Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, February 24, 2026

1 David Yakobson
From: Louise Steiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study

EXTERNAL
I think all crosswalks should have the imbedded lights in the ground that flash when a pedestrian is using the crosswalk.

There was one near Pico & 4th. I noticed cars stopped more often for pedestrians using the embedded xwalk there than at other non-flashing embedded flashing lighted ones.

Thank you Lou Steiner
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2026 5:09 PM
To: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Denise Anderson-Warren; Darrick Jacob; Matthew Hallock; Anuj Gupta; Jing Yeo; Oscar Santiago; Aileen Reynolds; Dana Brown; Feroz Merchhiya; Erica Cuyugan; Rick Valte; Jenny Rogers; Jonathan Holub; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Many Organizations Express Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study (Item 11- A)
Attachments: Santa Monica Street Safety Sign-On Letter.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mayor, Councilmembers, City Manager, and Department Heads:

Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets submits the attached call to action, co-signed by multiple community organizations. The letter calls on the council to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study this Tuesday and give staff direction to prioritize funding for safety improvenets near McKinley Elementary School in the upcoming CIP process.

We are continuing to work with neighborhood groups and other local organizations regarding traffic safety and the proposed solutions included in this letter. You will see this letter again in the future, with more signatures, as key decisions are in front of the council and city administration.

Juan Matute
Co-Founder, Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Santa Monica's Streets Aren't Safe ⸺ We Can Change That To the Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and City Department Directors of Santa Monica, An often-overlooked but critical aspect of public safety is our right as residents to walk on our sidewalks without fear of a criminally irresponsible driver making a choice that ends or irrevocably changes a life. And our city can improve its climate impacts by addressing this crucial public-safety issue.

Santa Monica residents over the age of 65 and children under the age of 14 are especially vulnerable to the violence caused by reckless and irresponsible drivers. As Santa Monica’s senior population has grown by 3% over the last decade, our streets have failed to protect them.

The California Office of Traffic Safety currently ranks Santa Monica 3rd worst out of 103 peer cities for fatal and severe injuries to pedestrians over age 65. When our elders lose the ability to walk safely, they lose their freedom, leading to increased social isolation and decline.

But any of us can become victims of these behaviors if we simply find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Speeding and aggressive driving are now the #1 roadway safety concern for Californians. In 2024, Californians were twice as likely to be killed in a traffic crash while walking as they were to be killed by a stranger. We see the consequences of this aggression in the headlines of just this past year:
● A fatal hit-and-run driver killed a pedestrian at Wilshire & Chelsea. ● A reckless driver struck four people dining outside at Wilshire & 14th, killing two. ● A driver ran a stop sign at Ocean & Bicknell, striking a parked car and critically injuring a pedestrian.

As the City rightfully mobilizes increased law enforcement resources against violent crime, to ensure that Santa Monica’s residents get the safety and peace of mind we deserve, our City must also deploy the resources necessary to curb the kind of behaviors—street racing, joy riding, DUIs—that have led to too many untimely deaths and life-altering injuries on our streets.

A Call to Action
Whether you are driving home from work, walking your kids to school, or riding a bike to a local business, Santa Monicans should be able to move through our city without fear of death or injury, especially due to preventable collisions.

We, the undersigned organizations and residents, demand that the City take a comprehensive approach that combines engineering, modern technology, and focused enforcement to stop this public safety threat.

We request that the city of Santa Monica:

1. Declare street safety as an essential element of public safety: Public safety means the freedom to move through our city without fear of violent injury or death. For too long, 1 Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
we have treated traffic crashes as inevitable 'accidents' rather than preventable incidents of public violence. Whether you are driving home from work, walking a child to school, or cycling to a local business, you deserve the same protection from harm. When more people feel safe walking and biking on the streets, there are more “eyes on the street,” part of a community-environmental design approach to public safety.

We call on our City leadership to pass a resolution recognizing that safe streets are a fundamental pillar of public safety and require the full attention and resources of our public works, police, fire, city attorney, and transportation departments, with high-visibility to the community.

2. Implement camera-based traffic enforcement: We ask the city to urgently implement SB 720 automated camera enforcement of traffic signals and stop signs to provide bias-free enforcement to improve safety at our most dangerous intersections, allowing our police officers to focus on the deadly behaviors that machines cannot catch. We call on the Police Department to focus enforcement on the behaviors most likely to kill innocent bystanders: speeding, red-light running, impaired or distracted driving, and failure to yield to pedestrians.

3. Improve street safety near schools: We ask the City Manager to provide resources and direct city staff to collaborate with the local school district to develop effective safe routes to school measures for each school’s state-mandated Comprehensive School Safety Plan. Furthermore, we request that the Chief of Police comprehensively support these plans by assigning additional crossing guards and parking and traffic officers, and scheduling traffic enforcement at schools during drop-off and pick-up to deter high-risk behaviors such as speeding, weaving, failing to stop, and failing to yield to children. This presence provides immediate protection while we pursue long-term engineering solutions.

4. Make Santa Monica Boulevard much safer: We call on the City Council to adopt a Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Plan that prioritizes people’s safety over speed. Santa Monica Blvd. needs to be redesigned to curb speeding and stop street racing. We also call on Council to direct staff to prioritize implementation of the recommendations for a pedestrian traffic signal, bike lane, and pedestrian refuge island at the corner of Santa Monica and Chelsea for students at McKinley Elementary, which serves the majority of the city’s multi-family and affordable housing, and many families walk to school.

5. Budget for implementation: We call on the City Manager and Council to prioritize safer streets projects in the upcoming Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. Our community cannot afford a repeat of the Wilshire Boulevard Safety Project, where a member of our community was killed by a hit-and-run driver while crossing Wilshire at Chelsea Avenue, where the city has lacked funding to install a traffic signal. By leveraging external grant funds and SB 720 funding, the city can fund street lighting, traffic signals, and safety improvements near schools and in areas with nighttime pedestrian activity.
2 Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Specifically, we ask that the City identify local funds for rapid safety improvements, also known as “quick-build,” in addition to matching funds required to competitively pursue grant applications due in June 2026. Every dollar we fail to budget for safety infrastructure is a missed opportunity to bring millions in state and federal tax dollars back to Santa Monica, including cap-and-invest climate action funds.

Implementing these changes requires collaboration and commitment across City departments.

The undersigned are ready to partner with the City Council, City Manager, and relevant departments (Engineering, Police, Mobility) to develop and execute these vital safety plans. We offer our insights, time, and support for the necessary investments to create a safe Santa Monica for all. Now is the time to prioritize public safety through safer streets and more walkable, vibrant, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods in Santa Monica Signed,
Approved by vote Approved by vote
Michael Schneider
Cynthia Rose
Approved by vote
Cynthia Rose & Cris Gutierrez
Eli Lipmen
Eli Akira-Kaufman
Organization logos are accompanied by the authorized signer or a note that the sign-on was approved by a vote of the organization’s board.
3 Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 7:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on Item 11.A Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

Thanks,
[Name, Zip Code]
Mayor and Councilmembers,
While the staff recommendations for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study includes useful proposals to make Santa Monica Boulevard safer, in total it does not align with our Vision Zero goal to actually eliminate traffic fatalities on our streets. This project is likely a once in a generation opportunity to craft the future of Santa Monica Boulevard. If an approach that is weak on safety is taken today, residents and visitors will face danger for years to come. We urge Council to closely examine this proposal and ask staff some of the following questions:

Are the recommendations in the study sufficient to actually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on Santa Monica Boulevard?
Will the current proposal make SMB safer than Wilshire, where multiple pedestrian deaths have occurred since similar treatments were implemented? How? What is the expected 85th percentile speed that would result from the staff proposal? What would we need to do to decrease that below 25 miles per hour? Is it possible to eliminate speeding - not just reduce it- without removing a travel lane? What treatments would be necessary, and what examples from other streets / cities exist of a similar Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
2 layout that is truly safe?
Will the proposed redesign meaningfully shift trips from car travel to walking and bus usage? As proposed, we do not believe the recommendations are sufficient to eliminate fatal and severe industries, make SMB safer than Wilshire, or significantly reduce speeding. If the plan cannot achieve those goals, Council should reject it and direct staff to come back with a plan that will achieve Vision Zero and encourage non-car transportation.

Within the existing plan, we would note strong support for the proposed pedestrian signal crossing at Chelsea, near McKinley Elementary, and encourage that the city expedite its construction as an early action item, rather than waiting to phase 2.

Chasen Daniels
[email protected]
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Sirinya Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:21 PM
To: Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; councilmtgitems
Cc: Colleen E. Stoll; Kyle Kozar; Carlos Hernandez
Subject: 11a - Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study support

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
My name is Sirinya Matute, president of the McKinley Elementary PTA, but speaking personally.

Our PTA will be voting Friday on a potential letter to advocate for including the recommendations for Chelsea Ave and SM Blvd in your FY2027-29 capital improvement project. This letter serves to provide context on why being able to send you such a letter is a big deal along with some background info on the outreach the city did at our school.

The PTA is a non-partisan advocacy organization, operating similarly to the League of Women Voters in addition to running school events and raising funds for classroom supplies. To ensure we are decisive and serious in our positions, PTAs perform detailed issue studies before taking action. It's kind of similar to the League of Women Voters. Fortunately, we were able to build on existing California PTA resolutions supporting "Safe Routes to School", which include several positions on traffic safety. (See 2001 and 2008). This prior authority allowed us to pursue taking a stance on the SM Blvd Safety Study - but not before lots of discussion at the executive board and at regular meetings. And we did a listening session to capture final thoughts before drafting any letter.

Since August 2024, our principal and PTA have worked closely with city staff. I now consider Carlos H a member of our school community. Staff attended after-hours events, including our cherished multicultural day, hosted a community walk audit that welcomed our students, and even consulted our crossing guard of 17 years. (Mr Victor wrote a seven page letter!) As our new building will increase foot traffic, we ask the Council to direct staff to monitor new travel patterns and prioritize traffic enforcement at the Chelsea intersection and making tweaks to the proposed improvements if warranty. Understanding that the cost estimate for this intersection is a hair over $1 mil, we are committed to being strong partners in moving this project speedily to implementation, including supporting any initiatives to pursue exterrnal funding for it.

All the best,
Sirinya
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 5:03 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Bradley Ewing; [email protected]
Subject: Comments on Item 11.A Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers,
While the staff recommendations for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study includes useful proposals to make Santa Monica Boulevard safer, in total it does not align with our Vision Zero goal to actually eliminate traffic fatalities on our streets. This project is likely a once in a generation opportunity to craft the future of Santa Monica Boulevard. If an approach that is weak on safety is taken today, residents and visitors will face danger for years to come. We urge Council to closely examine this proposal and ask staff some of the following questions:
 Are the recommendations in the study sufficient to actually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on Santa Monica Boulevard?
 Will the current proposal make SMB safer than Wilshire, where multiple pedestrian deaths have occurred since similar treatments were implemented? How?  What is the expected 85th percentile speed that would result from the staff proposal? What would we need to do to decrease that below 25 miles per hour?
 Is it possible to eliminate speeding - not just reduce it- without removing a travel lane? What treatments would be necessary, and what examples from other streets / cities exist of a similar layout that is truly safe?
 Will the proposed redesign meaningfully shift trips from car travel to walking and bus usage? As proposed, we do not believe the recommendations are sufficient to eliminate fatal and severe industries, make SMB safer than Wilshire, or significantly reduce speeding. If the plan cannot achieve those goals, Council should reject it and direct staff to come back with a plan that will achieve Vision Zero and encourage non-car transportation.

Sincerely,
Sam Shapiro-Kline and Brad Ewing
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
5 We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Colin Kuroishi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on Item 11.A Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

Thanks,
[Colin Kuroishi, 90291]
Mayor and Councilmembers,
While the staff recommendations for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study includes useful proposals to make Santa Monica Boulevard safer, in total it does not align with our Vision Zero goal to actually eliminate traffic fatalities on our streets. This project is likely a once in a generation opportunity to craft the future of Santa Monica Boulevard. If an approach that is weak on safety is taken today, residents and visitors will face danger for years to come. We urge Council to closely examine this proposal and ask staff some of the following questions:

Are the recommendations in the study sufficient to actually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on Santa Monica Boulevard?
Will the current proposal make SMB safer than Wilshire, where multiple pedestrian deaths have occurred since similar treatments were implemented? How? What is the expected 85th percentile speed that would result from the staff proposal? What would we need to do to decrease that below 25 miles per hour? Is it possible to eliminate speeding - not just reduce it- without removing a travel lane? What treatments would be necessary, and what examples from other streets / cities exist of a similar Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
2 layout that is truly safe?
Will the proposed redesign meaningfully shift trips from car travel to walking and bus usage? As proposed, we do not believe the recommendations are sufficient to eliminate fatal and severe injuries, make SMB safer than Wilshire, or significantly reduce speeding. If the plan cannot achieve those goals, Council should reject it and direct staff to come back with a plan that will achieve Vision Zero and encourage non-car transportation.

Colin Kuroishi
[email protected]
Venice, California 90291
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete
Cc: Oliver Chi; Anuj Gupta; Colleen E. Stoll; Jason Kligier; [email protected] Subject: Support for Agenda item 11A: Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study Attachments: 2026-02 CC Agenda Item 11A Support SM Blvd Safty Study-SM Spoke SaMoSSA.pdf

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

On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance please find attached our letter supporting staff recommendations for Agenda Item 11A -- adopting the Draft Santa Monica Blvd.

Safety Study.

We appreciate council's guidance and vision from the first presentation adding to the tremendous amount of data and analysis collected and included in the report as well as the high level of community engagement and outreach that got us to this point. We are look forward to seeing these safety improvements implemented expeditiously as we know they will help reduce crashes – vehicle/pedestrian, vehicle/bike and vehicle/vehicle conflicts and make our streets safer for everyone. --
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-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 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.

February 24, 2026

RE: Support for Agenda item 11A Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

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 in support of adopting the proposed Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study Agenda Item 11A that includes staff recommendations and reflects the City Council’s previous guidance and direction.

We applaud the council's input and vision from the first presentation, the high level of community engagement and outreach, along with the tremendous amount of data and analysis that is outlined in this document and is reflected in this grant funded study. We were happy to help support the engagement that included bilingual community surveys & outreach, walk audits on the corridor as well as targeted engagement on and adjacent to the corridor with businesses along with engagement with McKinley school and parents, similar to what we did for the Wilshire Blvd. Safety Study.

We are excited to see the realization begin for these community envisioned and supported safety improvements on Santa Monica Blvd. to transform it from a vehicle centric uninviting Stroad to a more people centered, safer, more inviting corridor. We believe the Phase 1 improvements will help to jump start safety and reduce crashes – vehicle/pedestrian, vehicle/bike and vehicle/vehicle conflicts – in the short term with implementations like restricting right turn at many intersections, adding several diagonal crossing intersections with no right turn on red, along with more traffic calming pedestrian improvements that include curb extensions, and refuge islands. We look forward to seeing the flexibility of additional pedestrian improvements to come as outlined.

Bikeway markings crossing intersections is a long-awaited safety improvement that we are pleased to finally see realized.

We are also pleased to see the bus travel timing improvements – with phased far side stop relocation and cue jumps. We particularly appreciate the implementations east of 26th Street that include peak hour bus lanes with the added flexibility for phased implementation of bus only lanes that is currently being led by the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG). This acknowledges that a recommendation to include bus only lanes would and should require a broader study of the potential negative impacts of pushing current vehicle commute traffic onto adjacent parallel neighborhood streets with bike infrastructure. Broadway and Arizona are already currently burdened during commute times and could be further impacted if we were to move too quickly to remove a travel lane to add a bus only lane on the corridor without a proper traffic study and supporting data. This further acknowledges we must authentically work to achieve a required mode shift for it to be viable and successful. Robust and targeted collecting of data will be required in conjunction with inter-jurisdictional coordination to explore treatments before reducing traffic lanes due to the potential negative impact of pushing traffic and reducing safety levels onto adjacent and parallel neighborhood streets. These narrow neighborhood streets are vulnerable to increased traffic and must be dealt with by providing additional protection like traffic diversion. We must make sure we maintain (and further improve) these relatively low volume corridors where currently bikes enjoy a level of safety, calm, and priority.* Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
The Santa Monica Blvd. Safety improvements are rooted in a commitment to and conscientious practice of an iterative process that involves advancing – with council guidance – to steadily move us closer to an envisioned network of safer streets, not only moving us closer to Santa Monica’s Vision Zero and the Climate Action and Adaptability Plan but also to our environmental sustainability goals to reduce traffic volumes and encourage walking, biking and transit use by increasing safety and comfort on all corridors in Santa Monica – and by creating neighborhood connectivity to local destinations and schools. We must prioritize evidence-based improvements and utilize all tools available to reduce traffic speeds: like “Quick Build,” diverse funding options and standardizing minimum travel lane widths.

Although phased, urgency must also be the highest priority as these improvements must send the message today – to current and future generations – that safety and climate actions are two sides of one coin and are made real “by doing” – as is climate-sensible infrastructure for a resilient present and future that ensure and prioritize safe movement for people. The future is now. We must not be afraid to utilize "Quick-Build" installations (like paint, bollards, traffic diversion and signage) as practical first steps leading to permanent solutions to implement and expedite safety features. By moving swiftly to adoption, these proposed safety improvements have the ability to reinforce our collective community and city commitment for a safer, more environmentally sustainable, and a resilient future where all people have safe and easy access to public transit, and a variety of safe choices for healthy, active mobility to walk, bike or roll for recreation and for their daily needs.

Creating a vibrant, people-first boulevard and a gateway into Santa Monica, as Councilmember Hall envisioned last June, makes a firm statement. These outlined aspirations further a vision of a Santa Monica Blvd. that is inviting and environmentally sustainable, improving street safety for all road users, as well as improving public transit travel times. These must be a top priority for us to create a more diverse, equitable and safe transportation system. We support the adoption of the draft plan with a commitment to an iterative and collaborative process that will bring our collective priorities to life. We thank this council for their input and guidance, the community and business engagement, staff and the consultants for their work.

We trust the council will move swiftly and vote to adopt the Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study Improvement plan expeditiously so that staff can begin to seek the funding to make these projects real.

The safety of our community and everyone who visits Santa Monica –indeed our lives– are at stake.

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-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
*Notes:

See Strategies to Increase Big Blue Bus Ridership by
Improving Travel Times and this Study by Streets For
All on bus delays where they recommend prioritizing bus lanes on SM Blvd in Los Angeles but show zero reported
delays in Santa Monica. We acknowledge that there are
possibly some delays in SM during peak hours - however
various data sources indicate no substantial delays. We are currently participating with the WSCCOG on their bus lane implementation and recommendations study.

LUCE:

Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: Support for item 11A - Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Caroline Torosis and City Council members,
I support the staff recommendations included in the Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study.

I have actively taken part in the many surveys & outreach events such as the walk audit on Santa Monica Blvd as well as the listening sessions.

I am pleased to see that staff has listened to community input on many of the proposed improvements that can make Santa Monica Blvd., a safer street for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

I want to particularly point out several improvements such as with “no right turn on red” at several locations, and more traffic calming pedestrian improvements such as curb extensions, and refuge islands.

We need to use every available design option such as these in order to save lives. I look forward to seeing us implement these proposals just as we have done on Wilshire Blvd.

Safer streets must be our primary priority.

Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:10 PM
To: Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: 11A: Oppose and Please Ask for a Better Plan
Attachments: 26th St Example.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
Last meeting, Council voted unanimously to acknowledge our failure to make progress towards vision zero, and called for designs to prioritize human life over vehicle throughput or parking. Santa Monica Blvd is one of our most dangerous roads, and this redesign is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a safe corridor that can achieve vision zero. While the proposed plan has many good recommendations, it does not achieve the needed speed reduction and crosswalk safety required to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries.

We cannot miss this generational opportunity to make Santa Monica Blvd safer for all users and a high quality transit corridor. I urge council to direct staff to improve this plan, and prioritize the proposed Chelsea Ave pedestrian signal to McKinley Elementary as a separate near-term priority in the interim.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the excellent people who worked hard on this plan, which includes some great aspects. However, the final result has become a compromise, and I know our skilled staff are capable of coming back with a much better proposal, if so directed.

The Good:

New Fully Signalized Pedestrian Crossing at Chelsea to McKinley Elementary This an excellent safety improvement for kids traveling to school, mid-city permeability, and enables the future Chelsea Greenway (although the eastern crosswalk should be added as an offset crossing, which avoids turning conflicts). Despite being the most important aspect of this project, it is pushed into phase 2 and dependent on grant funding. This crossing should not be dependent on this entire plan being approved, and should be directed as a separate priority item to be implemented ASAP, ideally with the long-planned Chelsea Greenway.

Far-side bus stop relocations
These changes improve transit travel times and reliability, and can increase the effectiveness of transit signal priority. However some obvious stops are still missing from far-side relocation, like 6th St (westbound), 14th St (westbound), 26th St (eastbound and westbound), and Berkeley (westbound).

The Bad:

Minimal Speed Reduction
Potentially the most essential aspect of this redesign is the need to ensure a design speed and 85th percentile speed of 25 mph. Lowering speed does not significantly impact travel times or throughput, as the limiting factor is always at traffic signals. However, it does significantly increase safety. Raised crossings at unsignalized intersections, lane narrowing to 10 ft, and additional horizontal and vertical deflection with chicanes, alternating parking, and speed cushions can all ensure speeding is not only discouraged, but nearly impossible on Santa Monica Blvd. For example, between Cloverfield and Centinela, current 85th percentile speeds are over 35 mph.

At those speeds, vehicle-pedestrian crashes have over 90% chance of resulting in a fatality. The proposed design does little to reduce speeds in this stretch, only an intermittent median.

Unsafe Crossings (New and Existing)
This project proposes to add new unsignalized crosswalks at 10th, 12th, 19th, Harvard, Stanford, and Franklin, while keeping existing unsignalized crosswalks at 9th, Euclid, 15th, 16th, 18th, and Princeton. More crossings are Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
3 a good thing, but only with an adequately safe design. These crossings are proposed to only receive RRFBs, with a few getting a new pedestrian refuge median and curb extensions. As we’ve seen from multiple deaths on Wilshire, this is not an adequate intervention. Raised crosswalks at all unsignalized crossings not only lowers overall speed on the corridor (see above), but improves yielding behavior by directing attention to the crossing.

These are quicklybecoming standard, both internationally and within the US, for unsignalized crossings due to their profound safety impact. Importantly, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) dispelled the myth that raised crossings and speed humps are not appropriate for arterial roads in their 2016 Achieving Multi Modal Networks publication, where they clarify that these treatments can be used on arterials with speed limits under 35 mph, and can be designed to have minimal impact on buses, trucks, or emergency vehicles.

Remaining Wide Travel Lanes
Council previously directed travel lanes to be 10 ft, but there are many segments in this proposal where 5 lanes (without parking) are proposed to take up 63 feet of space. I am no math wiz but that doesn’t add up. 12-15 ft outer lanes are proven to be less safe and encourage speeding. Additional medians, mid-block bioswales, or even a new parking lane or bus lane in certain locations would be a massive improvement by narrowing these lanes to improve safety.

Minimal Transit Improvements
Encouraging transit use by prioritizing it on our high-quality transit corridors and reducing travel times are a key part of Vision Zero, as well as our city’s sustainability goals. Problems include the previously mentioned missing far-side stop relocations, only two queue jumps and only in the westbound direction, the use of peak-only bus lanes instead of full-time bus lanes only east of Harvard, and a missed opportunity to extend the eastbound busonly lane from 5th St to Lincoln.

For example, this bus lane extension could potential reduce traffic congestion by allowing for a protected right turn arrow at Lincoln, while ensuring buses can access the nearside stop and avoid blocking the lane during the green phase. Of note, this is also where bus speeds are the lowest in the PM peak, dropping below 7mph. This small 3-block bus lane extension could save multiple minutes of travel time for both transit riders and drivers.

Flawed Prioritization for Space
Decisions were made that prioritize a few parking spaces over transit speed or pedestrian comfort. Using the intersection at 26th st as an example, the northbound right turn lane will be eliminated, but instead of expanding an extremely narrow and obstacle-ridden sidewalk (see images attached) or adding greenery and climate resilience with new canopy or bioswales, it will add two new parking stalls. Additionally, instead of an eastbound far-side stop at 26th St, which would greatly improve transit operations and travel times, an in-lane near-side stop is proposed in order to save two parking spaces. This can easily add minutes to transit travel time, contributes to congestion by blocking all right turning traffic onto 26th during loading and unloading, and impacts pedestrian safety by limiting visibility of people crossing 26th.

I know we can do better, and I urge all councilmembers to make a statement that we can do better.

Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-City, 90404
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
The sidewalk at the Intersection of 26th and Santa Monica Blvd has narrow sidewalks, multiple obstructions, and minimal canopy. Despite this need for sidewalk extensions and greenery, the existing right turn lane is being converted to two parking spots, and buses will be slowed by a near-side stop to avoid eliminating 1-2 parking spaces.

Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Mike <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:34 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Anuj Gupta; Jennifer Taylor; Peter Wheelon Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11.A, Request for Meeting rg Chelsea/SM Blvd Improvements Attachments: Kia entry.docx

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please see the enclosed letter from Mike Sullivan, owner of the Kia Santa Monica dealership at 2440 Santa Monica Boulevard. We respectfully request that the City Council provide direction to City Staff to meet with our team regarding alternatives and/or refinements to the proposed improvements with the goal of enhancing pedestrian safety while reducing impacts to our business operations.

Sincerely,
Mike Sullivan
LAcarGUY
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Kia Santa Monica
2440 Santa Monica Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90404
February 24, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Santa Monica City Council
Re: Santa Moncia Boulevard Safety Study (Agenda Item 11.A) Dear Councilmembers,
I own the Kia Santa Monica dealership at 2440 Santa Monica Boulevard, located near the Chelsea/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection where the City is contemplating changes to the streets. As a longtime auto dealer and property owner along Santa Monica’s “auto row”, I support enhancing the pedestrian environment and safety. There are a few specific recommendations for the Chelsea/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection that I am concerned will significantly impact our business operations. Since we have not had the opportunity to discuss these with City Staff, we respectfully request that the City Council provide direction to City Staff to meet with our team regarding alternatives and/or refinements to the proposed improvements with the goal of enhancing pedestrian safety while reducing impacts to our business operations.

City Staff has identified 11 potential changes for the Chelsea/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection (see attachment from the appendix to the Safety Study). Based on our preliminary understanding of the changes, the majority of the changes (Items 1- 4, 7 and 8) appear to be fine.

We are concerned about the following changes and would like to discuss these with City Staff further prior to the plans being finalized and implemented:

1. Item 5 – it appears that Item 5 (new raised landscaped median) would block the ability of westbound traffic to turn left into our dealership and onto Park Drive. We are very concerned this will impede access to our business. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposed change further with City Staff and to try to identify alternatives or refinements to this aspect of the proposed improvements.

2. We are also concerned about the loss of parking mentioned in Item 10. We ask the City to look at ways to avoid a net loss in parking in this area of the City.

Because these improvements are not identified for the first phase of implementation, adding this additional opportunity for discussion and brainstorming will not delay the City from moving forward with implementing the recommendations in the study.

Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Unfortunately, despite operating at this property for 53 years, I only learned about the proposed changes to Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to our property and the dealership a few days ago. We appreciate City Council’s direction to City Staff to meet with us regarding the Chelsea/Santa Monica proposed improvements in light of our dealership’s location and operations so that we can discuss alternatives and/or refinements to advance our shared interest in creating a safer street for pedestrians without creating undue burdens to our business operations.

Sincerely,
Mike Sullivan
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Jack Mullin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on Item 11.A Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

Thanks,
[Jack Mullin, 90045]
Mayor and Councilmembers,
While the staff recommendations for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study includes useful proposals to make Santa Monica Boulevard safer, in total it does not align with our Vision Zero goal to actually eliminate traffic fatalities on our streets. This project is likely a once in a generation opportunity to craft the future of Santa Monica Boulevard. If an approach that is weak on safety is taken today, residents and visitors will face danger for years to come. We urge Council to closely examine this proposal and ask staff some of the following questions:

Are the recommendations in the study sufficient to actually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on Santa Monica Boulevard?
Will the current proposal make SMB safer than Wilshire, where multiple pedestrian deaths have occurred since similar treatments were implemented? How? What is the expected 85th percentile speed that would result from the staff proposal? What would we need to do to decrease that below 25 miles per hour? Is it possible to eliminate speeding - not just reduce it- without removing a travel lane? What treatments would be necessary, and what examples from other streets / cities exist of a similar Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
6 layout that is truly safe?
Will the proposed redesign meaningfully shift trips from car travel to walking and bus usage? As proposed, we do not believe the recommendations are sufficient to eliminate fatal and severe injuries, make SMB safer than Wilshire, or significantly reduce speeding. If the plan cannot achieve those goals, Council should reject it and direct staff to come back with a plan that will achieve Vision Zero and encourage non-car transportation.

Jack Mullin
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90045
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 7:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: We must do more on 11.A Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Council Comments Council Comments,
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I want Santa Monica Boulevard to truly be safe - meaning that we actually eliminate fatal and severe injuries from speeding cars. We need to do more to actually lower the speeds of people driving on our streets and should consider lane reductions, protected bike lanes, bus only lanes, and shortening crossing distances to protect our most vulnerable road users.

I agree with the views of Santa Monica Forward below.

Thanks,
Eli Gill
90403
Mayor and Councilmembers,
While the staff recommendations for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study includes useful proposals to make Santa Monica Boulevard safer, in total it does not align with our Vision Zero goal to actually eliminate traffic fatalities on our streets. This project is likely a once in a generation opportunity to craft the future of Santa Monica Boulevard. If an approach that is weak on safety is taken today, residents and visitors will face danger for years to come. We urge Council to closely examine this proposal and ask staff some of the following questions:

Are the recommendations in the study sufficient to actually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on Santa Monica Boulevard?
Will the current proposal make SMB safer than Wilshire, where multiple pedestrian deaths have occurred since similar treatments were implemented? How? What is the expected 85th percentile speed that would result from the staff proposal? What Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
8 would we need to do to decrease that below 25 miles per hour? Is it possible to eliminate speeding - not just reduce it- without removing a travel lane? What treatments would be necessary, and what examples from other streets / cities exist of a similar layout that is truly safe?
Will the proposed redesign meaningfully shift trips from car travel to walking and bus usage? As proposed, we do not believe the recommendations are sufficient to eliminate fatal and severe injuries, make SMB safer than Wilshire, or significantly reduce speeding. If the plan cannot achieve those goals, Council should reject it and direct staff to come back with a plan that will achieve Vision Zero and encourage non-car transportation.

Eli Gill
[email protected]
811 4th Street, Apt E
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026
Item 11-A
February 24, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
February 24, 2026