Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, 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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
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 11-B
September 8, 2026
Item 11-B
September 8, 2026
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
September 8, 2026