high-injury network brings that segment to the adopted design standard, quick-build now and curbs at reconstruction. (2) A signal standard — any controller replacement or corridor retiming delivers leading pedestrian intervals, protected turns where there is a crash history, and no turn on red by default. Both ride budgets the City already spends.
Thank you.
Matt Brundin Santa Monica resident
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Juan Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:06 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Why I Support Safe Streets (4B, 11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I support items 4B, 10A, and 11B. 11B, to implement a customized safe systems approach, is a best practice for roadway safety for all people. I wrote about why I support implementation last week in Santa Monica Next, and I've copied the column below.
The Turn That Convinced Me Santa Monica’s
Safe System Approach Will Work
JUAN MATUTE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026
MOBILITY, NEWS, OPINION
The crossing guard at Chelsea Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard has been escorting McKinley kids across the street for almost twenty years, and for much of that time he’s had to watch out for left-turning drivers who didn’t see her or stop in time. I know this as a McKinley parent, a member of the school’s PTA Traffic Safety Committee who pushed for this redesign, and someone who studies transportation for a living. The city redesigned that left turn earlier this year. Conflicts dropped, drivers made better choices at the intersection, and the crossing guard is happy. So am I.
That intersection is item one on a list of nine near-term projects in a staff report that Council will take up on September 8, and it’s a big part of why I’m optimistic about the rest of the report. It’s honest about why Santa Monica didn’t hit the zero-fatality goal it set a decade ago, and it lays out a real plan for what comes next. I’ve written before about pieces of this story: declining traffic enforcement staffing after the Wilshire and Chelsea fatality, and new automated-enforcement authority last winter.
September 8 brings a lot of that together, and I support it.
The City missed its Vision Zero goal, but found a better framework In February 2016, the city committed to eliminating fatal and severe-injury crashes by 2026. That year is here, and the results are mixed. Total fatal and severe-injury crashes fell from 62 in 2024 to 52 in 2025. But pedestrian-involved crashes went up every year from 2021 to 2025, and pedestrians and cyclists made up 20 of the city’s 21 traffic deaths over that period. No single intersection had more than three of these crashes over five years, though Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard each had 26. The problem is spread across the city, not concentrated at a couple of bad corners.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 2 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. fatal and severe injury crash density in Santa Monica
Staff wants to replace the old five-E model (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation) with a modified Safe System approach built around seven elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Vehicles, Post-Crash Care and Learning, Safe Land Use, and Safe and Viable Transit. I like this framework, especially the last two additions. Safe Land Use and Safe and Viable Transit fit Santa Monica well because much of the danger on our streets comes down to how far people have to drive for everyday things, and how good the transit option is when they’d rather not drive.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 3 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Santa Monica's modified safe systems approach.
A toolkit for empowering neighborhoods
The most concrete piece of the report is a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit paired with a new diverter pilot program. It gives residents a structured way to flag a safety problem on their street (e.g., daylighting, curb extensions, speed humps, diverters) and get it addressed on a predictable timeline instead of waiting years for a capital project to work its way through the budget.
The toolkit sets a reasonable line between two paths. Diverters that fit an already approved program go through administrative review: engineering analysis, interdepartmental review, public notice, and monitoring. New or nonstandard proposals need documented neighborhood support first: 51 percent of residents and businesses in areas zoned mostly R-1, 25 percent in more mixed zoning, the same threshold the city already uses for Block Party street closures. That keeps circulation changes accountable to the people who actually live with them, since a diverter redirects cut-through traffic rather than eliminating it.
This is also where the city’s grid matters. Santa Monica has real route redundancy because our streets are connected, but that only helps if diverters are evaluated at the network level, so a fix on one street doesn’t just push the same traffic onto the next one, and emergency responders keep the routes they need. The Michigan Avenue greenway shows this working as intended: the city set a target back in 2014 of 1,500 or fewer daily car trips on that street, but any actual diverter still needs Council approval, since Michigan absorbs cut-through traffic that Olympic, as the regional road, is supposed to handle instead. Washington Avenue is in earlier stages, with a quick-build greenway now funded.
Red light cameras, and why the fine amount doesn’t tell the whole story
Running a red light and driving at unsafe speed are two of the most dangerous things a driver can do, and state law treats them separately. AB 645 allows automated speed cameras, but only in a handful of pilot cities, including Los Angeles and Malibu. Santa Monica isn’t one of them. SB 720 provides the broader authority for red-light and stop-sign cameras, and the ordinance coming to Council for a first reading relies on it: cameras at two signalized intersections. I wish it were more, but two is a start.
Without state authorization for automated speed enforcement, Santa Monica is handling the speed side manually. SMPD expanded traffic enforcement staffing this year and has been putting officers at school sites in the morning, which I think has been good for children’s safety. For signals and stop signs, though, cameras are the tool state law actually gives us right now.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 4 The fine schedule is $100 for a first violation, rising to $500 by a fourth, plus a $50 late fee. It’s civil rather than criminal, attached to the registered owner of the vehicle. Some people will look at that and assume it’s too small to matter. I don’t think that’s right. A fine only deters if people expect to get caught, and an officer working an intersection manually might cite fewer than two speeding drivers an hour. A camera catches almost everyone who runs the light. When the odds of getting caught go up that much, the fine doesn’t need to be as high to have the same effect.
Curb space is a safety issue too
I’m glad to see smart curb management included here, with a pilot planned for 2nd and 4th Streets.
This is something I’ve researched in the past: competition for curb space in our business districts pushes a lot of delivery and rideshare vehicles into double-parking, and a lot of that double-parking happens in bike lanes, which is dangerous for cyclists and makes it harder to see pedestrians at intersections. A pilot that uses data and defined zones to allocate that space more predictably addresses a real problem.
What Council is actually deciding
There’s no immediate budget action tied to this study session. Council is being asked for direction, not money, and any ATES fine revenue is meant to stay limited, since the program’s point is near-certain enforcement and putting any surplus into local roadway safety improvements rather than raising general fund revenue. What Council decides on September 8 is whether to adopt the Safe System framework, move the traffic calming toolkit and diverter process forward, advance the curb and parking pilots, and introduce the ATES ordinance.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: terencem terencemcfadden.com <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:35 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support Safe Streets (11B and 10A)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for thirty years. I really appreciate everything the City has done to make bicycling safer, with dedicated bike lanes, etc. (Please ignore all the naysayers on Nextdoor!) I'm writing to ask you to support both safe streets items on your September 8 agenda: adopting the Safe System framework and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit, and introducing the ATES ordinance for red-light and stopsign cameras.
These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.
Terence McFadden
(310) 849-6595
2014 Cloverfield Blvd. #11
Santa Monica CA 90404
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 1 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Support 11.B - Vision Zero Transition
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I support the proposed shift to the Safe System Approach and the direction laid out in the Vision Zero study session. A few tactical additions would make it stronger. I want to credit staff in particular for folding Safe Land Use and Safe and Viable Transit into the framework, and for building tools that let proven safety treatments advance administratively instead of returning to Council each time.
The framework is a meaningful change, but it will be judged on what gets built. Santa Monica committed to Vision Zero ten years ago, and fatal and severe-injury crashes are still nowhere near zero. The new approach needs to come with clear accountability and with the staff authority to move quickly once a safety problem is documented.
I ask that Council approve the item with the following direction:
Give staff authority to install diverters where a safety need is established. Whether a street gets a safety treatment should not turn on a popularity contest. Corridors with documented safety problems, along with Washington Avenue and the other greenways named in the 2011 Bike Action Plan, should qualify for administrative approval of diverters after the appropriate engineering and network review. Several additional diverters that the Bike Action Plan identified as essential connections to the high-quality network were never delivered alongside the projects that came through those corridors: Yale/Wilshire (omitted from the Wilshire safety study), Chelsea/Wilshire (the existing diverter is slated for removal in Wilshire Phase 2), Stewart/28th/Pico and 30th/Pico (both omitted from the East Pico Safety Project), and Strand/Pearl/Lincoln and Ashland/Lincoln (both omitted from the 2017 Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Plan). Those should all fall under administrative approval as well, even though they are not on named neighborhood greenways (they function as “mini-greenways”). Use the full extent of state law to bring speed limits down city-wide. The report stresses safe speeds, but the 2024 speed limit study left much of AB 43 unused. Applying the California Safe Speeds Toolkit, the City can set 20 mph on all DTSM streets, 20 mph on non-arterials citywide, and 25 mph on arterials citywide (with San Vicente and Olympic as exceptions at 30 mph), and 15 mph on all planned Greenways (Ashland the exception at 20 mph). Seattle did essentially this in 2016, dropping non-arterials to 20 mph and arterials to 25 mph, and saw a
17.2% reduction in the odds that a crash involved a fatal or disabling injury, rising to 19.9% for downtown arterial crashes (full paper).
Treat green space as a traffic-calming tool. Staff should be able to evaluate converting travel lanes, and in some cases full roadway blocks, into parks or public space as a form of diversion and calming. Commit to finishing the Bike Action Plan network. Delivery has been too slow. Council should direct staff to set a timeline for the remaining segments and to identify the staffing and other resources needed to speed up delivery through the CIP process.
Tighten accountability and deepen crash analysis. Annual reporting matters, but the City should look past fault determination and review serious crashes for the street-design and systemic changes that would have prevented them. A standing review process along the lines of a Crash Analysis Studio is worth considering. Modernize preferential parking. That includes relocating parking to adjacent streets where surplus roadway width allows alternatives such as angled parking, so that parking concerns stop functioning as a veto on safety projects.
I also support moving ahead with automated red-light enforcement. Enforcement that is close to certain, and civil rather than criminal, deters dangerous driving while freeing limited police capacity for other work. The program should be extended to selected stop-controlled intersections as well.
Santa Monica has already shown it knows how to design safe streets. The open question is whether it can move from adopted plans to consistent, fast implementation. The Safe System Approach gives the City a better framework and a Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 2 better toolkit. Council should adopt it and make sure staff has the direction, the authority, and the accountability to use those tools aggressively
Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-City, 90404
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 3 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: Oliver Chi; Christopher Dishlip; Colleen E. Stoll; [email protected] Subject: Support Aganda item 11B
Attachments: 2026-09 Support Agenda Item 11B-Vision Zero Update-SM Spoke SaMoSSA.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and City Council Members:
Please find attached a letter on behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance in support Agenda Item 11B. We commend Council and Staff for not letting up and renewing leadership and commitment to a safer Santa Monica for everyone. Although the City has missed its Vision Zero Goal, we can now implement an even stronger framework by transitioning to a Safe System Approach and an updated, more efficient direction for future roadway safety priorities.
Cynthia Rose & Cris Gutierrez
--
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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.
September 8, 2026
RE: Support Agenda Item 11B Vision Zero transiion to the Safe System Approach Dear Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick and City Council Members:
On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, we are writing to support Agenda Item 11B. We commend Council and Staff for not letting up and renewing leadership and commitment to a safer Santa Monica for everyone. We support the framework and Staff's recommendation. Although the City has missed its Vision Zero Goal, Staff has continued to explore a stronger framework and proposes transitioning to a Safe System Approach, charting an updated direction for future roadway safety priorities.
What is a Safe System approach?
Simply put: If Vision Zero = safe mobility for all, then the Safe System approach is how we get there. The Fundamentals of a Safe System approach – sometimes referred to as Safety by Design – has long been used in the fields of aviation, shipping, rail transport and occupational health. Beginning in the 1990s, the concept started to be applied to road safety too, and, over time, is proving successful.
Advancing Vision Zero, by shifting the paradigm for safe mobility for all, Staff proposes to replace the old five-E model (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation) with a modified Safe System approach built around seven elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Vehicles, Post-Crash Care and Learning, Safe Land Use, and Safe and Viable Transit.
As noted in the staff report: The widely used Safe System framework has been organized around five elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Vehicles, and Post-Crash Care. City Staff proposes to retain those elements while adding two more, Safe Land Use and Safe and Viable Transit.
We understand land use and transportation choices influence trip length, mode choice, access to daily needs, and exposure to higher-energy motor-vehicle travel. The proposed seven-element framework is a local adaptation intended to make these upstream influences explicit; the elements are interdependent, and the City’s ability to influence them varies substantially. We respect Staff’s holistic vision that has emerged in their development of projects integrating multiple departments and informed by their evolution through City Divisions, from Planning to DOT and now to Public Works.
In addition the proposed Tool Kit empowers neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Tool Kit paired with a new diverter pilot program democratizes street safety and puts it more in the hands of residents by providing a structure to identify and mitigate “lived experience” safety problems on their streets with remedies that offer understandable and predictable timelines.
By creating a new and understandable system for traffic diverters, which have the same current threshold as block parties, residents can help identify safety issues on their own streets while Staff makes sure that diverters are evaluated at the network level so a fix on one street doesn’t just push the same traffic onto the next one, and maintains required routes for emergency responders. This network level evaluation is required to avoid negative impacts –such as on Michigan Avenue that for decades has absorbed cutthrough traffic better suited for Olympic Blvd - a regional road. We are also excited that the Washington Avenue Neighborhood Greenway is now in its early stages, with a quick-build now funded.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) We support an approved tool kit (with diversion) for Staff to achieve the outcomes Council directs– without the need to return to council for each use. The lesson learned from the Michigan Avenue Greenway is that Staff’s ability and efficiency to reduce daily car trip targets relies on the tool kit proposed and utilized with Staff discretion to carry out council direction of safer streets for everyone.
We thank the Council and Staff for the steady commitment and leadership in transitioning Vision Zero to a Safe Systems Approach Framework that will create safer streets for everyone in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 4 David Yakobson
From: David Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Marc Vukcevich
Subject: SUPPORT of Item 11B
Attachments: Support 11B.pdf
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Please find attached a letter from Streets For All in support of Item 11B.
Best,
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. David Martinez
State Policy Manager
Streets For All
(949) 307 9282
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 08 September 2026
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: SUPPORT of Item 11B - Vision Zero Study Session
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Streets For All is a transportation and land use advocacy organization that is engaged in work that promotes sustainable multi-modal transportation solutions, street safety, and smart land use decision making throughout California. We are committed to crafting policies that allow communities to benefit everyone. We support Item 11B.
Santa Monica's proposed transition to a modified Safe System approach represents an important evolution of the City's Vision Zero program. The fundamental premise of Vision Zero is that traffic deaths and life-altering injuries are preventable and unacceptable. We appreciate the City's continued commitment to prioritizing human life over vehicle throughput and its effort to establish clearer policies and processes for implementing safety improvements more quickly.
The need for continued action is clear. Santa Monica experienced 214 fatal and severe-injury crashes between 2021 and 2025, including 77 involving pedestrians and 31 involving bicyclists.
Most importantly, 20 of the City's 21 traffic fatalities during that period involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. Pedestrian-involved fatal and severe-injury crashes also increased in every year of the 2021–2025 period.
We strongly support the City's proposed Safe System framework, particularly its recognition that roadway safety cannot depend solely on individual behavior. A safe transportation system should anticipate human error and incorporate multiple layers of protection so that inevitable mistakes do not result in death or serious injury. We are pleased to see Santa Monica explicitly incorporate Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Land Use, and Safe and Viable Transit into its framework.
We are particularly supportive of the report's emphasis on proactive risk identification through the development of a complementary High-Risk Network. A traditional High Injury Network identifies locations where severe crashes have already occurred. A High-Risk Network can help the City identify locations with characteristics associated with elevated crash risk before people Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) are killed or seriously injured. This is precisely the type of proactive approach that should be at the heart of Vision Zero.
We also appreciate the focus on moving safety projects from identification to implementation more efficiently. The City's recent work on speed humps, speed tables, speed-feedback signs, pedestrian signal improvements, and other quick-build treatments demonstrates the value of having processes that allow appropriate safety interventions to move forward without unnecessary delay.
Finally, we encourage Santa Monica to carry this Safe System approach into the City's updated Vision Zero Action Plan. The forthcoming plan should establish clear performance measures, implementation timelines, responsible departments, funding strategies, and mechanisms for responding when safety outcomes are not improving quickly enough. The goal should not simply be to adopt a new framework, but to use that framework to build a safer transportation system and accelerate the implementation of projects that save lives.
Streets For All thanks the City Council and staff for their continued commitment to Vision Zero and urges the Council to provide direction that advances the proposed Safe System approach and turns it into meaningful, measurable action.
Sincerely,
Marc Vukcevich
Director of State Policy
Streets For All
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) 5 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:12 PM
To: Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Support 11.B
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
Apologies for being a bit behind the deadline, but item 11.B is important enough to still urge you to support the updated Vision Zero planning, including the automated red light enforcement.
Our previous Vision Zero goal failed pretty severely, with fatal and serious injuries nearly tripling from 19 in 2015 to 52 in 2025. The statistics clearly show that the previous efforts were too little and implementation was too slow. As outlined in Santa Monica Forward's letter of support, this updated Safe System Approach looks like a very promising approach to start rapid, dynamic deployment across the city.
There are a few particular points that I'd like to emphasize from SMF's letter:
1) The addition of Safe Land Use is a fantastic addition to the typical framework and acknowledges that car dependency has consequences across more than just our roads. Addressing the primary reason that residents or workers are forced to travel via car is the best way to deal with root cause of traffic violence. 2) Adding green space as part of the traffic calming measures will yield benefits to all members of our society. Around 25% of our cities most valuable asset, it's land, is paved over and presents incredible opportunity to address the need for parks, reduce heat island effects, add shade, and generally make Santa Monica a more livable place. No one comes here to visit the parking lots. 3) Using dynamic implementation of diverters is great, but shouldn't be subject to rules like the block party support thresholds. Streets are corridors that impact numerous users along their continuous length, so approval shouldn't be restricted by a handful in each individual location.
Thanks
Dustin Shahan
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.f
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero
City Council Meeting
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Direction requested
from City Council
02 Provide feedback on the
neighborhood- support
framework for
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming.
Provide feedback on the
approval process for
traffic-diversion
treatments, including the
Michigan Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway.
The objective of today’s presentation is to seek City Council direction on the following staff recommendations:
Adopt a modified Safe
System Approach.
Provide feedback on
administrative
implementation
approaches for Personal
Delivery Devices and
Residential Preferential
Parking.
Take the necessary
actions to establish an
Automated Traffic
Enforcement System
Program.
Provide feedback on
including a High-Risk
Network in the Local
Roadway Safety Plan.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
03 04 05
01 02
06 Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 03 Santa Monica adopted Vision Zero in 2016 with the
goal of eliminating fatal and severe traffic injuries
by 2026.
The goal has not been achieved and Council has
directed staff to prioritize safety in transportation
planning and advance implementable safety
improvements more quickly.
Tonight’s study session is about the framework for
the next phase: safe systems, proactive risk
identification, faster delivery tools, and clearer
implementation authority.
Why are we here
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 04 The City has invested in complete streets,
intersection and signal improvements, speed
management, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, Safe Routes to School, education
and enforcement.
This work has changed the transportation
network and established many of the tools
that the next phase will build on.
The proposed Safe Systems approach is an
evolution of that work, not a rejection of it.
Ten years of
Vision Zero Work
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 05 Over the past five years, from 2021 -
2025, our community experienced 214
fatal or severe-injury crashes including
21 fatalities.
20 of the 21 fatal crashes involved a
person walking or biking.
Serious crashes are dispersed across
the network rather than concentrated at
a small number of locations.
What the data
tells us
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Santa Monica
is changing its
approach to
roadway
safety
06 Santa Monica’s Vision Zero work
has traditionally been organized
around five areas known as the
“E’s.” The proposed Safe System
Approach builds on that work while
placing greater responsibility on
the design and operation of the
transportation system.
FRAMEWORK
FRAMEWORK
RECOMMENDED
PREVIOUS
EDUCATION
EVALUATION
ENGINEERING
ENFORCEMENT
ENCOURAGEMENT
A Safe System Approach recognizes that people will make mistakes. Streets, speeds, vehicles, and transportation policies should work together so those mistakes are less likely to result in death or serious injury.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
A modified
Safe System
Approach for
Santa Monica
07 The Safe System Approach
starts with the premise that fatal
and severe traffic injuries are
unacceptable.
People make mistakes.
People are physically vulnerable.
Responsibility for safety is shared.
Safety risks should be addressed
proactively.
Multiple layers of protection are
necessary.
Santa Monica would apply these
principles across Safe Road Users, Safe
Vehicles, Safe Speeds, Safe Roads,
Post-Crash Care, Safe Land Use, and
Safe and Viable Transit.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) p
ro
a
c tive
De a th a nd se rious injurie s
Re dunda ncy
is sha re d
Hum
a
n
s
Sa
fe ty is
a re una c c e pta b le
is
c ruc ia l
Re sp o nsib ility
m a ke
m ista
ke
s
Hum a ns a re
vulne ra b le
Safe
Road Use rs
Safe
Vehicles
Safe & Viable
Transit
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Land Use
Safe
Roads
Post-C rash
Care
All eleme nts a re
inte rde p ende nt
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Source: The Hidden Danger of Big Pickup Trucks - Consumer Reports Safe Road Users and Safe Vehicles
SAFE ROAD USERS SAFE VEHICLES
Everyone who uses the transportation system
has a role in roadway safety, including people
walking, bicycling, driving, using transit, and using
other forms of mobility.
Vehicle design and safety
features can help prevent
crashes and reduce the severity
of injuries when crashes occur.
Together, these elements support safer decisions while recognizing that individual mistakes will still happen.
08 Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) p
ro
a
c tive
De a th a nd se rious injurie s
Re dunda ncy
is sha re d
Hum
a
n
s
Sa
fe ty is
a re una c c e pta b le
is
c ruc ia l
Re sp o nsib ility
m a ke
m ista
ke
s
Hum a ns a re
vulne ra b le
Safe
Road Use rs
Safe
Vehicles
Safe & Viable
Transit
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Land Use
Safe
Roads
Post-C rash
Care
All eleme nts a re
inte rde p ende nt
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Source: Adapted from San Fransisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) As vehicle speeds increase, the likelihood of a person surviving a crash drops sharply.
Lower
speeds
save
lives.
Safe Speeds and Safe Roads
90% survive
10% fatality risk
60% survive
40% fatality risk
20% survive
80% fatality risk
SAFE SPEEDS SAFE ROADS
The risk of death or serious injury rises sharply as
vehicle speeds increase. Higher speeds create much
greater crash energy, making crashes more severe and
reducing the chance of survival.
*A crash at 40 mph involves about 4 dimes the kinetic energy of a crash at 20 mph.
Streets can be designed and
operated to reduce conflicts,
separate users where
appropriate, and encourage
safer travel speeds and
behavior.
Together, safe speeds and safer street design reduce both the likelihood and consequences of a crash.
20 MPH
30 MPH
40 MPH
09 Speed Matters
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) p
ro
a
c tive
De a th a nd se rious injurie s
Re dunda ncy
is sha re d
Hum
a
n
s
Sa
fe ty is
a re una c c e pta b le
is
c ruc ia l
Re sp o nsib ility
m a ke
m ista
ke
s
Hum a ns a re
vulne ra b le
Safe
Road Use rs
Safe
Vehicles
Safe & Viable
Transit
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Land Use
Safe
Roads
Post-C rash
Care
All eleme nts a re
inte rde p ende nt
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Post-Crash Care & Learning
TheSafe System Approach
extends beyond preventing
crashes.
Post-crash care includes the response
following a collision and the use of crash
information to improve future roadwaysafety decisions.
This ensures that the City continues
learning from serious collisions and
incorporates those lessons into future
planning and improvements.
10 Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Fehr & Peers
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Safe Land Use and Safe and Viable Transit
SAFE LAND USE SAFE AND VIABLE TRANSIT
Land-use patterns influence where and how
people travel. Transportation and
land-use decisions should work together to
identify risks and support safer travel.
Including land use and transit reflects Santa Monica’s broader, locally adapted application of the Safe System Approach.
Safe, viable transit is part of a transportation
system that provides people with practical ways
to travel throughout the community.
EXPOSURE SEVERITY LIKELIHOOD
Separated uses and cul-de-sacs
make every trip long and with a caronly option for most trips, and seas of parking to accomodate it.
Wide, high volume collectors and
arterials carry high speeds right
past homes and schools,
increasingly in larger and heavier
vehicles.
Multilane, far-spaced intersctions
sized for peak hour congestion,
bus pullouts, and strip mall/gas
station driveways multiply conflict
points for all users.
11 p
ro
a
c tive
De a th a nd se rious injurie s
Re dunda ncy
is sha re d
Hum
a
n
s
Sa
fe ty is
a re una c c e pta b le
is
c ruc ia l
Re sp o nsib ility
m a ke
m ista
ke
s
Hum a ns a re
vulne ra b le
Safe
Road Use rs
Safe
Vehicles
Safe & Viable
Transit
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Land Use
Safe
Roads
Post-C rash
Care
All eleme nts a re
inte rde p ende nt
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 12 Traditional collision analysis focuses primarily on locations where crashes have already happened. A Safe System Approach also examines the street characteristics and conditions associated with severe crashes so the City can identify and address risks before another serious collision occurs.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
From a High Injury
Network to proactive risk
identification
COUNCIL DIRECTION
Prioritize limited funding and staff resources
Identify locations for proactive safety improvements
Coordinate projects and funding
Should a High-Risk Network inform future roadway-safety planning and investment? Track whether investments are addressing the greatest risks Inform the Local Roadway Safety Plan
A High-Risk Network could help Santa Monica:
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 13 Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
What has changed
since February
Near-term work including Chelsea/Santa Monica
Boulevard turn changes, Berkeley speed humps,
Neilson speed tables, Yale and Marine speed-feedback
signs, and approximately 30 stop-sign evaluations.
Staff has advanced no-right-turn-on-red restrictions in downtown, leading pedestrian interval expansion, red
light camera program development, smart curb
management work, and advancement of the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit.
On-call design and construction capacity has been
added to shorten the path from identified concern to
field development.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 14 The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolkit will establish a consistent intake, analysis, engagement, design, approval, implementation, and monitoring process for quick-build
neighborhood safety treatments. Community members would identify the transportation problem or concern and staff would validate the concern according to speed data, crash and risk information, vulnerable users, travel volumes, network effects, equity, emergency access, and
implementation feasibility.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming
COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED CONCERN POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
Speeding
Cut through traffic
Poor visibility
Crash potential Traffic diverters
Chicanes
Curb extensions
Speed-management treatments
Other quick-build improvements
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 15 Santa Monica’s long-term greenway network
includes routes identified in the Bicycle Action Plan,
including Michigan Avenue, Washington Avenue,
Ashland Avenue, and 24th Street.
Neighborhood greenways are low-stress bike routes
geared towards riders of all ages and skill levels.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Neighborhood
Greenways
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TARGET GREENWAY VEHICLE VOLUMES & SPEEDS Traffic diverters
Chicanes
Curb extensions
Speed-management treatments
Signage
Intersection treatments to assist
with crossing major streets
NACTO/AASHTO Target
Maximum Speed 20 mph
NACTO/AASHTO Target
Maximum 2,000 ADT
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 16 Neighborhood traffic calming uses physical street
improvements to address speeding, cut-through
traffic, and other neighborhood safety concerns. The
proposed Traffic Calming Toolkit establishes a
consistent process for evaluating requests and
moving appropriate projects forward.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
A clearer process for
neighborhood traffic
calming
1 Request received and location eligibility confirmed
2 Data reviewed and issue identified
3 Potential improvement and outreach approach identified 4 Project scoped, prioritized, and scheduled
5 Quick-build treatment installed and evaluated
6 Results monitored and reported
• Quick Build
• Evaluation
• Full Build
• Prioritization
• Scheduling
• Submission
• Location Eligibility • Data Screening
• Annual VZ Report
• Levels of improvements
• Outreach
The toolkit would also create standard treatment plans and public information sheets that could be used across neighborhood greenways.
Project Intake
4 Project Scoping
and Budgeting
5 Implementation
1 2
Issue
Identification
3 Improvement
Identification
6 Monitoring and
Reporting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 17 Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Traffic calming and traffic diversion
are not the same
TRAFFIC CALMING
Primarily changes how people travel on
the street.
Examples: speed humps, cushions, curb extensions, chicanes.
TRAFFIC DIVERSION
Changes where people travel across
the surrounding street network.
Examples: full diverters, partial diverters, turn restrictions. *Because diversion redistributes trips, it requires network-level evaluation with administrative approval.
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 18 Peer example: Somerville, Massachusetts
evaluated traffic redistribution and nearby
intersection operations before
implementing the recent street diversion.
The review also considered emergency and
sanitation access, transit operations,
turning movements, alternate access,
parking/loading, and community input.
Administrative approval can still include
technical review.
What diversion evaluation looks like
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Source: The Elm-Beacon Connector | SomerVoice
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 19 Traffic diversion changes how vehicles
travel through a street or intersection. It
can be used to reduce through-traffic
while maintaining neighborhood access.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Traffic diversion
would be a new
toolkit option
Half-closure Median diverter
Traffic-diversion treatments would be considered through the City’s project-review, outreach, installation, and evaluation process.
POTENTIAL TREATMENTS
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 20 Because traffic diversion can change how people travel through a neighborhood, staff is seeking Council direction on the level of community support that should be required.
For traffic-diversion treatments, staff proposes a neighborhood petition demonstrating:
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Proposed Santa Monica
Diversion pathway
support in R-1 areas support in areas other than R-1
The petition would be considered alongside location eligibility, data screening, project scoping, outreach, implementation, and evaluation. Locations not already identified in Council-adopted plans, such as the Bicycle Action Plan, would also require Council approval.
What level of neighborhood support
should be required?
What approval process should apply to
traffic-diversion treatments?
How should the framework apply to the
Michigan Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway?
COUNCIL DIRECTION
51% 25%
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 21 Curb space is a limited public resource that must serve residents, businesses, deliveries, transit, accessibility, passenger pickup, micromobility, and public space.
A data-driven approach could help the City:
Staff will return to City Council with a recommendation for a smart curb-management contract award.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
The curb is part of the
safety system
Understand how curb space is being used
Reduce double parking and curb conflicts
Support businesses and deliveries
Improve transit reliability
Protect pedestrians, bicyclists, and ADA access
Adapt curb uses as demand changes
Potential tools include a digital curb inventory, utilization data, enhanced enforcement, and an initial pilot area with
opportunities for expansion.
Short-term parking
Commercial deliveries
TNC, AV passenger pick-up/drop-off
Transit stops
Bike parking and micromobility
EV charging
ADA access
Freight and tour buses vehicles
Pedestrian, activations, and public space
NEXT STEP
One Curb with many competing needs
🚗
📦
🚕
🚌
🚲
⚡
♿
🚚
🌴
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 22 Residential Preferential Parking limits parking on designated streets to vehicles with residential permits during certain times.
Under the current framework, many changes must return to City Council. Staff is seeking direction on an approach that would preserve Council’s policy role while allowing qualifying changes to be implemented administratively.
Modernizing
Residential
Preferential Parking
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
POTENTIAL APPROACH COUNCIL DIRECTION
Council establishes eligible areas, standard restrictions, and program requirements.
Council pre-authorizes implementation within the established framework.
Staff establishes or modifies qualifying zones administratively.
Staff may adjust restrictions in response to parking demand, commercial needs, and safety or mobility projects.
Proposals outside the Council-approved framework continue to require Council consideration.
How much flexibility should staff have?
What parameters should guide staff
decisions?
When could spaces be made available
for public or commercial uses?
Which changes should continue to
require Council approval?
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 23 Personal Delivery Devices are small devices
used to deliver food and other goods through the
public right-of-way.
Santa Monica’s current framework restricts autonomous and semi-autonomous operation. Administrative regulations allow Level 3 automation but prohibit Level 4 and higher, requiring direct human piloting.
POLICY AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION
Modernizing the
Personal Delivery
Device framework
Permitted levels of autonomy Fleet caps
Staff is seeking direction on how the program should respond to evolving technology and potential new market entrants.
Program fees Advertising Data-sharing requirements
Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 24 Policy area Current framework
City rules restrict autonomous and semi-autonomous
operation.
Potential direction
Amend the Municipal Code and administrative regulations to establish permitted levels of automation.
Current rules and potential changes
Fleet size
Autonomy
Advertising
Data sharing
Program fees
What levels of automation
should be permitted?
No specific operator, device, or public-right-of-way
usage fees.
On-device advertising is heavily restricted.
No specific per-operator or total fleet caps.
Operators provide operating data requested by the City.
What fleet caps, fees, advertising
rules, and reporting requirements
are appropriate?
What safeguards are needed to
protect sidewalk access and the
public right-of-way?
Establish fees to offset administration and enforcement costs.
Consider revised advertising rules or revenue-sharing
requirements.
Strengthen reporting, including information about
sidewalk conditions and obstructions.
Establish fleet caps to prevent clutter and overcrowding.
COUNCIL
DIRECTION
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 25 Improve
compliance with
traffic signals
Reduce
An Automated Traffic Enforcement System uses
cameras and related technology to identify vehicles
that enter an intersection after a traffic signal has
turned red.
Under California’s Safer Streets Act, the proposed system would support a future Santa Monica red-light camera program.
Protect
pedestrians, bicyclists,
and drivers
The system captures vehicle
and license-plate information,
not the driver’s face.
unsafe driving
Violations are civil infractions
reviewed outside the Police
Department.
City staff reviews potential
violations before citations
are issued.
predictable and broadly
applied enforcement
Tonight’s action would authorize
the City to establish the program.
It would not select a vendor or
approve final camera locations.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Establishing an
Automated Traffic
Enforcement System
The program Provide
is intended to:
PROGRAM SAFEGUARDS
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 26 Establishing an Automated Traffic Enforcement System requires several separate decisions and implementation steps. The proposed enabling ordinance is the first step; site selection, contracting, implementation, and enforcement would follow through a separate process.
01 02 03
Establishing the program is the first step
ENABLING
ORDINANCE
Authorizes the City to
use an Automated
Traffic Enforcement
System to identify
traffic-signal
violations.
POTENTIAL SITE-SELECTION CRITERIA
Pattern of red-light violations; demonstrated crash risk; engineering suitability; City jurisdiction and operational control; presence of vulnerable roadway users; community feedback; and structural risk factors such as traffic speeds and volumes.
SITE EVALUATION
AND CONTRACTING
Conduct objective safety analysis
Identify two recommended
intersections
Execute a limited-duration
vendor contract
Establish a dedicated
fund for citation revenue
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
04 Infrastructure installed
60-day warning period
Program revenue is used for safer
streets and traffic-calming
measures
IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT
IMPACT REPORT
& OUTREACH
Public Hearing approving
Impact Report
Vendor and City Staff
complete outreach with
local stakeholders
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 27 Establish the policy framework
and provide direction on
implementation approaches.
Update crash analysis, High
Injury Network, Proposed HighRisk Network,Countermeasures and project prioritization
Projects and programs,
Responsibilities, Timelines,
Funding and resource needs,
Performance Measures
What happens next
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Tonight
Local Roadway
Safety Plan
Updated
Vision Zero
Action Plan
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Direction requested
from City Council
28 Provide feedback on the
neighborhood- support
framework for
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming.
Provide feedback on the
approval process for
traffic-diversion
treatments, including the
Michigan Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway.
Adopt a modified Safe
System Approach.
Provide feedback on
administrative
implementation
approaches for Personal
Delivery Devices and
Residential Preferential
Parking.
Take the necessary
actions to establish an
Automated Traffic
Enforcement System
Program.
Provide feedback on
including a High-Risk
Network in the Local
Roadway Safety Plan.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
03 04 05
01 02
06 Staff recommends that the City Council:
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 29 Direction requested from City Council
Introduce for first reading an ordinance creating Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.540 and establishing an Automated Traffic Enforcement System Program to
detect traffic-signal violations.
Direct staff to monitor state legislation related to
automated speed enforcement and evaluate
implementation opportunities if Santa Monica becomes
eligible.
Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant
environmental effect under Section 15061(b)(3), the
common-sense exemption of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Thank You!
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 30 Over the past six months, staff has begun applying this more implementation-focused approach through a series of nearterm roadway-safety actions. The projects below represent the first wave of implementation delivered through the quickbuild capacity established under the Realignment.
Project
Chelsea Ave / Santa Monica Blvd left-turn improvement
Description
Quick-build treatment to manage left-turn conflicts and improve pedestrian crossing safety at the intersection.
Status
Deployed
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Berkeley Street speed humps
Neilson Way speed tables
No-right-turn-on-red signage
Pedestrian recall installations
2nd & 4th Street curb transition
Neighborhood diverter pilot program
Speed feedback signs – Yale St & Marine St
Stop-sign evaluations (approx. 30 intersections citywide) Vertical deflection to reduce operating speeds through physical street design.
Vertical deflection sized for a higher-volume roadway context, with monitoring of transit and emergency operations.
Driver feedback signage to reinforce target speeds on residential corridors.
Evaluation of approximately 30 intersections for potential stop-sign installation against adopted criteria to reduce conflict severity.
Turn restrictions at selected intersections to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts during crossing phases.
Signal operations changes so pedestrian phases are served automatically without push-button actuation.
Conversion of existing 15-minute parking spaces to designated loading and passenger drop-off zones as an interim step while Smart Curb Management procurement and enabling authority are completed.
Resident-initiated and program-based diversion treatments under the approval framework described in this report.
In design
Deployed
Under evaluation
Under construction
Framework outlined in this
report
Deployed at various locations
Deployed at various locations
In process of deployment
Recent roadway-safety actions
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
Preliminary
Red Light
Camera
intersection
analysis
31 Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
32 Signal Upgrades
(LPI, APS, and Software Upgrade)
LPI
Signal Software Upgrades
Completed Intersection
Older Version of Maxtime
In Progress Intersection
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS)
Yes
Planned
Requested
Signal Modifications
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
33 Speed Countermeasures
(Speed Feedback Signs, Speed Humps,
2024 Speed Survey adjustments)
Speed Reduction Improvements
Speed Feedback Signs
Installed
Planned
In Review
Requested
Speed Humps
Installed
Planned
In Review
Requested
Speed Changed in 2024 E&TS
Speed Increase by 5 MPH
Speed Decrease by 5 MPH
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
34 Right of Way Concerns
(AllWay StopControl,CrossTraffic
Does Not Stop, No Right on Red)
Right of Way Concerns
All Way Stops
Installed
Planned
In Review
Requested
No Turn On Red
Completed
Planned
In Review
Requested
Cross Traffic Does Not Stop
Installed
Planned
In Review
Requested
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) Residential
Preferential
Parking Map
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
35 Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) 2011 Bike
Action Plan 20-
Year Vision
with
Greenways
and locations
identified for
Enhanced
Bicycle Access
Vision Zero Study Session
City Council Meeting
36 Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
11.B.g
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7862 : Vision Zero) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Public Hearing and Introduction and Adoption of Emergency IZO to Extend Interim Zoning Regulations Establishing Standards and Procedures for Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles
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. Introduce and Adopt an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Extending Interim Zoning Regulations Established by Emergency Interim Ordinance 2860 (CCS) to Establish Standards and Procedures for Approval for Light Fleet-Based Services for Autonomous Vehicles and Creation of a Use Classification for Light-Fleet Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles.
Summary
On July 14, 2026, Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2860 (CCS) (“EIZO”) establishing interim standards and procedures for the approval of Light Fleet-Based Services for Autonomous Vehicles and creating a use classification for Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles. The EIZO was adopted in response to operational impacts associated with autonomous vehicle fleet operations that were not fully addressed by the City’s existing land use regulations, including vehicle queueing and staging in the public right-of-way and noise and lighting impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods.
12.A
Packet Pg. 1351
2 of 8
The EIZO became effective immediately upon adoption and is scheduled to expire on September 12, 2026, unless extended pursuant to SMMC Section 9.46.090(C).
The circumstances that supported adoption of the EIZO continue to exist. Autonomous vehicle fleet operations remain an emerging land use with operational characteristics that differ from conventional vehicle service, parking, charging, or fleet uses. The City continues to have an interest in ensuring that these operations do not result in off-site queuing, obstruction of public rights-of-way, or adverse noise and lighting impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Additional time is also necessary for staff to monitor implementation of the interim regulations, evaluate operational conditions associated with facilities that are approved under these interim regulations, garner additional feedback from industry operators and the community, coordinate among affected City departments and outside agencies, and determine whether permanent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance should be developed.
Allowing the EIZO to expire before that work is completed would eliminate the interim standards established by Council and could allow new or modified Light Fleet-Based Services for Autonomous Vehicles to proceed without the specific safeguards Council determined were necessary to address their potential impacts. The attached ordinance proposes to extend these interim regulations for two years while the City continues its evaluation of an appropriate permanent regulatory framework.
Background
Adoption of the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
Recent development proposals involving autonomous vehicle fleet maintenance and operations identified an emerging land use that was not specifically contemplated by the City's existing zoning regulations.
Unlike conventional vehicle charging or parking facilities, Light Fleet-Based Services for Autonomous Vehicles may involve centralized staging, dispatch, maintenance,
12.A
Packet Pg. 1352
3 of 8
charging, cleaning, monitoring, and continuous circulation of autonomous vehicles.
These operational characteristics can result in concentrated vehicle arrivals and departures, extended dwell times, on-site staffing requirements, and continuous nighttime activity.
The City's experience with existing autonomous vehicle fleet operations demonstrated that these characteristics can create land use and circulation impacts not adequately addressed through existing regulations.
Observed and potential impacts included:
• Vehicle queuing within alleys and adjacent circulation areas; • Vehicles pausing or staging within travel lanes;
• Reduced circulation capacity;
• Interference with access to adjacent properties;
• Potential obstruction of emergency vehicle access;
• Noise and lighting impacts associated with continuous 24-hour operations; and • The need for manual intervention when autonomous vehicles are unable to appropriately respond to congestion or other site conditions.
At existing facilities, vehicle queues were observed to reach approximately 15 vehicles.
Based on conservative vehicle storage assumptions, a queue of this size can occupy approximately 330 to 375 feet and potentially affect streets, alleys, driveways, intersections, and emergency access.
The City also identified particular concerns regarding facilities located near residential neighborhoods, where continuous operations may generate nighttime noise, lighting, vehicle movements, and other impacts during sensitive overnight hours.
Based on these conditions and pending and potential applications for additional facilities, the City Council determined that immediate interim regulations were necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare while the City evaluated an appropriate longer-term regulatory framework.
12.A
Packet Pg. 1353
4 of 8
Interim Regulatory Framework
The EIZO established a new use classification for “Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles” applicable to autonomous passenger transportation services, delivery services, medical transport services, autonomous vehicle fleets, and similar operations involving fleets of three or more vehicles under 10,000 pounds.
The interim ordinance established objective operational standards for these uses within the General Commercial (GC), Industrial Conservation (IC), and Transit Adjacent (TA) zoning districts.
The regulatory framework generally allows qualifying projects to proceed through ministerial review when all objective operational requirements can be satisfied. A Minor Use Permit is required where the Director determines that a proposed operation cannot comply with specifically enumerated operational conditions, allowing a public hearing and consideration of appropriate site-specific operating conditions.
Key requirements established by the EIZO include:
• A Parking and Loading Operations Plan;
• Real-time management of vehicle arrivals and site capacity; • Coordination between vehicle dispatch systems and actual on-site conditions; • Prohibition of staging or idling within public streets and alleys; • A requirement that all vehicle queuing occur on-site; • Restrictions on vehicle circulation near a facility when the facility lacks capacity to accept additional vehicles;
• Limits on the number of vehicles on-site based on available parking capacity; • Maintenance of required emergency access clearances;
• Minimum on-site staffing requirements;
• Active monitoring of site operations and surrounding public rights-of-way; • Authority for on-site personnel to regulate or suspend dispatch activity; • Ongoing monitoring and coordination with the City; and • A designated site liaison responsible for responding to complaints.
12.A
Packet Pg. 1354
5 of 8
For facilities within 100 feet of residentially zoned property, the EIZO also established additional noise and lighting standards, including overnight operational restrictions, sound attenuation requirements where applicable, lighting orientation and shielding requirements, and controls addressing headlights and glare.
Discussion
Continued Need for Interim Regulations
The conditions that led to adoption of the EIZO continue to be present. Light FleetBased Services for Autonomous Vehicles remain an emerging land use with operational characteristics that are not adequately addressed by the City's underlying zoning regulations absent the interim ordinance.
The primary concern is not autonomous vehicle technology itself or the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Rather, the concern addressed by the EIZO is the land use intensity associated with centralized fleet staging, dispatch, maintenance, circulation, and related operations.
These activities can generate concentrated vehicle movements and operational impacts that differ substantially from conventional parking or electric vehicle charging facilities.
The underlying zoning regulations do not contain the same comprehensive set of operational standards specifically tailored to autonomous vehicle fleet operations.
Accordingly, allowing the interim ordinance to expire could result in applications being reviewed without the operating standards Council previously determined were necessary to address the potential public health, safety, and welfare impacts associated with this emerging land use. The EIZO provides a regulatory framework specifically designed to address these impacts while allowing autonomous vehicle fleet operations to occur when appropriate objective operational standards can be met.
Without an extension, the EIZO will expire on September 12, 2026. Expiration would remove the specific interim standards applicable to Light Fleet-Based Services for
12.A
Packet Pg. 1355
6 of 8
Autonomous Vehicles before the City has completed its evaluation of a permanent regulatory framework.
Extending the EIZO will provide staff additional time to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the interim regulations and determine whether permanent zoning regulations are warranted.
During the extension period, staff anticipates continuing work in the following areas:
1. Monitor implementation. Evaluate how the objective operational standards function when applied to proposed autonomous vehicle fleet operations.
2. Evaluate operational impacts. Continue reviewing information concerning vehicle queuing, circulation, emergency access, noise, lighting, staffing, and fleet dispatch practices.
3. Interdepartmental coordination. Continue coordination among Community Development, Transportation, Fire, Police, Public Works, and other departments as appropriate regarding operational and public right-of-way impacts.
4. Industry and community engagement. Obtain additional information from fleet operators, property owners, neighboring residents and businesses, and other interested stakeholders regarding implementation of the interim standards. It should be noted that staff has received correspondence suggesting modifications to the ordinance that would place a heavy reliance on software and technology that does not yet exist in any other jurisdiction.
5. Permanent regulations. Evaluate whether the City's permanent Zoning Ordinance should be amended to establish a long-term regulatory framework for Light FleetBased Services for Autonomous Vehicles.
Environmental Review
The extension of the EIZO is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 and 15061(b)(3).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by State law or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration,
12.A
Packet Pg. 1356
7 of 8
enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The proposed extension of the EIZO extends land use and objective operational standards intended to protect the public and surrounding environment from potential impacts associated with Light Fleet-Based Services for Autonomous Vehicles, including vehicle queuing, circulation, emergency access, lighting, noise, and operational activity. Extending the ordinance continues those protective regulations without expanding or materially modifying the regulatory framework.
The extension is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that extending the existing interim regulatory standards, which are objective, operational standards for autonomous light-fleet based services that are designed to reduce impacts of such facilities, will not result in a significant effect on the environment. The extension does not approve a specific development project, authorize construction, or independently result in a physical change to the environment.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
07/14/26 (Attachment
B)
Council introduced and adopted an emergency IZO
establishing standards and procedures for the approval of light fleet-based vehicle services for autonomous vehicles and establishing new use classification for the same
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
12.A
Packet Pg. 1357
8 of 8
Prepared By: Ross Fehrman, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26
B. City Council July 14, 2026 Meeting (Web Link)
C. PowerPoint Presentation
12.A
Packet Pg. 1358
1 City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING THE REGULATIONS OF EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2860 ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES OF APPROVAL FOR LIGHT FLEET-BASED SERVICE FOR
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND CREATING A USE CLASSIFICATION FOR LIGHT
FLEET-BASED SERVICE FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
WHEREAS, recent development proposals have introduced high volume fleet maintenance operations for autonomous vehicles; and
WHEREAS, these uses introduce land use impacts not fully addressed by existing regulations; and
WHEREAS, documented key concerns include, but are not limited to: (1) Queuing and staging in the public right-of-way; (2) Obstruction of emergency access routes; (3) Noise and lighting impacts on nearby residential areas; and (4) Lack of operational accountability for fleet dispatch systems; and
WHEREAS, based on prior documented occurrences, additional impacts may arise due to concentrated arrival surges, limited driveway capacity, and the duration autonomous vehicles remain on-site; and
WHEREAS, continuous 24-hour operations further exacerbate these concerns by introducing nighttime queuing, noise, and light intrusion during sensitive hours, as evidenced by over 140 complaints associated with certain existing facilities used for fleet management; and
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 2 WHEREAS, this emergency ordinance provides a framework that introduces a new use classification for fleet-based services for autonomous vehicles, and objective operational standards to mitigate impacts from this emerging land use, and a process for review and approval of such uses; and
WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance provides a limited discretionary review process for projects that cannot comply with the enumerated operational standards; and WHEREAS, this emergency ordinance is consistent with the City’s local authority to address land use and public safety impacts involving autonomous vehicle fleet operations; and
WHEREAS, several applications for high-intensity fleet maintenance operations for autonomous vehicles necessitated the immediate need for the City to address these land use impacts; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the Council adopted Emergency Zoning Ordinance No. 2860 (EIZO 2860), establishing standards and procedures of approval for light fleetbased service for autonomous vehicles and creating a use classification for light fleetbased service for autonomous vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to extend the provisions of EIZO 2860 for another two years; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the extension of EIZO 2860 is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety and welfare as it will continue to allow the City to address land use impacts and public safety associated with fleet maintenance operations for autonomous vehicles, monitor implementation of the interim regulations, evaluate operational conditions associated with facilities that are approved under these interim
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 3 regulations, garner additional feedback from industry operators and the community, coordinate among affected City departments and outside agencies, and determine whether permanent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance should be developed.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.165, Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles, is hereby added and shall read as follows:
9.31.165 Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to set forth specific standards for Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles, as defined by Section
9.51.020(D)(6.5), in order to mitigate impacts to public right-of-way, impacts on adjacent residentially zoned property, and documented adverse impacts upon public health or safety.
B. Location. Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles shall be permitted in the General Commercial (GC), Industrial Conservation (IC), and Transit Adjacent (TA) Zoning Districts, subject to ministerial approval or a Minor Use Permit as set forth in subsection (C), below.
C. Procedure.
1. Minor Use Permit Required. A Minor Use Permit shall be required in accordance with Chapter 9.41, unless the proposed use has received a Light-Fleet Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles Zoning Conformance Permit and complies with the operational conditions set forth in Section D. A Minor Use Permit application shall be
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 4 submitted to the City in compliance with Chapter 9.41, except that the Minor Use Permit shall be reviewed based only on the following findings:
a. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District.
b. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
c. The proposed use will not detrimentally affect nearby neighborhoods, considering the distance of the proposed use to residentially-zoned parcels and other existing light fleet-based services for autonomous vehicles.
2. Ministerial Approval. Applications for Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles Zoning Conformance Permits meeting the requirements of Section D shall be reviewed and approved administratively in accordance with Section 9.37.160.
D. Light Fleet Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles Zoning Conformance Permit. Applicants for Light Fleet Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles shall be eligible for a Light Fleet Based Service for Autonomous Vehicle Zoning Conformance Permit if such permit is approved in writing by the Director and the applicant agrees in writing to comply with all of the following criteria and operational conditions:
1. Dispatch Coordination Plan
a. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a Parking and Loading Operations Plan with a fleet dispatch coordination component that indicates when dispatching and vehicle arrivals will be slowed, held, or suspended for review and approval by the Mobility Division. The plan shall demonstrate how vehicle arrivals will be managed to prevent queuing in the public right-of-way.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 5 b. The plan shall coordinate dispatch timing with internal site circulation and shall include, at a minimum, procedures for managing arrival rates, monitoring site occupancy in real time, and preventing vehicle staging when the facility is at capacity.
c. Operation of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the approved plan.
2. Prohibition on Off-site Queuing and Emergency Vehicle Access Clearance a. Queuing.
i. Fleet vehicles shall not queue, stage, or idle in the public rightof-way, including adjacent alleys, or nearby residential streets. ii. All queuing must be accommodated within the site. Vehicles shall circulate off-site if the facility is at capacity. iii. If vehicles already en route to the site must delay or circulate in order to comply with the approved arrival-rate and occupancy management strategy, such circulation shall not occur within a half mile of the site.
b. Adjacent alleys.
i. Adjacent alleys shall not be used for routine vehicle staging or queuing and may only function as an emergency overflow relief (“safety valve”) to preserve required clearance and prevent obstruction of highervolume streets.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 6 ii. Any temporary use of the alley for this purpose shall maintain the required 11-foot clear path at all times and shall be actively managed by on-site personnel.
3. Minimum Clearance.
a. At all times, a minimum 11-foot clear width shall be maintained in all alleys and access ways consistent with all applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and fire access standards.
b. Vehicles shall not stage, queue, or idle in a manner that obstructs emergency vehicles or essential services on any adjacent public right-of-way.
4. Emergency Operations. Operations shall be conducted such that emergency access is continuously maintained without reliance on ad hoc vehicle repositioning or delayed manual intervention.
5. Limit to total vehicles served. The total number of vehicles on-site shall not exceed the number of available parking spaces on-site.
6. Minimum On-Site Staffing.
a. A minimum of two (2) trained on-site personnel shall be present during all hours of operation to actively manage vehicle circulation, coordinate fleet dispatch, prevent queuing in the public right-of-way, and ensure that required emergency access is maintained at all times. At least one staff member shall be assigned to monitor the site entrance and adjacent public right-of-way. b. On-site personnel shall be responsible for real-time coordination with the fleet operator or dispatch system to regulate vehicle arrivals so that vehicles are dispatched to the site only when sufficient on-site capacity is available.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 7 Personnel shall monitor site occupancy, control arrival flow, direct vehicles to available spaces, and reposition vehicles as necessary to prevent obstruction of travel lanes, alleys, or emergency access routes.
c. Dispatching to the site shall be actively managed. It may be delayed, staggered, or suspended by the operator or on-site personnel as necessary to prevent queuing or circulation conflicts, or resolve queuing or circulation conflicts within five minutes.
d. At least one staff member shall be on-site during all hours of operation who is authorized and able to coordinate the removal, repositioning, remote movement, towing, or other clearance of any vehicle malfunction or other operational condition that blocks the public right-of-way or impedes on-site vehicle circulation. Site operations shall be actively monitored to identify such obstructions in real time, and clearance measures shall be initiated immediately and completed as soon as practicable, and in no event later than five minutes after the obstruction occurs, without the need for City notification or a complaint.
7. Operational Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.
a. The operator shall cooperate with ongoing City monitoring of site operations.
b. If the City determines that operations are not in compliance with the standards in this ordinance, including but not limited to, queuing, right-of-way obstruction, emergency access interference, or other public health and safety impacts, the operator shall participate in coordination meetings with the City and upon request, submit updated operational plans to mitigate impacts. Such updated
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 8 plans may include required modifications to operations, including adjustments to staffing, dispatch coordination, or circulation management. Operator shall promptly implement operational modifications to the satisfaction of the City.
8. Site Liaison Contact Required.
a. Applicant shall designate a neighborhood liaison who shall be the primary contact for neighbor and transportation-related concerns and complaints. b. If the operator receives any complaints about noise, light, glare, or traffic impacts, all reasonable efforts shall be taken to address and remediate the concerns in a timely manner.
9. Distance Requirement. No more than one Light Fleet-Based Services for Autonomous Vehicles use shall be permitted per block.
10. Special Standards for Sites within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. a. Noise Control Measures. The following noise control measures shall apply to light-fleet based services as a land use when associated with autonomous vehicles and located within 100 feet of a residentially-zoned property at the time the application is determined to be complete.
i. Operations shall comply with all applicable City noise regulations, including SMMC Chapter 4.12 (Noise), and shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes noise impacts on surrounding properties. ii. Operators shall install a sound wall of at least 8 feet high on the perimeter property lines and in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.21.180.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 9 iii. The circulation of the site shall be designed to reduce the need to backup vehicles.
iv. Overnight Noise Restrictions. Between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.:
(A) On parcels located within 100 feet of a residentiallyzoned property at the time the application for the operation is determined complete, no light fleet-based service operations for autonomous vehicles, as defined in Section 9.51.030(D)(6.5), shall be conducted, except that autonomous vehicles shall be permitted to enter and exit for purposes of vehicle charging only. (B) Operations shall comply with all applicable City noise regulations, including SMMC Chapter 4.12 (Noise), and regulations for overnight business operations, and shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes noise impacts on surrounding properties. b. Lighting and Headlight Control
i. In accordance with Section 9.21.080, any on-site lighting shall be shielded in order to prevent light and glare impacts on nearby properties and uses.
ii. On-site lighting shall be oriented in a manner that faces away from all nearby residential uses.
iii. Between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., site lighting shall not exceed the standards set forth in Section 9.21.080(F).
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 10 E. Enforcement. If it is determined that the Light Fleet-Based Vehicle Service for Autonomous Vehicles has violated the use standards in this section, or any MUP issued in accordance with this Section, the City may pursue all available remedies including, but not limited to, those under Section 9.48.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(D)(6.5), Light FleetBased Service for Autonomous Vehicles, is hereby added and shall read as follows:
9.51.030(D)(6.5) Light Fleet-Based Service for Autonomous Vehicles. Passenger transportation services, local delivery services, medical transport, and other businesses that rely on fleets of 3 or more autonomous vehicles, as defined by Vehicle Code Section 38750, with rated capacities less than 10,000 lbs. This classification includes the following activities for autonomous vehicles, including, but not limited to, dispatching, storage, fueling, cleaning, software servicing, vehicle maintenance and servicing, and offices for taxicab and limousine operations, ambulance services, nonemergency medical transport, local messenger and document delivery services, home cleaning services, and similar businesses. This classification does not include towing operations (see Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service, Towing and Impound), or taxi or delivery services with 2 or fewer fleet vehicles on site (see Business Services). This classification also does not include electric vehicle charging-only facilities. Facilities with electric vehicle charging are not exempt from this classification solely because electric vehicle charging occurs on site.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance is declared to be an urgency measure adopted pursuant to the provision of Section 615 of the Santa Monica City Charter. As set forth in
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet 11 the findings above, this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION 4. 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 5. 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 6. 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 upon its adoption.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect as of September 8, 2028, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.090(C).
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: CDD-ORD-Emergency IZO Extension re Light Fleet-Based Service for AV_09.08.26 (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet Emergency IZO Extension – Fleet
Operations for Autonomous Vehicles
City Council
September 8, 2026
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet Background
• 7/14/26 -Council adopted
Emergency Interim Zoning
Ordinance regulating fleet
operations for autonomous
vehicles • Create new land use classification • Permitted use with Standardized Operating Conditions in IC, GC, and TA zones • Public hearing only if standard
conditions cannot be met
• Augmented operating conditions for sites within 100 feet of residentially zoned property
• Expires on 9/12/26 if not
extended
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet Why Extension Is Needed
• Circumstances that supported EIZO continue to exist with a pending applications and interest in locating these facilities in Santa Monica
• Proposed 2-year extension
• Monitor and evaluate implementation of the interim regulations for new facilities
• Continue to work with industry operators including understanding and assessing the possibility of technology alternatives to operational conditions
• Coordinate with other city departments and outside agencies • Inform future permanent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet Recommendation
1. Adopt CEQA finding of no possibility of significant effect (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) and §15308
2. Introduce and adopt Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (EIZO) to extend interim zoning regulations established by Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2860 to create a new land use classification and standards for autonomous light fleet-based services
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
Item 12-A
September 8, 2026
12.A.c
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7819 : Extension of the Emergency IZO for fleet City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 10
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, City Planning
Subject: Public Hearing and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Increase Development Standards for Parcels Located Within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the Area Bounded By the I-10 Freeway to the South, Dorchester Avenue to the West, Exposition Boulevard to the North, and Centinela Avenue to the East to Allow for the Exclusion of Certain Sites That Are Located Within OneHalf Mile of the Expo/Bundy Stationfrom Senate Bill 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element of the City's General Plan
Recommended Action
Staff recommends Council:
1. Adopt a finding of statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160(c); and
2. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 9.06, Transit Oriented Development Zones, to Increase Development Standards for Parcels Located Within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential Zoning District) and the Area Bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the South, Dorchester Avenue to the West, Exposition Boulevard to the North, and Centinela Avenue to the East to Allow for the Exclusion of Certain Sites that are Located Within One-Half Mile of the Expo/Bundy Station from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following the Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.
Summary
On July 1, 2026, Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, went into effect statewide, including in Santa Monica. The new legislation establishes minimum guaranteed development standards (density, floor area ratio (FAR), and height) for qualified housing projects located within one-half mile of specified transit stops in urban transit counties. In Santa Monica, qualifying projects within these
12.B
Packet Pg. 1374
2 of 10
transit-oriented development (TOD) zones are eligible for SB 79’s default standards, unless the site is covered by either an ordinance approved by the State that delays SB 79’s implementation (Exclusion Ordinance) or a TOD alternative plan that redistributes SB 79’s residential capacity within Santa Monica’s TOD zones.
Official SCAG Map Identifying Santa Monica TOD Stops
On July 14, 2026, the City Council adopted for first reading an ordinance to temporarily delay applicability of SB 79 on qualifying sites until one year following adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, anticipated in 2030 (the “Exclusion Ordinance”). This Exclusion Ordinance allows the City to delay implementation of SB 79 in six of Santa Monica’s seven TOD zones, and all TOD Zones that are located wholly within the city, because those areas are already zoned for sufficient housing capacity. The adoption of the Exclusion Ordinance provides time for the City to holistically plan for future housing needs and consider a TOD alternative plan as part of future planning efforts such as the 7 th Cycle Housing Element or Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update.
12.B
Packet Pg. 1375
3 of 10
The seventh of the TOD zones, the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone, which is located partially within the City of Santa Monica and partially within the City of Los Angeles, does not currently meet the statutory criteria for temporary exclusion from SB 79. Specifically, the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone does not have at least 33% of the sites in the TOD zone that are zoned to allow at least 50% of the density and residential floor area guaranteed under SB 79. Therefore, in order to qualify the TOD zone for temporary exclusion, the development standards for at least 52 additional parcels would need to be increased to at least 50% of the applicable SB 79 standards.
On July 14, 2026, the City Council was asked to consider increasing development standards for approximately 66 parcels that are zoned multi-unit residential (R2/R3) and located within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy station to allow for the Expo/Bundy TOD zone to qualify for temporary SB 79 exclusion. However, after consideration of potential involuntary displacement risks on these parcels, Council directed staff to return with options to instead increase development standards for all, or a selected group, of Single-Unit Residential (R1) zoned parcels within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone.
On July 28, 2026, pursuant to Council’s direction on July 14, the City Council reviewed three potential options to increase development standards for parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone so that the entire TOD Zone can qualify for exclusion from SB 79 under the Exclusion Ordinance. The three options include:
• Option 1: Increase Development Standards for 89 R1-Zoned Parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone Located North of the I-10 Freeway
• Option 2: Increase Development Standards for all 212 R1-Zoned Parcels Exclusively in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
• Option 3: Increase Development Standards for 66 R2/R3-Zoned Parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
12.B
Packet Pg. 1376
4 of 10
After reviewing all three options and discussing potential involuntary displacement risks, Council directed staff to proceed with Option 1 and return with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Since Council’s direction, staff has held two community meetings; one was held on August 20, 2026, with property owners directly impacted by Option 1, and the other was an informational community meeting held on August 25, 2026, to provide information on SB 79, the Exclusion Ordinance, and proposed Option 1.
Discussion
Pursuant to City Council direction on July 28, 2026, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would increase development standards for 89 R1-zoned parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone located in the area bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the south, Dorchester Avenue to the west, Exposition Boulevard to the north, and Centinela Avenue to the east.
For these 89 parcels, the proposed amendments would:
12.B
Packet Pg. 1377
5 of 10
• Increase the base maximum density standards from 1 unit per parcel to 1 unit per 1,080 sq. ft of parcel area (40 dwelling units/acre)
• Increase the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.5 to 1.25, but only for multiple-unit dwellings that meet a minimum density of 40 dwelling units/acre In response to Council’s concern regarding an applicant taking advantage of the increase in FAR by constructing only a single-unit dwelling on eligible parcels, and to ensure these increased standards result in additional housing consistent with the intent of SB 79, staff is proposing to include a minimum density requirement to access the increased standard. This would ensure that the increased FAR standard would be available only to housing projects meeting the minimum density standard of 40 dwelling units per acre, which is the minimum density prescribed in SB 79. No changes to the existing height of 28 feet are proposed.
The proposed standards are also aligned with housing development opportunities already available under existing State housing laws, including those governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), SB 9 duplexes and lot splits, and SB 1123 small-lot subdivisions. Table 1, below, provides a comparison of existing State laws and the proposed targeted increases, and demonstrates that the increased standards are substantially below the SB 79 standards that would otherwise apply.
Table 1 - Existing State Law vs Potential Increase in Development Standards for a Typical R1-Zoned Parcel in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone
Typical Site Characteristics:
• R1 Zone
• Parcel Size: 6,500 sf
• Vacant/No Affordable or Rent Controlled Units
• Located within ½ mile of Expo/Bundy Station
State Law FAR Height Density Maximum
Units
Existing R1 Base
Standards
0.50 28 ft 1 unit per parcel 1 unit
Accessory Dwelling
Unit(s)
Exempt • Attached
ADUs –
• 1 ADU through
conversion
5 units (1
single-unit
12.B
Packet Pg. 1378
6 of 10
Same as
underlying
zoning
district;
• Detached
ADUs – 24ft
• 1 detached
ADU
• 1 attached
ADU
• 1 Junior ADU
dwelling +
4 ADUs
SB 9 (Duplexes/Lot
Splits
Same as
underlying;
800 sf per
unit
guaranteed
Same as
underlying
zoning district*
4 units or 2 units
per resulting
parcel
4 units
SB 1123 (Small Lot
Subdivisions)
• 3-7 units:
1.0 • 8-10 units:
1.25 Same as
underlying
zoning district*
Min. 1,200 sf per
resulting parcel
or 30 du/ac
(10 units max)
5 units
SB 79 2.5 55 ft 80 du/ac 12 units
Targeted Increase
in Development
Standards for SB
79 Temporary
Exclusion
1.25 only for
projects that
provide at
least 40
du/ac
28 ft (same as
existing R1
height)
40 du/ac 6 units
*application of standard cannot physically preclude project achieving the density and size permitted by State law
With the proposed increase in development standards for these 89 parcels, approximately 42.7% of the sites within the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone would be zoned for at least 50% of the density and residential floor area guaranteed under SB 79. This would allow the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to qualify for temporary exclusion from SB 79 until one year following adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, anticipated in 2030.
The proposed approach would allow the City to maintain local control over development standards in the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone while providing additional housing capacity on the targeted R1 parcels. It would also give the City time to evaluate future housing needs and develop a more comprehensive approach to growth through the 7th Cycle Housing Element, a future LUCE update, or a TOD Alternative Plan.
12.B
Packet Pg. 1379
7 of 10
Community Meetings
Since Council’s direction on July 14, 2026, staff held two community meetings on August 20, 2026 and August 25, 2026. While the August 20 meeting was largely with property owners and renters who are directly affected by the proposed increase in development standards, the August 25 meeting was open to everyone. At both meetings, staff provided information regarding SB 79 and answered questions.
At the meetings, two requests were made relating to the proposed ordinance:
1) Whether more data is available regarding the number of renters in the 89 R1- zoned parcels that are proposed to have increased development standards 2) Whether it would be possible to adopt an ordinance that initially upzones only the parcels necessary to meet SB 79’s 33% threshold using the entire Expo/Bundy TOD Zone (including the parcels within the City of Los Angeles), while concurrently adopting a contingent ordinance that would automatically upzone additional Santa Monica parcels if the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or a court determines that the threshold must be calculated using only parcels within Santa Monica.
Available Data on Number of Renters in 89 R1-zoned Parcels As renter data is not available outside of rent-controlled units, staff cross-checked the 89 parcels with the City’s business license database and found that two of the addresses have valid business licenses for rental of residential property.
Assessment of Alternative to Proposed Upzoning
Staff evaluated an alternative approach as requested during community outreach:
specifically, the City Council would:
• Initially adopt an ordinance to apply SB 79-related zoning changes to a smaller subset of properties based on a calculation of the TOD zone as a whole and not only the portion located within the City; and
• Should the initial approach later be determined to be insufficient or invalid, provide for a “backup” ordinance that would apply SB 79-related zoning changes
12.B
Packet Pg. 1380
8 of 10
to a broader set of properties based on a calculation of that portion of the TOD zone located solely within Santa Monica.
Preliminary calculations indicate that, when the entire applicable TOD zone is considered (parcels within both Santa Monica and Los Angeles), approximately 31% of parcels meet the applicable capacity criteria, 2% below the 33% threshold identified for exclusion. Under this alternative approach evaluated by staff, approximately 36 parcels could receive increased development standards initially, with approximately 53 more parcels subject to the backup ordinance (for a total of 89 parcels).
Upon review, Staff does not recommend moving forward with this approach as it would introduce significant implementation challenges and legal uncertainty.. SB 79 is silent on how to calculate capacity criteria for TOD zones that span multiple jurisdictions. On April 24, 2026, City submitted a request for technical assistance with HCD staff on this issue as it relates to the Expo/Bundy TOD zone, but has not yet received a formal response. In addition, implementation would depend in part on the validity and State certification of the City of Los Angeles’ related ordinances. At the time of staff’s assessment, the City of Los Angeles had not yet submitted its ordinances to HCD for review and certification.
Thus, under the proposed approach, the City would “wait and see” whether it had increased development standards for enough parcels to ensure the properties located within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone are eligible for exclusion. Such a “wait and see” approach would allow for a potentially significant period of time of uncertainty with respect to what the legally applicable development standards would be for housing projects proposed within ½ mile of the Expo/Bundy station. In practice, the City would assume that eligible parcels within that area are temporarily excluded from the SB 79 default standards. Applications for housing projects submitted during this period that propose the SB 79 default standards would not be accepted (effectively denied). But, if it were subsequently determined the City did not calculate the number of parcels correctly, those applications would have been improperly denied, and the City would be subject to liability, including penalties and fines, under the Housing Accountability Act.
12.B
Packet Pg. 1381
9 of 10
Beginning January 1, 2027, denials of projects that meet SB 79’s requirements and that are located in high-resource areas are rebuttably presumed to be unlawful and are subject to penalties of $10,000 per unit. (See Government Code section 65912.157(m)).
This “wait and see” approach further creates implementation uncertainty. The City is not likely to receive timely notice of any action by HCD to certify or reject an ordinance submitted by the City of Los Angeles. If the initial “contingency” ordinance were invalidated based on HCD rejecting an ordinance submitted by the City of Los Angeles, it would be difficult to further provide public notice of such a change in development standards, including when the change became effective.
For these reasons, staff recommends proceeding with the proposed increased standards for the 89 R1 parcels at this time, as this provides the City greater control over implementation, reduces litigation exposure, and minimizes displacement risk.
Should HCD subsequently provide definitive guidance supporting a different approach, including a response to staff’s request for technical assistance, staff could return to the City Council with an amended ordinance.
Environmental Review
The adoption of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160(c) which states that an ordinance enacted pursuant to SB 79 shall not be considered a project under CEQA.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
April 28, 2026 Overview of Implementation Options for Senate Bill 79 and Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Direct the Planning Commission to Initiate the Process of Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Implement Senate Bill (SB) 79
July 14, 2026 Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Text of The Zoning Ordinance to Exclude Certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Until One Year Following Adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element and to Increase Development Standards for Parcels Zoned Multi-Unit Residential That Are Located Within One-Half Mile of the Metro
12.B
Packet Pg. 1382
10 of 10
E/Expo Bundy Station
July 28, 2026 Options for Increased Development Standards within the Expo/Bundy Transit-Oriented Development Zone to Qualify for Temporary Exclusion from Senate Bill (SB) 79 Implementation Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
Prepared By: Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. April 28, 2026 City Council SB 79 Overview (Web Link) B. July 14, 2026 City Council Adoption of First Reading SB 79 Ordinance (Web Link)
C. July 28, 2026 City Council Meeting Options for Increased Development Standards to Qualify Expo/Bundy for SB 79 Temporary Exclusion (Web Link) D. Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26
E. Written Comments
F. Presentation Item
G. PowerPoint Presentation
12.B
Packet Pg. 1383
1 City Council Meeting: September 8, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE
TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN THE R1 (SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-10 FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH,
DORCHESTER AVENUE TO THE WEST, EXPOSITION BOULEVARD TO THE
NORTH, AND CENTINELA AVENUE TO THE EAST TO ALLOW FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SITES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF THE EXPO/BUNDY STATION FROM SENATE BILL (SB) 79 IMPLEMENTATION UNTIL ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE 7TH CYCLE (2029-2037) HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure; and WHEREAS, building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership; and WHEREAS, the State does not invest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the State funds a smaller proportion of the State’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems; and WHEREAS, transit systems in other countries derive significant revenue from transit-oriented development at and near their stations; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79”), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which became effective on July 1, 2026; and
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 2 WHEREAS, in adopting SB 79, the Legislature made findings and declarations, including that the State faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis therefore requires a multifaceted, statewide approach, including, but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, and expanding the availability of rental housing; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 requires cities to permit, as an allowable use, housing development projects that meet applicable standards and are located within a half mile distance of a major transit stop, as defined, on any site zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial development; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 further provides guaranteed height, density, and FAR standards for eligible housing projects near Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) stops and additional concessions beyond State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, although SB 79 has certain mandated requirements, it provides flexibility and a measure of local control to jurisdictions with respect to its implementation; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a study session wherein staff presented an overview of SB 79 including its impact on Santa Monica and three implementation options permitted under SB 79: 1) implementation of SB 79 on July 1, 2026; 2) a temporary exclusion of certain sites in transit-oriented zones,
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 3 as defined, until 2030, one year after adoption of the City’s 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element; and 3) adoption of a TOD Alternative Plan; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the study session, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council direct staff to pursue adoption of an ordinance to temporarily exclude sites to allow time to adopt a TOD Alternative Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council conducted a study session to review the same implementation options for SB 79, including the Planning Commission’s April 15, 2026 recommendations to the Council, and directed staff to proceed with adopting a temporary exclusion ordinance until such time a TOD Alternative Plan could be implemented; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.030(A), the City Council further adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution Number 11755 (CCS), declaring its intention to direct the Planning Commission to initiate the process of amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to effectuate the requirements of Senate Bill 79; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all oral and written testimony, adopted Resolution Number 26-008 (PCS), which recommended that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation until 2030, one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element, and to increase development standards for targeted parcels in the multi-unit residential zoning districts within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy station, based on the findings set forth therein; and
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 4 WHEREAS, adoption of an ordinance that temporarily excludes certain sites from SB 79 implementation will, among other things, ensure that the City’s local implementation of SB 79 does not conflict with local land use initiatives and environmental concerns; and
WHEREAS, until such an ordinance is adopted, the City is prohibited from imposing certain height, density, and floor area ratio limits for eligible housing projects located within a half mile of a TOD stop; and
WHEREAS, implementing temporary exclusions to delay implementation of increased development standards mandated by SB 79 to one year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element protects the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, as required by SB 79, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), as the region’s metropolitan planning organization, adopted draft map of designated TOD stops and zones; and WHEREAS, the City conducted modeling analyses based on the SCAG map to evaluate sites within the City that are eligible for temporary exclusion pursuant to the criteria in Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1); and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly- noticed public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain Sites from Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, and to increase development standards for parcels zoned Multi-Unit Residential that are located within one-half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station; and
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 5 WHEREAS, during the public hearing, the City Council discussed potential displacement risks on multiple-unit zoned parcels in the Expo/Bundy TOD zone; and WHEREAS, after considering all oral and written testimony, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude certain sites from SB 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element, excluding increasing development standards for parcels located within the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further directed staff to return with options to increase development standards for all, or a selected group, of parcels zoned R1 (Single-Unit Residential) that are located within the Expo/Bundy TOD zone to satisfy the criteria for exclusion from SB 79 implementation; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2861 (CCS) to temporarily delay applicability of SB 79 on qualifying sites until one year following adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element (the “Exclusion Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Exclusion Ordinance temporarily excludes sites: (1) that permit density and residential floor area ratios at no less than 50 percent of SB 79’s minimum standards; (2) with designated historic resources; and (3) located in a transit-oriented development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites have permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified in SB 79 and which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone, as specified; and WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to comply with SB 79’s purpose and intent, including, without limitation, building more homes near transit access, promoting
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 6 environmental sustainability, economic growth, reducing traffic congestion, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; and
WHEREAS, the additional time provided with adoption of the Exclusion Ordinance allows the City to make more informed, long-term land use decisions pending completion of a TOD Alternative Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Exclusion Ordinance allows the City to delay implementation of SB 79 in six of Santa Monica’s seven TOD zones because those areas are already zoned for sufficient housing capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone does not currently meet the criteria for temporary exclusion pursuant to the Exclusion Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, consistent with Council direction given on July 14, 2028, the City Council conducted a study session to review options for increasing development standards for residentially-zoned parcels within one half mile of the Metro E Expo/Bundy Station to qualify the Expo/Bundy Transit-Oriented Development Zone for temporary exclusion pursuant to the Exclusion Ordinance; and WHEREAS, after reviewing all three options and discussing potential displacement risks, Council directed staff to proceed with increasing standards for parcels located within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential) zoning district and the area bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the south, Dorchester Avenue to the west, Exposition Boulevard to the north, and Centinela Avenue to the east, and return with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance consistent with that direction; and
WHEREAS, these parcels were selected for increased development standards as they are generally closest in walking distance to the Expo/Bundy station, are based on
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 7 clear geographical boundaries, and would minimize involuntary displacement risk of tenants on multiple unit zoned parcels; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2026, the City submitted its adopted Exclusion Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for a 60-day review pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2026, the City held an in-person and virtual community meeting at Santa Monica City Hall to provide information on SB 79, the Exclusion Ordinance, and the option to increase development standards for these selected R1- zoned parcels; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and, after considering all oral and written testimony, the City Council desires to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to increase development standards for parcels located within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential) zoning district and the area bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the south, Dorchester Avenue to the west, Exposition Boulevard to the north, and Centinela Avenue to the east pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the increase in development standards will allow the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone to be excluded from SB 79 implementation until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Council hereby amends the text of the Zoning Ordinance related to parcels located within the R1 (Single-Unit Residential) zoning district and the area
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 8 bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the south, Dorchester Avenue to the west, Exposition Boulevard to the north, and Centinela Avenue to the east, to ensure that the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone meets SB 79’s temporary exclusionary requirements. In amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby finds and declares that, for the reasons articulated above, and in the staff report dated September 8, 2026:
1. The amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the amendments are required to implement an Exclusion Ordinance pursuant to SB 79 and are otherwise consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan by helping to meet local housing goals and to facilitate more diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas.
2. The amendments are consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the amendments are necessary to implement State law pertaining to SB 79 on qualifying parcels in order to help meet local housing goals and to facilitate more diverse housing choices in the City’s highest opportunity areas.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06, Transit-Oriented Development Zones, is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 9.06 Transit-Oriented Development Zones
9.06.010 Purpose
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 9 This Chapter, in accordance with Government Code Section 65912.160(e), exempts certain qualifying sites from the provisions of Senate Bill 79, the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act” (codified in California Government Code Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162), until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.
9.06.020 Exclusion of Eligible Sites from Increased Development Standards In accordance with Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), a parcel meeting any one of the following criteria shall be excluded from the provisions of Government Code Section 65912.157 until one year following the adoption of the 7th Cycle (2029-2037) Housing Element:
A. A parcel, as identified on the City’s Official Zoning Districting map, that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65912.157.
B. A parcel in a transit-oriented development zone, as defined by Government Code Section 65912.156(m), in which:
1. At least 33 percent of sites in the relevant transit-oriented development zone have permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 65912.157; and
2. Includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.
C. A parcel with a Landmark, as defined by Section 9.56.030(j), designated as of January 1, 2025.
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 10 9.06.030 Director Authority
The Director, or designee, may issue and update maps identifying eligible sites meeting the criteria for temporary exclusion as set forth in Section 9.06.020 and Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), to ensure consistency with the transit-oriented development stops and zones map published by the Southern California Association of Governments pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.160(f).
9.06.040 Development Standards for Parcels located Within the Area Bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the South, Dorchester Avenue to the West, Exposition Boulevard to the North, and Centinela Avenue to the East and Within the R1 (SingleUnit Residential) Zoning District.
In addition to the land use regulations and development standards provided in Chapter
9.07, Single-Unit Residential District, Table 9.06.040, below, sets forth development standards for the construction of Multiple-Unit Dwellings on parcels located within the R1 District and that are located within the area bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the south, Dorchester Avenue to the west, Exposition Boulevard to the north, and Centinela Avenue to the east. These standards shall remain in effect until adoption of a Transit Oriented Development Alternative Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161, or as otherwise permitted under State law. Where provisions are not specifically addressed, the standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply.
TABLE 9.06.040: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE-UNIT DWELLINGS—LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-10 FREEWAY
TO THE SOUTH, DORCHESTER AVENUE TO THE WEST, EXPOSITION
BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH, AND CENTINELA AVENUE TO THE EAST AND ON PARCELS WITHIN THE R1 (SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Required Density
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 11 Multiple-Unit Dwelling 1 unit per 1,080 sq. ft.
of parcel area
Maximum FAR
Multiple-Unit Dwellings
meeting minimum required
density standard
1.25 Section 9.04.100,
Determining Floor Area Ratio
in Residential Zoning Districts
SECTION 3. Table 9.070.020 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended as follows:
TABLE 9.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Use Classification R1 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Dwelling Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit
P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Multiple-Unit Dwelling L(1)/L(2) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Duplex P Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits
on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Senior Citizen MultipleUnit DwellingL(1) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Single-Unit Dwelling P
Housing Types for Specific Needs
Employee Housing P
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 12 TABLE 9.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Use Classification R1 Additional Regulations
Large P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care,
Limited
P
Hospice, Limited P
Supportive Housing P
Transitional Housing P
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP
Child Care and Early
Education Facility
CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early
Education Facilities
Bed and Breakfast CUP Within Designated Landmarks only.
Section 9.31.090, Bed and Breakfasts
Community Assembly CUP Section 9.31.100, Community Assembly Community Gardens P
Park and Recreation
Facilities, Public
P
Schools, Public or Private CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P
Utilities, Minor P
Specific Limitations
(1) Permitted only on parcels with existing surface parking lots:
(a) Owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots; or
(b) Associated with existing multiple-unit dwellings or commercial uses in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots. (2) Permitted only on parcels located within the area bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the south, Dorchester Avenue to the west, Exposition Boulevard to the north, and Centinela Avenue to the east.
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 13 SECTION 4: Table 9.070.030 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended as follows:
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area (sq.
ft.)
5,000
Maximum Parcel Area (sq.
ft.)
See Section 9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 For parcels bounded by the centerlines of First Court Alley,
Seventh Street, Montana
Place North Alley, and
Adelaide Drive, the minimum
parcel width is 100 ft. and the
minimum parcel depth is 175
ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
Maximum Allowable
Density
1 unit per parcel Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units shall be permitted as
provided in Section 9.31.125,
Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
A duplex shall be permitted as
provided in Section 9.31.125,
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
For parcels located within the
area bounded by the I-10
Freeway to the south,
Dorchester Avenue to the west,
Exposition Boulevard to the
north, and Centinela Avenue to
the east, see Section 9.06.040
for additional regulations.
Maximum FAR Section 9.04.100, Determining
Floor Area Ratio in Residential
Zoning Districts
For parcels located within the
area bounded by the I-10
Freeway to the south,
Dorchester Avenue to the west,
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 14 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Exposition Boulevard to the
north, and Centinela Avenue to
the east, see Section 9.06.040
for additional regulations.
One-story structure less
than 18 ft. in height
0.5 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,500 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
One-story structure 18 ft.
or more in height
0.45 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
Two-story structure 0.45 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted.
Two-story structure 0.45 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,250 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than
1,125 sq. ft. allowable on the
second story.
Existing structure with
addition (Applies to
projects that do not result
in a demolition as defined
in Chapter 9.25,
Demolition and
Relocation.)
0.55 For parcels less than 5,000
sq. ft., a maximum FAR
equaling 2,750 sq. ft. shall be
permitted with no more than
1,375 sq. ft. allowable on the
second story.
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of
Stories
2 Maximum Building Height
(ft.)
Section 9.04.050, Measuring
Height
Parcels up to 20,000 sq. ft.
in area
28 ft
with no wall height above
23 ft.
Walls associated with roof
structure design such as gables
and dormers are permitted
above 23 ft., provided such
walls comply with upper-story
stepback requirements.
Parcels greater than
20,000 sq. ft. in area and
with a front parcel line at
least 200 ft. in length
• 28 ft. for flat roof
• 32 ft. for pitched roof
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 15 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Projections into Height
Limits
See Section 9.21.060,
Height Projections
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Per Official Districting
Map or 20 ft. if not
specified
Side - One-story structure
less than 18 ft. in height
10% of parcel width or 3.5
ft., whichever is greater,
but no more than 15 ft.
required
Side - Aggregate of both
sides for a two-story
structure or one-story
structure 18 ft. or more in
height
30% of parcel width, but
no more than 45 ft.
required and each side
shall be at least 10% of
the parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater
The aggregate side setback
requirement does not apply to
the following:
• New structures on parcels
that are 45 ft. or less in
parcel width;
•Additions to existing
structures on parcels that are
less than 50 ft. in width; or
•Structures on parcels less
than 5,000 sq. ft.
Rear 15 ft. from rear parcel line
Additional Minimum
Stepbacks for Upper
Stories
Front Upper-Story
Stepback
The sum of all stepback
areas along the entire
front building elevation
shall be at least 1% of
total parcel area and
comply with the
requirements below.
However, if the entire
upper story is set back
at least 3% of total
parcel depth from the
required front setback,
no front upperstory
stepback is required.
• Each stepback area
shall begin at the
required front setback
and shall comply with
the following:
○ The minimum
stepback depth
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 16 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
shall be 3% of total
parcel depth and
shall be measured
from the required
front setback.
○ The maximum
stepback depth
shall be 6% of total
parcel depth and
shall be measured
from the required
front setback.
○ Any stepback depth
beyond 6% of total
parcel depth shall
not be included in
calculating
compliance with
this standard.
• Any stepback area
used to comply with a
side upper-story
stepback requirement
shall not be included in
calculating compliance
with this standard.
Side Upper-Story
Stepbacks
The sum of all stepback
areas on each side
building elevation shall
be at least 1% of total
parcel area and comply
with the requirements
below. However, if the
entire upper story is set
back at least 20% of
total parcel width from
the side parcel line, no
side upper-story
stepback is required for
the subject elevation.
• Each stepback area
shall begin at each
respective minimum
side setback line and
shall comply with the
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 17 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
following:
○ The minimum
stepback depth
shall be 20% of total
parcel width and
shall be measured
from the side parcel
line.
○ The maximum
stepback depth shall
be 25% of total
parcel width and
shall be measured
from the side parcel
line.
○ Any stepback
depth beyond 25%
of total parcel width
shall not be
included in
calculating
compliance with
this standard.
• Any stepback area
used to comply with a
front upper-story
stepback requirement
shall not be included in
calculating compliance
with this standard.
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 23 ft.
in height
• No portion of a building
other than a permitted
projection shall
intersect a plane
commencing at 23 ft. in
height at the minimum
side setback that
extends at an angle of
45-degrees from the
vertical toward the
interior of the site.
• The 23 ft. height
measurement shall be
taken from the same
reference grade as
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 18 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
determined for the
subject site pursuant to
Section 9.04.050.
Upper-Story Outdoor
Space
Maximum size of
individual balcony, terrace,
deck, first-story roof deck,
or similar outdoor space
3% of parcel area or 300
sq. ft., whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces,
decks, first-story roof decks, or
similar outdoor spaces larger
than 100 sq. ft. located in the
rear half of the parcel shall be
set back a minimum distance of
20% of the parcel width from
the side parcel lines.
Maximum size of roof deck
above second story
3% of parcel area or 300
sq. ft., whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per dwelling unit,
which shall be set back a
minimum of 7 ft., measured
from minimum setbacks.
Openness and Use of
Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback
Paving (% of required
front setback area)
Parcels 25 ft. or more in
width
50%
Parcels less than 25 ft. in
width
60%
Building Projections into
Setbacks
See Section 9.21.110,
Projections from
Buildings into Minimum
Setbacks and Daylight
Plane
Excavation for Lightwells,
Stairwells, and Access to
Subterranean Garages
and Basements
Basements and
subterranean garages
No basement or
subterranean garage
shall extend into any
setback area, except for
any basement or garage
located beneath an
accessory building
which is otherwise
permitted within a
setback area, if such
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 19 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
basement, semisubterranean, or
subterranean garage is
located at least 5 ft.
from any parcel line
Lightwells and stairwells •Side and rear
setbacks may be
utilized for lightwells
or stairways to belowgrade area
•Excavated areas shall
be set back a
minimum of 10% of
the parcel width from
any parcel line
measured to the
interior wall surface of
these excavated
areas
• For parcels where the
aggregate side setback is not
required, up to a total of 50
sq. ft. within the side and rear
setbacks may be utilized for
lightwells or stairways to
below-grade areas.
• Retaining walls shall not be
included in calculations for
these excavated areas.
Excavation for access Excavation in the front
setback area for a
driveway, stairway,
doorway, or other such
element for access
purposes shall be no
deeper than 3 ft. below
existing grade
Vehicle Accommodation
Parking • See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking
• Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Driveways • On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway permitted
• See Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes
Building Additions Section 9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side Setbacks
Modifications to
Development Standards
Chapter 9.43, Modification and Waivers
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(A)
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 20 TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Additional Standards
Accessory Buildings and
Structures
Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Affordable Housing
Production Program
Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Basements Section 9.52.020.0230, Basement Definition
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for SingleUnit Residential
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels
Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Fences, Walls, and
Hedges
Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on
Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on
Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts Projections from Buildings
into Minimum Setbacks
Section 9.21.110, Projections from Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks and Daylight Plane
Projections into Height
Limits
Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling
Standards
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems A. Architectural Review.
1. Proposed development in the R1 Single-Unit District shall not be subject to
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 21 architectural review if it conforms to the development standards set forth above except as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed duplex pursuant to Section 9.55.140.
b.
i. The Architectural Review Board shall review proposed development that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear parcel lines, and associated with the following:
(1) New residential building; or
(2) A 50% or greater square foot addition to an existing dwelling unit.
ii. A proposed structure may be approved if its size, mass, and placement are found to be compatible with improvements in the immediate neighborhood.
2. The Architectural Review Board shall review and may approve proposed development that does not conform to the development standards set forth above as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed addition of 500 square feet or less that is regarded as a third story that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may approve such an addition if the following findings of fact are made:
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 22 i. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing scale and neighborhood context;
ii. The addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing residence such that a nonconforming condition is expanded; and iii. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially impacted.
b.
i. The Architectural Review Board shall review the following:
(1) Any proposed new structure on a parcel that is more than 45 feet in width that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side,
(2) Any proposed addition to an existing structure on a parcel 50 feet or more that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side,
(3) Any proposed two-story structure that does not
conform to the standard set forth above for additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories,
(4) Any proposed structure that does not conform to the standards for subterranean garages and basements set forth in Table 9.07.030, Chapter 9.28 (Parking), and Section 9.52.020.0230 of this Code,
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 23 (5) Any proposed individual upper story balcony, terrace, deck, first-story roof deck, or similar outdoor space that does not conform to the standard set forth above,
(6) Any proposed structure with garage doors that face
the public street, are located within the front half of the parcel, and:
(i) are not set back from the primary façade facing the public street a minimum of 5 feet, or (ii) are more than 16 feet in width, or (7) Any proposed structure that includes a first-story
porch or second-story balcony that: (i) is open on at least three sides, (ii) has a height of no more than 14 feet, including parapets and railings, (iii) projects into the minimum front setback, and (iv) exceeds 50% of the front building width as measured at the front façade.
ii. The Architectural Review Board may approve a design modification set forth in this subsection if the following findings of fact are made:
(1) There are special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site,
(2) Granting the design modification will not be
detrimental or injurious to the property or to improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located,
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 24 (3) Granting the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of surrounding context, or impact the light, air, open space, or privacy of adjacent properties,
(4) If the design modification includes a modification or addition to a building on the City's Historic Resources Inventory, the modification or addition is compatible with the building's historic architectural character, does not result in the removal of historic building features, and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and
(5) The design modifications comply with the criteria set forth in Section 9.55.140.
SECTION 5. 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 6. 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.
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 25 SECTION 7. 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 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
HEIDI VON TONGELN
CITY ATTORNEY
12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Attachment A - SB 79 Ordinance 9.8.26 (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo 1 David Yakobson
From: PNA90404 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 8:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda Item 12. B
EXTERNAL
Dear City Mayor and councilors, 09/08/2026 city council meeting agenda item 12.b is a thinly veiled attack
on the last pocket of R1 housing in the 90404 zip, while leaving out the north of montana R1 housing you make a very loud statement to preserve the predominantly white housing untouched, and by excluding R2 and R3
housing that is protected by Rent Control and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
Mayor Torosis recently publicized "Santa Monica Has a proud progressive identity, but we also have a history we have
be honest about. This fellowship comes at a critical moment as we move from acknowledgement to action-using design and public investment to repair past harm and build a city where opportunity is real and lasting.
The Mayors United States Conference of Mayors and the Harvard Graduate School of Design statement.
SB 79 is not racist but you are using it to erase the largest pocket of people of color that exists in Santa Monica
Institutionalized racism is not OK. be honest about your actions.
Say no to SB 79 and Racism.
Sincerely Cris McLeod PNA Board member
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 David Yakobson
From: elena estrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 6:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Aileen Reynolds; Oliver Chi Subject: Item 12-B: Upzoning of R1 Neighborhoods in the Pico Neighborhood
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Pico Neighborhood resident. I respectfully urge you to reject Option 1.
I support housing, and I understand the importance of planning for more homes near transit. But Option 1 is not a fair or thoughtful housing policy. It is a rushed decision that places a major zoning burden on one small residential area without adequate public process, displacement analysis, or consideration of the history and existing conditions of the Pico Neighborhood and surrounding community.
The City’s own ordinance states that the temporary SB 79 exclusion is intended to give Santa Monica time to make “more informed, long-term land use decisions” while a TOD Alternative Plan is completed. But Option 1 does the opposite. It makes a major land-use decision now, before that broader planning has occurred.
On July 28, 2026, the City Council directed staff to proceed with increasing development standards for R1 parcels in this specific area. Yet residents most affected by this decision were not given a meaningful opportunity to help shape the proposal before Council selected Option 1. The City held only one community meeting in late August after the direction had already been given. A public hearing after the fact is not the same as genuine community engagement.
This process feels especially troubling because the Pico Neighborhood has a long history of being harmed by planning decisions made without meaningful resident input. Over time, the area has also absorbed freeway pollution, rail infrastructure, industrial uses, wasterelated facilities, and zoning changes that benefited the broader city while concentrating impacts locally.
The proposed ordinance would increase development standards for R1 parcels in our neighborhood to help the Expo/Bundy TOD Zone qualify for temporary exclusion from SB
79. In practical terms, this could allow much more intensive development on parcels that are currently single-unit residential. That kind of change should not be imposed on residents through a rushed process.
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 The City says these parcels were selected because they are close to the Expo/Bundy Station, have clear geographic boundaries, and may reduce displacement risk on multiunit parcels. But that explanation is not enough. Avoiding displacement in one area does not justify shifting development pressure to another area without knowing who lives there now.
Many impacted parcels may include renters in ADUs, shared housing, informal units, converted spaces, or non-rent-controlled homes. If the City does not have complete renter data, then it cannot honestly conclude that displacement risk is minimal. Lack of data should not be used as proof that vulnerable residents are not at risk.
I am also concerned that the City is concentrating the burden of SB 79 compliance on a small group of residents. Six of Santa Monica’s seven TOD zones already qualify for temporary exclusion. Expo/Bundy does not. Instead of taking the time to prepare a comprehensive and equitable TOD Alternative Plan, the City is asking our neighborhood to absorb the zoning changes needed to solve this technical problem. That is not equitable planning.
As a Pico resident, I feel that our neighborhood is being treated as a convenient solution rather than as a community of real people. We deserve more than one meeting after the Council has already chosen a direction. We deserve direct engagement from our elected officials, including the Mayor. Residents have requested meetings regarding the City’s selection of Option 1, and those concerns should be taken seriously before any final vote.
I respectfully ask the City Council to:
1. Reject Option 1 as currently proposed;
2. Conduct additional public hearings and neighborhood meetings before selecting any alternative;
3. Identify the minimum number of parcels necessary to meet SB 79 exclusion requirements;
4. Study displacement risks for renters, ADU residents, seniors, disabled residents, and low-income households;
5. Evaluate cumulative environmental and public health burdens in the affected area; and
6. Complete a broader TOD Alternative Plan before making lasting zoning changes to one neighborhood.
Santa Monica can support housing without repeating historic patterns of inequity. The City should not use SB 79 as a reason to rush through a zoning change that disproportionately affects residents in and around Pico.
Please reject Option 1 and start over with a fair, transparent, and community-centered process.
Sincerely,
Elena Estrin
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 5 Pico Neighborhood Resident
Santa Monica, CA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 6 David Yakobson
From: TARYN FORDES <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Taryn Watanabe Fordes
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 7 David Yakobson
From: Michael Ishler <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Mike Ishler
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 8 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12 B Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely
Lisa A Test
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 9 David Yakobson
From: Dalila Fuentes <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Dalila Fuentes
Sunset Park Resident - 34+ yrs
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 10 David Yakobson
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Holly Granelli
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 11 David Yakobson
From: steve kandell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
steve kandell
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 12 David Yakobson
From: elena estrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Elena Estrin
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 13 David Yakobson
From: Susan Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Susan Shapiro
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 14 David Yakobson
From: Allyson Dworkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Allyson Dworkin
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 15 David Yakobson
From: Dan Halperin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B - - Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood. Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing. R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement. I urge you to rethink this plan. Sincerely, Dan Halperin
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 16 David Yakobson
From: MELISSA FEINBERG <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Melissa Feinberg
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Feinberg
PROPERTY MASTER
[email protected]
(818) 612-1654
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 17 David Yakobson
From: Geraldine Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Geraldine Kennedy
Former Planning Commissioner
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 18 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kless
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 19 David Yakobson
From: TAMRA RAVEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Tamra
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 20 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 21 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Gephart <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Lynn Gephar
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 22 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Monbouquette <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!!!
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Jenny Monbouquette
Jenny Monbouquette
(310)266-3665
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 23 David Yakobson
From: janet rt <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 9:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Janet Tunick
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 24 David Yakobson
From: mwdobbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 9:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Michael Dobbs.
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 25 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 9:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Blum
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 26 David Yakobson
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 9:22 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Alex Novakovich
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 27 David Yakobson
From: pierre-yves delaunay <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 10:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Pierre Delaunay
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 28 David Yakobson
From: Ken Abbott <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 10:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Kenneth S Abbott
213-923-5270
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 29 David Yakobson
From: Carolyn Hanlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Hanlin
Santa Monica Resident
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 30 David Yakobson
From: Gail Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Gail Block
1225 Marine St.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 31 David Yakobson
From: Hilary Galanoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Hilary Galanoy
2636 32nd Street
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 32 David Yakobson
From: marilyn elias <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 12:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Elias
900 Euclid, #210
Santa Monica. 90403
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 33 David Yakobson
From: Mayra Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 12:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
Why do I constantly along many of my neighbors have to ask you to stop allowing multifamily building in my home area? If I wanted to live next to a multifamily property I could have bought one 40 years a go for a lot less money, but no I chose to live in an area with single family houses not next to buildings or duplexes or triplexes.
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Mayra Herrera
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 34 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 12:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
Sometimes good intentions leads to questionable outcomes. It feels like that is what is happening with the housing mandates right now, and it doesn’t feel like a nuanced approach that benefits anyone but the developers and hurts existing neighborhoods in the process.
That is why I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B.
This a real neighborhood with people who are renting or have worked hard to buy these homes. It will rip apart the quiet streets, make them an ongoing construction zone.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing. R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
PLEASE rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Paula Mazur
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 35 David Yakobson
From: Amanda O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
We worked hard to live in a single-family home neighborhood and city council has no right to take that away from us.
I urge you to stop this plan.
Sincerely,
Amanda OBrien
Owner 1744 Bryn Mawr Ave Santa Monica 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 36 David Yakobson
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Opposed
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Sandra Laderas
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 37 David Yakobson
From: Jeanette Schachtner <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood. Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing. R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement. I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Schachtner
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 38 David Yakobson
From: yoko roach <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)Yoko
And John roach
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 39 David Yakobson
From: Karen Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Karen M. Fisher
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 40 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Danielle Charney
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 41 David Yakobson
From: Britt Johansson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 2:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Britt Johansson
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 42 David Yakobson
From: Sherri Sawaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 2:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely, Sherri Sawaya
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 43 David Yakobson
From: Linda Mansolillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Linda
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 44 David Yakobson
From: Sunshine Action USA <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 2:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Monica Bhardwaj
Email is [email protected])
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 45 David Yakobson
From: Mary <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing or the livability of our communities.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
Sent from my iPad
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 46 David Yakobson
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ellis
Sunset Park resident
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 47 David Yakobson
From: rosindabow <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 4:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I strongly oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood. Why? Why always this neighborhood?
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers and severely diminishes affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
This is an absolutely terrible idea and I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Ross Levinson
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 48 David Yakobson
From: Marcy Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 5:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Marcy Ross
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 49 David Yakobson
From: Cheryl Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely, Cheryl Downey
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 50 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. Santa Monica is already in trouble due to all the developers, this is going to make things worse. Don't add to it!! Just say NO! Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine St, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 51 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. Santa Monica is already in trouble because of all the development/developers, don't add to the problems. Just say NO! Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine St, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 52 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. Developers are already causing so much ugliness in SM, don't add to it. Just say NO!
Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine St, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 53 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. Santa Monica is being ruined from the developers, don't add to it with these decisions. Just say NO!
Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 54 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. Santa Monica is being ruined by developers, don't add to it with this vote. Just say NO!
Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine St, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 55 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. Santa Monica is being ruined by developers, don't add to it with this decision. Just say NO!
Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine ST, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 56 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. SAnta Monica is already being ruined by developers, don't add to the ruination. Just say NO!
Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine ST, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 57 David Yakobson
From: Georgia Jessup <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan. SAnta Monica is already being ruined by the developers, don't add to it. Just say NO!
Sincerely,
Georgia Jessup
2101 Marine St, SM
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 58 David Yakobson
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 6:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Brian Lanich
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 59 David Yakobson
From: Rita Ravindra <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 6:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Rita Ravindra
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 60 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 8:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Our loss is and has come at families expenses. There is no guarantee that is move will bring in more families to our neighborhood. It definitely with create more density. Which means more water and more electricity needed.
Also, here’s the rub, more cars, five times more cars.
Why not create a townhouse park instead of those terrible 8 story high rises? We have a delightful one on 27th and Pearl, which has been successful for decades. I gray that has been studied.
We are your constituents You do not listen to us or your staff.
The rouse of “Abundant Housing” begun and continuing under Big Developers, began with Scott Weiner and is pocketed by Bug Housing.
Please do not ruin what’s left of our neighborhoods The pollution created from the additional cars, demo and construction particulates, not to mention the emotional distress you are creating from jamming us into a smaller space seems to mean nothing to you.
Try asking the residents what they want. We are already over built with a high vacancy rate in these new buildings Mom and Pops can barely survive to increased water, trash and electrical costs.
Please use your better judgement listen to your constituents.
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Gail Gordon
For me and final Chair of Housing Commission.
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 61 Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 62 David Yakobson
From: Karen Comegys-Wortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
Why would you agree to this? It is unfair to the whole neighborhood which has been there much longer than any of you have been in office!
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
Treat homeowners with the same respect.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 63 David Yakobson
From: Norma Maister <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 10:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Norma Maister
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 64 David Yakobson
From: Maury Pearl <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 10:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan and adopt policies which destroy neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Maury Pearl
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 65 David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL OSMENT <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, We must not allow Santa Monica to turn into Manhattan Beach, with the over development of our neighborhood!
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely, a Santa Monica voter
Michael Osment
MICHAEL OSMENT
Osment Productions & Photography
[email protected]
310-291-1272
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 66 David Yakobson
From: Elaine Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 6:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B - - Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood. Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing. R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement. I urge you to rethink this plan. Sincerely, (YOUR NAME)
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 67 David Yakobson
From: Elaine Becker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 6:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B - - Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood. Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing. R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement. I urge you to rethink this plan. Sincerely, Elaine Becker
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 68 David Yakobson
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 9:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 69 David Yakobson
From: Caroline Denyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 9:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Caroline Denyer
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Melick <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Item 12B Upzoning Pico Neighborhood
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I strongly oppose the upzoning of the R1 area in the Pico Neighborhood for SB79. This area has some of the most affordable single-family homes in the City. I bought my first home in the Pico Neighborhood. Now these lower-cost homes will be replaced with higher-cost units. So much for the Council being concerned about housing affordability.
With all of the zoning changes, single-family homes are being eliminated in the City, making the City less conducive to families living here. The lower-value homes, such as those in this area proposed for upzoning, are at the greatest risk.
It's infuriating that the Council ignored the City Staff, Planning Committee's, and citizens' recommendations that the R2/R3 areas be upzoned instead of the R1 area.
The assumption that fewer people might be displaced had no data to verify that assumption. It was explained that the R2/R3 properties had a much lower likelihood of being redeveloped than the single-family homes.
Please listen to the experts and the community and change this plan to upzone the R2/R3 area instead.
Thank you.
Karen Melick
Sunset Park
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Cj Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 11:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Aileen Reynolds; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Dan Hall
Subject: A Letter From A Delaware Resident About Rejecting the Upzoning of Our Neighborhood 12-B
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
My name is Clifton Smith Jr., and I am asking you to reject Option 1 and the proposed upzoning of our neighborhood.
Santa Monica has been my family’s home for generations. My grandparents are from here. My grandmother and her family were displaced by the construction and extension of the 10 Freeway. After she married my grandfather, they settled at 2850 Delaware Avenue. I grew up at 2907 Delaware Avenue, and today I live at 2914 Delaware Avenue with my wife and our four-month-old daughter. This neighborhood is quite literally the only home I have ever known.
Growing up, this neighborhood was a mix of Black, Mexican, and Japanese families. I was one of the kids outside playing football in the street with my friends. Kids could play, neighbors knew each other, and it felt like a real community. To me, this neighborhood is one of the last pockets of what Santa Monica used to feel like.
I worry that the density being proposed will fundamentally change that. More large apartment buildings mean significantly more cars, traffic, and demand for parking on these small residential streets. I don’t want a future where the kids growing up here, including my daughter, can’t experience the neighborhood the way I did because our streets have become too congested for them to safely play outside.
Many of the Black families I grew up around have already been pushed out over the years, but a significant number remain, including elderly longtime homeowners who cannot easily attend City Council meetings. I have spoken with many of my neighbors, and there is a real fear that this upzoning will create development pressure that ultimately forces more longtime families to sell and leave.
My family has already experienced what happens when major planning decisions displace an established community. I do not want to watch another generation experience it again.
This is also deeply personal for my family today. Our home is one house away from the proposed apartment development. A large building would directly overlook our backyard and our four-month-old daughter’s room, fundamentally changing the privacy and character of our home.
And what are we sacrificing this neighborhood for? The proposed development would be high-priced luxury apartments, not housing that the longtime residents of this community can afford. The developer Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 is based in Florida and does not have the generational connection or long-term stake in this neighborhood that the families who live here do.
I support creating more housing in Santa Monica. But we should not accomplish that by placing the burden on a historically diverse neighborhood that has already experienced displacement and decades of major infrastructure and planning decisions imposed upon it.
My grandmother’s family was displaced here once before. My family has spent generations building a life on Delaware Avenue since then. I grew up playing in these streets, and I hope my daughter has the opportunity to grow up doing the same.
Please reject Option 1.
Sincerely,
Clifton “CJ” Smith Jr.
2914 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica, CA
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Robert Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 9:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Robert Dean
28th Street, Santa Monica
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Estelle G. Mednick <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi, I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Betty Mednick
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 2:27 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems
Subject: 10.A - Support ATES
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please support item 10.A, establishing the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES) Program.
Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 2 David Yakobson
From: oesr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 6:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station. They are already building massive housing on Bundy near the Expo line.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing or the neighborhoods.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 3 David Yakobson
From: LINDA KNAB <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject: Agenda Item 12-B - Oppose
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, and City Manager Chi,
I oppose 9/8/26 agenda item 12B -- Implementation of SB79 development standards for R1 properties located within 1/2 mile of the Expo/Bundy Station.
This proposal endangers the last pocket of R1 housing in the Pico neighborhood.
Already, single-family homes in the area valued at about $1.5 million are being replaced with 5 townhomes, each costing about $1.5 million, but with limited parking and no yard space. This benefits developers but does nothing for affordable housing.
R2 and R3 housing, on the other hand, is protected by Rent Control, and tenants would be protected by strong laws against displacement.
I urge you to rethink this plan.
Sincerely,
Linda Reinbold
Sent from my iPhone
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 4 David Yakobson
From: info <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Dan Hall Cc: Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Oliver Chi
Subject: Item 12-B - Please Do Not Make the Gandara Park Neighborhood Carry This Burden
EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Members of the City Council,
I have spent a lot of time thinking about what I wanted to say to you about Item 12-B, because for me this is about much more than zoning.
It is personal.
I have been in public service for almost 30 years. When I first moved to Santa Monica, I could not understand why so many of my neighbors in Pico, particularly in the Gandara Park area, felt abandoned and invisible to their City government.
That was not the public service I knew.
In the city where I worked, when residents came before their City Council, they were treated with respect, empathy, and responsiveness. Their concerns mattered. Their government understood that it existed to serve them.
Then, more than 25 years ago, I began having to advocate for my own neighborhood in Santa Monica.
I was stunned.
I would attend Council meetings and watch residents stand at the podium sharing deeply personal concerns while Councilmembers would not even look up at them. The arrogance and indifference were palpable. It was unlike anything I had experienced in my professional life.
Over time, I began hearing about the connections between certain groups, organizations, and City Hall. I learned that if you wanted to be heard, it seemed you needed to be connected.
I wasn't.
I was a nobody.
I was simply someone who loved her neighborhood, believed deeply in public service, and had learned throughout her life that sometimes, if you want something to change, you must be willing to fight for it.
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
Item 12-B
September 8, 2026
12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (7872 : Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Implementing SB79 Near Bundy Expo Light Rail 5 So I did.
Years later, when I had the extraordinary privilege of serving on this City Council myself, I never forgot those experiences.
I advocated repeatedly for the Pico Neighborhood and especially for the Gandara Park area because I knew what it felt like to sit on the other side of that dais and believe no one was listening.
I knew the history.
I knew how many residents believed that their neighborhood had carried burdens other parts of Santa Monica had not.
And I knew that feeling hadn't developed over one Council or one controversial decision. It had developed over decades.
That is why Item 12-B is so difficult for me to accept.
Once again, this small neighborhood is being asked to carry a burden for the benefit of a much larger area.