Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 8, 2026

1 David Yakobson
From: Peter <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10A ATES ORDINANCE

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica no doubt has too many reckless and dangerous vehicle operators, including operators of cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and scooters. (Background: City data show about 5x more drivers and/or passengers fatally or seriously injured vs. bicyclists.) However, my understanding of ATES: it records front license plates and, when possible, motor vehicle drivers' faces. So how will the City's ATES program be enforced against currently unlicensed bicycle and scooter operators, too many of whom routinely violate state traffic safety laws? (City data also show bicyclists are found at fault in about half the fatal or severe injury collisions involving a bicycle.) Does the City's proposed ATES program design limit its enforcement to the single subgroup of licensed motor vehicle operators with valid plates?
Thank you,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica resident
Get Outlook for Android
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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)

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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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)

These are practical steps that will make our streets safer for all Santa Monicans, especially kids, pedestrians, and cyclists. Please vote yes.

Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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)

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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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)

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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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

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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: David Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Marc Vukcevich
Subject: SUPPORT of Item 10A
Attachments: Support 10A.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Please find attached a letter from Streets For All in support of Item 10A.

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 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
08 September 2026
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: SUPPORT of Item 10A - Establish an ATES Program
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 10A.

Santa Monica's proposed Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES) is an important step toward advancing the City's Vision Zero commitment and improving safety for all roadway users.

More importantly, this program represents SB 720 in action. Streets For All sponsored SB 720 because we believe California communities should have access to effective, equitable, and accountable tools to improve traffic safety. We are particularly proud to see Santa Monica putting the framework established by our legislation into practice.

SB 720 established California Vehicle Code Section 21455.9 and created a new civil administrative framework for automated traffic enforcement that is substantially different from California's traditional red-light camera programs. Under SB 720, violations are associated with the registered vehicle rather than the driver, penalties are capped by state law, and violations do not result in DMV points. This means cities now have a new tool to address dangerous red-light violations while maintaining appropriate limits and safeguards.

We strongly support Santa Monica's implementation of the SB 720 program and look forward to seeing the results of our legislation in action. We hope Santa Monica's experience can serve as an example to other California jurisdictions considering how automated enforcement can be responsibly deployed as part of a broader Vision Zero strategy.

We are also encouraged by the City's interest in automated speed enforcement. As Santa Monica is currently not eligible to have automated speed enforcement under state law, we request that the City of Santa Monica send letters to the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees and Privacy Committees expressing the City's interest in automated speed enforcement and in legislation that would allow Santa Monica to utilize this tool. A letter from a local government with a demonstrated commitment to Vision Zero would provide valuable Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
support for expanding the state's automated speed enforcement program to additional jurisdictions.

Streets For All thanks the City Council and staff for continuing to prioritize safety and human life in the City's transportation policies. We urge the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance and put SB 720's new traffic safety framework to work for Santa Monica residents and roadway users.

Sincerely,
Marc Vukcevich
Director of State Policy
Streets For All
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Item 10A- Support Automated Traffic Enforcement System

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I strongly support the implementation of an Automated Traffic Enforcement System. The initial implementation should proceed as outlined. However, SB 720 also empowers us to deploy this enforcement at stop-controlled intersections and this item should permit this expansion to include stop-sign enforcement in the future.

Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-city resident, 90404
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026
Item 10-A
September 8, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
September 8, 2026