Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, May 12, 2026

1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 9:15 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on Item 4.I
--------------------------------------
Jacob Wasserman
Planning Commissioner
City of Santa Monica
<[email protected]>
Pronouns: he/him/his
Planning resources
Sign up for meeting notifications
Sign up for Planning updates
Virtual office hours
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 9:20 AM
Subject: Comments on Revised Santa Monica Boulevard Plan Transportation team,
Hello! I wanted to first thank you for the work on the Santa Monica Boulevard Plan. Whatever comes of it, it will be leagues better than the current dangerous street.

I did want to raise four points in the draft that was recently posted:
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/Mobility/Santa%20Monic%20Blvd/Santa%20Monica%20Blvd%20Safety%20Study_ 2026.04.28%20reduced.pdf

1. I appreciate the study taking on some of the bus lane planning from WSCCOG. But why aren't the bus lanes between Centinela Avenue and Harvard Street full-time? The peak-hour lanes ignore traffic that snarls buses even off-peak, especially when there's an unplanned incident or delay. And this is not only an equity issue of who rides the bus, but it's also a safety issue: parked cars off-peak obscure sight lines for pedestrians and turning cars, unlike a bus lane, leading to more crashes and injuries. There are surely tradeoffs between parking and bus lanes, but the Council seemed pretty clear to me which side they wanted staff to aim for. At the least, I ask that the presentation to Council include a clear policy question asking Council straight if they want the bus lanes there to be full-time (I would also like to see the whole corridor have bus lanes, for the same reasons, but maybe WSCCOG will take care of that?).

2. Why are RFFBs proposed and not HAWKs (or even normal signals) at crosswalks? Research is clear that HAWKs are safer (e.g., here).

3. Would it be possible to add bike signals when streets with bike lanes cross Santa Monica Boulevard, which will go green along with the LPI/earlier than the general traffic? I don't know if I've ever seen this before, but since it is the law that bikes can go when the pedestrian signal starts, but I bet this is not widely known or used. So, I think bike signals along with the pedestrian signals at key intersections could indicate this and allow for safer bike crossings. As this study is not designed to create a cost-constrained project, I think this should be considered.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
V. Cost Transparency — Storm Drain and Infrastructure Implications We request that the City ask staff to report back when cost estimates differ from preliminary expectations expressed in this plan. Some direction, like modifications to the Santa Monica Boulevard and 26th Street intersection, will require storm drain modifications that do not appear to be reflected in the current cost estimates. This report back, perhaps as part of CIP cycles or other council processes, will enable the council to make informed decisions when more information is available.

VI. CEQA Strategy: Utilize Statutory Exemption Under PRC Section 21080.25 The Staff Report correctly identifies the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study as exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies) for the planning phase and Section 15301 (minor alterations of existing facilities) for routine improvements. We appreciate this analysis. However, for the implementation phase of this project — particularly the bus-only lane installations and pedestrian signal improvements — we strongly recommend the City adopt the statutory exemption provided by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.25 as the primary CEQA citation.

The distinction matters significantly for legal defensibility:
● Categorical exemptions (such as Sections 15262 and 15301) are administrative findings made by agency staff. They are subject to "exceptions" — including claims of unusual circumstances or potentially significant cumulative impacts — that litigants routinely use to delay or block projects.
● Statutory exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 are legislative mandates.

Because this exemption was specifically enacted and recently expanded by the State Legislature to fast-track transit prioritization and active transportation projects, it provides a substantially higher level of legal protection and cannot be defeated by the "unusual circumstances" exception.

By relying on the legislative certainty of PRC Section 21080.25 rather than administrative guidelines, the City can more reliably protect the project from CEQA-based delays — such as arguments regarding traffic displacement or incremental changes to intersection operations.

This is consistent with best practices used by other California cities advancing Vision Zero and transit-priority projects, and it signals a commitment to exercising the State's highest level of streamlining authority.

Given the City's goal of completing key improvements before the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, we believe this legal strategy is essential to maintain the project schedule.

Request: Direct the City Attorney to evaluate and, where applicable, cite PRC Section 21080.25 as the primary CEQA exemption for implementation-phase activities, in addition to the categorical exemptions already identified.

Santa Monica Boulevard is one of the most dangerous corridors in our city. We are grateful for the serious work that City staff has invested in this safety study, and we are encouraged by 4 Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
2 4. Will you be revising the appendices? Because the project webpage still links to the original appendices. But those include some frankly ridiculous and equivocating statements, such as:
"Overall, there were fewer downvotes than upvotes. Many downvotes were added to recommendations for removing a drive lane or carrying out a road diet, which is reflective of disagreements in the community over the idea of reducing the number of drive lanes on Santa Monica Blvd."—This statement somehow extrapolates from comments with, at most, four downvotes, that there's a deep disagreement, and, by heavy implication, one in which both sides have even claim, support, and validity. None of that is true, nor is it supported by your outreach. "Several respondents were interested in a bus lane. At the same time, there were some comments that were weary of "slowing down traffic.'"—Again, treating this as a he-said/she-said debate, and using weaselly words like "several" and "some" suggests an equivalence and evenness that simply isn't there.

I hope these passages and others like them will be revised before approval. --------------------------------------
Jacob Wasserman
Planning Commissioner
City of Santa Monica
<[email protected]>
Pronouns: he/him/his
Planning resources
Sign up for meeting notifications
Sign up for Planning updates
Virtual office hours
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 8:00 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Colleen E. Stoll; Carlos Hernandez; Kyle Kozar; [email protected]; [email protected]; Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets
Subject: Approve the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study with additional direction 4.I & 4.L Attachments: council_requests_tracker.docx; May 2026 SMFFSS Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
As you consider the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety study on Tuesday evening, we urge you to:
 Adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the LRSP today;  Direct staff to incorporate the Chelsea Phase 1 turn restriction median within the existing Phase 1 scope;
 Define the Chelsea Phase 2 signal technology and fully fund the CIP request in a future meeting;
 Ensure full design coordination with the WSCCOG Bus Lane Project;  Direct the City Attorney to evaluate PRC Section 21080.25 as the CEQA strategy for implementation; and
These requests and their rationale are listed in the attached PDF document.

The attached council_requests_tracker.docx compares the final Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study (April 28th document) and staff report against a record of direction from individual council members generated based on an AI-generated transcription of the discussion of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study at the February 24th council meeting. As you will see, city staff incorporated most of the feedback from that Meeting into their final plan.

Thank You for Your Consideration,
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
May 10, 2026
Honorable Mayor Caroline Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council Re: Agenda Item — Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study | Support with Modifications
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets respectfully submits this letter in support of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study, with the specific modifications described herein. We urge the Council to adopt the plan on May 12, 2026, and to act swiftly to implement. Santa Monica Boulevard has recorded 435 high-injury crashes over the past decade. Pedestrians and cyclists are overrepresented in those injuries. The time for action is long overdue.

We also note that the Santa Monica Boulevard / Chelsea Avenue intersection was identified as a location of concern in the McKinley Elementary Local School Site Safety Plan, which was adopted by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education in April 2026.

The safety of the children who walk and bike to McKinley Elementary is directly at stake in this plan.

I. Support for Immediate Council Adoption
We strongly support Council adoption of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study as the governing Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) for this corridor. Adoption will:
● Unlock eligibility for competitive state and federal safety grant funding (HSIP, ATP, and others) that requires an adopted LRSP;
● Provide a clear, legally defensible project definition that accelerates the environmental and design phases;
● Signal to the community and to staff that pedestrian and cyclist safety on this corridor is a policy priority, not a planning aspiration.

The Council should not allow perfect to be the enemy of good. The modifications we request below can be incorporated in the staff report and as direction to staff during design — they do not require delay of adoption. Further delay in adoption will jeopardize the funding needed for implementation.

II. Chelsea Avenue at Santa Monica Boulevard: Phase 1 Quick-Build Turn Restrictions The April 28, 2026 study recommends a Phase 1 element at Chelsea Avenue that includes right-turn treatments and a new bike facility, with an estimated cost of $21,250. We support this budget allocation but request that the Phase 1 scope be expanded to include a quick-build restrictive median that prohibits conflicting turn movements at this intersection. 1 Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Specifically, we request that Phase 1 include design and installation of a quick-build median element that achieves two safety objectives:
● Prohibit the right-turn movement from eastbound Santa Monica Boulevard to northbound Chelsea Avenue; and
● As a consequent design benefit, prohibit the conflicting left-turn movement from southbound Chelsea Avenue to eastbound Santa Monica Boulevard.

Figure 1: Example of Hardened Centerlines from NACTO Design Guide

These turn restrictions are essential because Chelsea Avenue directly serves McKinley Elementary School. Elementary school students crossing Chelsea Avenue in the vicinity of this intersection are placed in direct conflict with vehicles executing these turning movements at speed. The McKinley Elementary Local School Site Safety Plan — adopted by the SMMUSD Board in April 2026 — specifically identifies this intersection as a concern.

Representatives of Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets met with City staff on May 8, 2026 and discussed this turn restriction concept. We understand that staff is receptive to this approach. We respectfully request that the Council direct staff to evaluate and incorporate a quick-build restrictive median as a Phase 1 design element within the existing budget allocation and scope for Chelsea Avenue, consistent with the updated cost estimate already identified in the April 28 study.

Request: Direct staff to include a quick-build restrictive median at Santa Monica Blvd/Chelsea Ave as a Phase 1 element, prohibiting EB-to-NB right turns and SB-to-EB left turns, within the existing $21,250 Phase 1 budget scope. 2 Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
III. Chelsea Avenue: Phase 2 Pedestrian/Cyclist Signal — Define the Technology We are encouraged by the updated May 12 staff report's commitment to submit a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) request for Phase 2 capital improvements at Santa Monica Boulevard and Chelsea Avenue/Park Drive in the FY2026-27 budget cycle. We view this as an acceleration of the $1.15 million intersection project and a meaningful step toward securing local funding rather than depending exclusively on competitive grants.

However, we note that the term "Pedestrian Traffic Signal" is not defined anywhere in the current plan. Earlier iterations of this study specified a full traffic signal at this location. We request that the Council direct staff to clarify the intended technology in the Phase 2 scope.

We wish to put on record that a Pedestrian and Cyclist Actuated High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK Beacon) is an acceptable technology for this crossing, provided it is appropriately designed for an elementary school zone with high pedestrian and cyclist volumes. HAWK beacons are proven, cost-effective, and can be deployed more rapidly than a full traffic signal. If staff intends to specify a HAWK beacon, that should be stated explicitly in the Phase 2 scope.

Request: Direct staff to define the specific signal technology for the Chelsea Avenue Phase 2 improvement, and confirm that a HAWK beacon or equivalent high-visibility actuated crossing device is within scope. Ensure the FY26/27 CIP request reflects the full ~$1.15M Phase 2 cost estimate.

IV. Bus-Only Lanes: Full Alignment with Westside Cities COG We strongly support the updated study's incorporation of the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) Bus Lane Project recommendations, which add full-time bus-only lanes in both directions between 14th Street and Lincoln Boulevard and extend the eastbound transit plaza from 5th Street to Lincoln Boulevard.

We urge the City to:
● Fully align the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study design and timing with the WSCCOG bus lane project to prevent incompatible geometry or duplicative construction; ● Coordinate signal timing and transit signal priority (TSP) deployments jointly, so that bus-only lane infrastructure and signal improvements are designed as a unified system; ● Prioritize the bus lane elements that qualify for quick-build implementation (within 6-12 months) to deliver measurable transit reliability improvements before the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Bus-only lanes on this corridor are a proven, cost-effective intervention. The current peak bus speed of 4-7 mph in the downtown segment is unacceptable and directly discourages transit use.
3 Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Council's strong direction on February 24th. The changes requested in this letter are modest and achievable — they strengthen what is already a good plan without requiring delay.

We urge the Council to:
● Adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the LRSP today; ● Direct staff to incorporate the Chelsea Phase 1 turn restriction median within the existing Phase 1 scope;
● Define the Chelsea Phase 2 signal technology and fully fund the CIP request in a future meeting;
● Ensure full design coordination with the WSCCOG Bus Lane Project; ● Direct the City Attorney to evaluate PRC Section 21080.25 as the CEQA strategy for implementation; and
Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to safe streets for all Santa Monica families.

Respectfully submitted,

Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets
Sincerely,
Juan Matute, Sirinya Matute, and Caro Vilain
Co-Founders of Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets

5 Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 1 Council Requests & Direction: Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study February 24, 2026 City Council Meeting — Summary of Council Direction and Staff Response in the Revised Plan (April 28, 2026 Study & May 12, 2026 Staff Report) | Updated to reflect Phase 2 CIP acceleration for Chelsea
Note: Councilmember Lana Negrete was present at the February 24, 2026 meeting (she led the Pledge of Allegiance and voted AYE on the final 7-0 motion). However, she did not speak during the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study discussion, so no requests are attributed to her in this tracker.

Status Legend
Addressed Partially Addressed Not Addressed Deferred to Design # Council Member Topic Request / Direction (Feb 24) Staff Response (Apr 28 Study / May 12 Report) Status 1 Jesse Zwick Lane Widths Reduce lane widths, particularly between 20th St and Chelsea Ave and Chelsea Ave to 26th St, where lanes
averaged ~12.6 ft. Directed lanes of approximately 10 ft.

April 28 study adopts 10 ft as the preferred width for all general travel lanes (max 11 ft; transit lanes max 12 ft). Markings near intersections updated to delineate new widths. (Apr 28 study p. 36; May 12 report pp. 2-3)
Addressed
2 Jesse Zwick Far-Side Bus
Stops
Far-side all bus stops wherever feasible. Specifically
called out 26th St & Santa Monica Blvd as a location
where far-siding appeared possible.

Far-side placement increases from 52% to 80% corridor-wide. The eastbound near-side stop at 26th St is explicitly relocated to the far side. (May 12 report p. 3)
Addressed
3 Jesse Zwick Bus-Only Lane –
Downtown
Explore extending the existing eastbound bus-only lane
from 4th St to Lincoln Blvd, where bus speeds are
reported at 4-7 mph at peak.

Updated study incorporates the Westside COG Bus Lane Project:
eastbound transit plaza/bus-only lane extended from 5th St to Lincoln Blvd; full-time bus-only lanes added in both directions from 14th St to Lincoln Blvd. (May 12 report p. 3)
Addressed
4 Jesse Zwick Raised Crossings Explore raised crossings at unsignalized intersections.

Cited FHWA guidance that raised crosswalks are effective at speeds below 30 mph without compromising buses or
emergency vehicles.

Staff reviewed NACTO, FHWA, Caltrans, and AASHTO guidance.

Widespread use not recommended given 10,000-29,000 daily vehicles, but vertical deflection will be evaluated during engineering design at 6 priority locations: 16th St, 21st St, 22nd St, Chelsea, Princeton, and Franklin. (May 12 report p. 4; Apr 28 study pp. 36-37) Deferred to Design
5 Jesse Zwick Chelsea – Phase /
Timing
Concern that Chelsea pedestrian signal is Phase 2;
expressed desire for it to happen sooner, within 5 years or less.

UPDATED: The revised May 12 staff report now includes a CIP request specifically for Phase 2 capital improvements (changed from 'Phase 1') at Chelsea/Park Drive for the FY26/27 budget cycle. This is an acceleration — staff is proactively seeking ~$1.15M in local CIP funding rather than waiting solely on competitive grants. Chelsea remains Phase 2 in the phasing table with completion targeted after the 2028 Olympics. (May 12 report pp. 4-5)
Partially Addressed
6 Natalya Zernitskaya Pedestrian Recall /
Beg Buttons
Eliminate requirement to push beg buttons; implement
automatic pedestrian recall so pedestrians don't have to physically press a button during timed walk phases.

Pedestrian signals will be on recall (activated automatically) in both directions from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM along Santa Monica Blvd. Beg buttons retained only for audible signals at non-recall intersections. (May 12 report p. 3; Apr 28 study p. 37)
Addressed
7 Natalya Zernitskaya Bus Stop Shelters Improve physical bus stop infrastructure — shelters, weather protection — in coordination with Big Blue Bus
when stops are relocated.

Not explicitly addressed in the May 12 staff report or the revised April 28 study. The February report noted coordination with BBB is ongoing.

Not Addressed
8 Natalya Zernitskaya Pedestrian &
Cyclist Safety
Priority
Explicitly prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety over vehicular throughput; noted pedestrians are
overrepresented in fatal/severe injury crashes.

The April 28 study's corridor-wide revisions (lane narrowing, pedestrian recall, raised crossing evaluation, bus lane expansion, Chelsea CIP priority) all reflect this direction. May 12 report frames revisions as 'further prioritizing pedestrian safety and reducing speeding.'
Addressed
9 Natalya Zernitskaya Raised Crossings Agreed with Zwick: explore raised crossings at certain intersections as a speed-calming tool.

Same as Item 4: vertical deflection to be evaluated during design at 6 eastern corridor locations. (May 12 report p. 4) Deferred to Design Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 2 # Council Member Topic Request / Direction (Feb 24) Staff Response (Apr 28 Study / May 12 Report) Status 10 Ellis Raskin No Delay to QuickBuild WorkEnsure that sending the plan back for revisions does not slow down safety improvements that can start immediately (signal timing, LPIs, quick-build treatments).

May 12 report explicitly lists items advanceable in 6-12 months (asterisked in phasing table): signal timing, LPIs, pedestrian recall, turn restrictions, and farside bus stop relocations. Staff confirmed no construction-ready work was paused pending re-adoption.

Addressed
11 Ellis Raskin Signal
Coordination for
Speed & Buses
Confirm that bus signal prioritization and signal timing can work together to both support bus reliability and mitigate vehicular speeding.

Signal timing coordination retained as Phase 1 element; bus-only lane expansion and queue jumps (Lincoln, 26th St) support bus priority. The study does not include a separate detailed treatment of the two-goal coordination, but it is an operational parameter within staff control.

Partially Addressed
12 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Return in 60 Days Directed staff to return within approximately two months (60 days) with revisions incorporated for council adoption.

Staff returned on May 12, 2026 — approximately 77 days after the Feb 24 meeting — with the revised study and adoption-ready staff report.

Addressed
13 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Lane Widths ~10 ft Formally directed lane width reduction to approximately 10 ft on average, specifically naming the 20th-Chelsea and Chelsea-26th segments.

Same as Item 1. April 28 study adopts 10 ft as the preferred width for all general travel lanes. (Apr 28 study p. 36; May 12 report p. 2) Addressed 14 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Far-Side Bus
Stops
Formally directed far-siding all bus stops wherever
feasible; called out 26th & Santa Monica specifically.

Same as Item 2. Far-side share increases to 80%; 26th St eastbound stop explicitly relocated. (May 12 report p. 3) Addressed 15 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Bus Lane – 4th to
Lincoln
Extend bus-only lane from 4th St to Lincoln Blvd
eastbound to address slowest bus speeds on the corridor.

Same as Item 3. Extended from 5th St (not 4th) to Lincoln; additional full-time lanes 14th-Lincoln in both directions. (May 12 report p. 3) Addressed 16 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Raised Crossings Directed exploration of raised crossings at new and existing unsignalized intersections.

Same as Items 4 and 9. Vertical deflection to be evaluated at 6 eastern locations in the design phase. Deferred to Design 17 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Chelsea – Phase 1
Priority
Directed staff to prioritize the pedestrian signal and raised median at Chelsea as a Phase 1 project, allocating capital budget if necessary, and expressed willingness to fund
through the CIP.

UPDATED: The revised May 12 report now includes a CIP request for Phase 2 capital improvements at Chelsea/Park Drive (updated from 'Phase 1' in the prior draft) for FY26/27 — an acceleration that proactively seeks local funding for the ~$1.15M project. Chelsea is not reclassified as Phase 1 in the phasing table, and completion is still targeted after the 2028 Olympics. The CIP request is a meaningful step but does not fully satisfy the direction to treat it as Phase 1. (May 12 report p. 5)
Partially Addressed
18 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) 6-12 Month Clarity Clarify specifically what can be accomplished in 6-12 months vs. a longer Phase 1 timeline, rather than treating all of Phase 1 as 'up to 2 years.'
May 12 report specifies that signal timing, LPIs, pedestrian recall, turn restrictions, and farside bus stop relocations can advance in 6-12 months, marked with asterisks in the phasing table (Section 7.2). (May 12 report p. 4)
Addressed
19 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Reevaluate Phase
1 for Safety Impact
Reevaluate the full Phase 1 list to ensure it reflects the highest-impact safety interventions, not just the easiest or cheapest to implement.

Revised study incorporates lane narrowing, pedestrian recall, expanded bus lanes, and the Chelsea CIP process — all higherimpact additions. May 12 report frames revisions as safety-driven. No explicit ranking or re-prioritization matrix of Phase 1 items was published.

Partially Addressed
20 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) CIP Budget Ask Requested City Manager provide feedback on what capital improvement budget is needed to fund key
interventions (especially Chelsea) rather than relying
solely on grant funding.

UPDATED: A CIP request for Phase 2 capital improvements (specifically including Chelsea/Park Drive) will be submitted in the FY26/27 budget cycle. The updated May 12 report changed the CIP bullet from 'Phase 1' to 'Phase 2' capital improvements — representing staff's proactive move to seek local funding for the ~$1.15M Chelsea intersection project. Specific budget figures are deferred to the CIP process. (May 12 report p. 5)
Partially Addressed
21 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Expanded KPIs Add robust performance metrics beyond crash/injury counts — including speed reduction, pedestrian delay,
bus on-time performance, and yield compliance — to
evaluate plan effectiveness post-implementation.

May 12 report commits to the Caltrans 'Counts+' evaluation methodology, tracking yield compliance, speed reduction, roadway user satisfaction, and transit performance before and after improvements. (May 12 report p. 4; Apr 28 study p. 40)
Addressed
22 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Pedestrian Recall
Priority
Directed staff to prioritize pedestrian recall (automatic walk signal, no button press required) over push-buttononly designs.

Same as Item 6. Recall in both directions from 7 AM to 10 PM. (May 12 report p. 3) Addressed
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 3 # Council Member Topic Request / Direction (Feb 24) Staff Response (Apr 28 Study / May 12 Report) Status 23 Caroline Torosis (Mayor) Safety Over Level
of Service
Stated emphatically that when safety improvements
conflict with vehicular level of service, safety must take precedence, consistent with Vision Zero policy. Criticized that some trade-offs in the draft appeared to favor car throughput.

April 28 study's revisions reflect a stronger safety-first orientation.

The governing principle is embedded in the revised study but not codified as an explicit decision rule or formal policy statement in the document.

Partially Addressed
24 Dan Hall Speed Limit
Reduction
Asked whether reducing speed limits along any portion of Santa Monica Blvd was studied. Staff indicated it was not.

Implicitly directed that speed limit reduction should be considered given speeding is the root cause of severe
crashes.

Neither the April 28 revised study nor the May 12 staff report addresses speed limit reduction on Santa Monica Blvd. Hall noted explicitly that 'we didn't even do any reductions in speed limits on Santa Monica during the last speed study.' Not addressed.

Not Addressed
25 Dan Hall Level of Service –
Priorities
Asked where level of service (LOS) falls in the project's priorities and whether any safety treatments were rejected specifically because of LOS/throughput concerns.

Expressed that LOS should not override safety.

Staff acknowledged LOS is considered alongside crash data (per study p. 29) but did not identify specific treatments rejected for LOS reasons. Hall's closing statement directed that no safety countermeasure be eliminated due to LOS concerns — see Item 29.

The revised study does not include an explicit LOS-safety priority hierarchy.

Partially Addressed
26 Dan Hall Pedestrian
Demand
Methodology
Asked whether pedestrian count data — used to
determine where to prioritize treatments — was controlled for the possibility that pedestrians avoid intersections because they are unsafe. Questioned whether low
pedestrian counts reflect low demand or a safety-induced suppression of use.

Neither the April 28 study nor the May 12 report addresses this methodological question. Staff did not respond with a revised demand analysis that accounts for suppressed pedestrian activity. Not addressed. Not Addressed
27 Dan Hall Raised Treatments
at Chelsea
Explicitly asked whether any raised treatments
(specifically a raised crosswalk) were explored at the
Chelsea intersection.

Staff confirmed raised crosswalks at Chelsea are among the 6 locations where vertical deflection will be evaluated during engineering design. (May 12 report p. 4; Apr 28 study pp. 36-37) — same as Item 4.

Deferred to Design
28 Dan Hall ADA Curb Cuts Asked whether the designs will comply with the City's policy on unidirectional/perpendicular curb cuts, noting that the 6th St intersection design appeared to show an outdated diagonal ramp.

Staff responded affirmatively that if perpendicular curb cuts are technically feasible, the City's policy will be followed. The April 28 study and May 12 report do not contain an explicit commitment in writing, but staff indicated design-phase compliance.

Partially Addressed
29 Dan Hall Direction: No
Safety
Countermeasure
Eliminated for LOS
During deliberations, Hall stated emphatically that if an improvement reduces the likelihood of someone being
killed or seriously injured but reduces vehicle throughput, the Council supports that improvement. He asked that the motion explicitly state 'no safety countermeasure will be eliminated because it worsens vehicular throughput.' He initially indicated reluctance to approve the current
document, but supported the motion after the City
Manager offered to return with specific updated concepts rather than general guidance. Hall seconded Mayor
Torosis's motion and voted AYE in the unanimous 7-0
vote.

The May 12 staff report and revised study do not include Hall's requested explicit prohibition as codified language. The revised study reflects a safety-first orientation in framing throughout, but the specific 'no elimination for LOS' commitment is not stated as a formal decision rule. The safety-vs-LOS principle (Item 23) remains partially addressed. Partially Addressed
Summary of Outcomes
Of the 29 discrete requests and directions identified from the February 24, 2026 meeting (5 council members: Zwick, Zernitskaya, Raskin, Torosis, Hall; Negrete absent):
• 12 were fully addressed in the April 28 revised study and/or May 12 staff report. • 11 were partially addressed — primarily Chelsea Avenue phasing, safety-vs-LOS codification, the CIP budget process, and Hall's direction on prohibiting LOS-based elimination of safety treatments.
• 2 were not addressed — physical bus stop shelters, and speed limit reduction on Santa Monica Blvd. Note: pedestrian demand methodology was also not addressed. • 4 were deferred to the engineering design phase — raised crossings/vertical deflection at 6 eastern corridor locations (Chelsea included).

Chelsea Avenue CIP Update (Items 5, 17, 20): The updated May 12 staff report changed the CIP bullet from 'Phase 1' to 'Phase 2' capital improvements. Staff will submit a CIP request for Chelsea/Park Drive in the FY26/27 budget cycle — a proactive step to secure local funding for the ~$1.15M pedestrian signal and raised median project. This represents an acceleration of the project Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Santa Monica Families for Safe Streets | Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study — Council Requests & Staff Response Tracker Prepared from Feb 24, 2026 transcript and staff reports | Updated May 2026 | Page 4 ahead of relying solely on competitive grant funding. Chelsea remains Phase 2 in the phasing table with a target completion date after the 2028 Olympics, but the CIP request is a significant advocacy win that should be monitored closely in the budget process.

Dan Hall's Questions and Direction (Items 24-29): Councilmember Hall raised the most probing substantive questions of the Feb 24 meeting and pushed hardest on Vision Zero alignment. During deliberations he stated reluctance to approve the current document — but after the City Manager offered to return with specific updated concepts, Hall seconded Mayor Torosis's motion and voted AYE in the unanimous 7-0 vote. His key outstanding asks — speed limit reduction study, pedestrian demand methodology controlling for safety-suppressed use, and explicit codified language prohibiting elimination of safety countermeasures for LOS — have not been addressed in the revised plan. These represent open advocacy opportunities.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
2 Mitchell Kois
From: Caitlin O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Feedback on Santa Monica Blvd. Plan

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Santa Monica Blvd project you are seeking to approve without adequate data or consideration tonight. While I support improvements to make roads safer for all, my specific concerns with approving this proposal at this time are (i) the lack of meaningful community input and (ii) the lack of data provided to make a fully informed and responsible decision.

More broadly, this is one of many recent road projects that has been taken without adequate data or community input, but instead appear solely aimed at pushing personal agendas of at least some of the Council members. These road projects are having a number of significant and negative impacts on the daily lives of residents, and there should be a serious effort to investigate these community impacts and use that feedback to improve future projects. It is particularly concerning that not even one word of the public analysis on this project is devoted to considering community impacts or proposed mitigation.

The City Council should not move forward with this or any other similar project until a full and fair effort has been made to further evaluate community input, collect data on community impacts and make improvements.

1. The posted materials indicate the City has neither provided a meaningful opportunity for community input on this plan nor received a meaningful amount of community feedback.

The report indicates that the community input is based primarily on feedback as follows (i) a library display which received 59 stickers on a map over several weeks (the Social Pinpoint mapping), (ii) a one half mile walk with 17 people including students from an elementary school (the Community Walk Audit), (iii) an open house at the YMCA attended by 62 people, with some of those participants being the City Council itself, and (iv) a website that received only 700 visits and 349 comments which were not reproduced in full anywhere and an unknown number of which the staff noted were irrelevant (and I should note that I live near Santa Monica and never received any notice of how to participate, nor did a single neighbor). Several other booths or tables with minimal response and a safety walk including 15 people were mentioned. The most heavily referenced “community input” in the report is the Social Pinpoint Mapping and the Community Walk Audit comprising approximately 76 people total, and the events included in total around 500 people, if you count stickers on a map, those under 10 and the City Council itself. Upon reading the annex in detail, many of the respondents submitted comments that are irrelevant and indicate they may have had no or inadequate knowledge of what they were actually commenting on.

The description of the community input relied on in recommending this plan cannot be fairly characterized as broad community engagement or in any way representative of broad community views. While clearly well-intentioned, the efforts to seek community feedback were too limited. Only limited input from small events is referenced, likely geared towards attendance by biased interest groups. There are no indications that anyone who was consulted provided feedback on the actual design being recommended. Feedback appears guided to the intended answer by specific questions seeking desired responses (“put a sticker on the map”). Feedback was even inferred based on the number of “thumbs up likes” on a comment, and 34 likes was interpreted as board community support. There is, significantly, no evidence you even asked any participant for feedback about lane narrowing or removing lanes or turn lanes. There is no summary of input from community groups or from businesses.

I would note that the Council appears to be pursuing a personal interest in certain changes, like vertical measures, which expert consultants have not recommended for a number of reasons. The Council should in particular seek robust community feedback on any specific measures being pursued based on personal interest of the Council members over recommendations of experts.

You should create a widely publicized survey seeking actual feedback from residents and businesses on the actual current proposed design. These proposed changes will impact tens of thousands of residents and drivers in Santa Monica. I am certain I could collect more than 500 surveys in less than a few weeks, and I would absolutely volunteer to provide ideas and assist in these efforts.

2. The report refers to Santa Monica Blvd. as a “vital artery” (with one report on vertical measures noting that it is intended to prioritize vehicle movement). Yet, you have presented essentially no data on, and have devoted not even a minimal level of Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
3 thought or explanation to, any community impacts of the proposed design, such as increased traffic and safety issues like those experienced on other recently redesigned streets.

Increased traffic, particularly on a major artery, meaningfully reduces quality of life for large numbers of residents of Santa Monica for many reasons. There is a one hundred percent chance that removing a lane from Santa Monica Blvd. will create additional traffic on this heavily trafficked artery that carries up to 29,000 vehicles a day. Narrowed lanes and removal of turning lanes are also very likely to create additional congestion and traffic. Reduced traffic flow and increased travel times and traffic on Broadway and Ocean Avenue as a result of recent narrowing/bike path additions and other measures has already left Santa Monica as one of the few remaining viable transit options. Additionally, there are thousands of new apartments being built near Santa Monica Blvd. with residents highly likely to own cars. So it is easy to imagine how this proposal will reduce quality of life for many residents who live, shop, work or drive in the area. It may also lead to further closure of businesses as residents avoid the area, which is yet another reduction to quality of life in Santa Monica. Yet, there is is absolutely no analysis of the expected impacts of this plan on vehicles or traffic conditions (or otherwise). There is also not one word of analysis on proposed mitigation to alleviate negative impacts.

There is only scant data mentioned or offered on vehicle usage in Santa Monica, traffic conditions or projected traffic impacts of the proposed plan, mainly in the form of limited relatively unreadable/uninformative table that contains vehicle data based on counting cars for a total of 8 hours on two days (which in some cases this table appears to actually admit the proposed changes will in fact make traffic worse). It is certainly insufficient to evaluate the impact of this plan on the community. There is in particular no data on relative benefits of an expansion of the dedicated bus lane versus relative harms. I had to run my own math because the report makes only casual mention of 29,000 vehicles a day using Santa Monica Blvd. However, based on the figures of approximately 2250 BBB users a day and 650 Metro users a day, it appears that bus riders would be very significantly less than 5% (perhaps below 2%) of the total individuals on the road. It is extremely hard to support a decision that is absolutely certain to increase vehicle travel times by significant amounts without any consideration of relevant benefits. You should consider detailed data about the number of vehicle passengers per day, the number of bus passengers per day, the additional travel time added for each vehicle and quantify relevant benefit (how many minutes will be saved overall for bus riders) versus relevant harm (how many added minutes of traffic added overall for vehicles) to vehicle passengers to determine if this is a logical change or not.

Further, the changes to Broadway, 17th Street and Wilshire have been observed to raise significant practical and safety issues in everyday use by many residents who live along these streets. Yet, no effort has been made to document and consider these issues and improve future designs using that learning.

Decisions that give no thought to consequences or mitigation of consequences are simply irresponsible. You should require a careful, data-driven study of community impacts and proposed mitigation before proceeding. You should also learn from the issues that have arisen with prior projects.

3. The report has presented only shallow consideration of the proposed changes and omitted any consideration of safety issues presented by the proposed changes.

There are a large number of changes proposed with only shallow consideration of each, and without any attempt to delineate or defend which are really necessary or helpful and why, or to look into potential safety issues posed by a number of them. There needs to be a far deeper analysis by paid experts as to the utility of each measure given the actual data and any countervailing safety issues, such as was done in the study provided on vertical measures. There have been a number of safety issues presented by other recent projects that were similarly given no consideration in the planning phase.

By way of just one example, you have proposed to narrow lanes to reduce speeds, with barely one paragraph of consideration. However, the report on vertical measures cites heavy usage by large vehicles and emergency vehicles as a reason that the road is not compatible with vertical measures. Studies have found every one-foot decrease in lane width increased crash risk by around 10% on streets used by large vehicles. As someone who drives Santa Monica daily, it is indeed clearly a main artery used frequently by large vehicles and is also a main route for emergency vehicles. So where are the Council’s findings and considerations on the large vehicles using the road and the likely number of additional accidents? Further, while there is observational data on speeding, the actual hard data cited speeding as a cause of only 1 serious injury crash in the past 10 years, and there is no hard data presented on speeding tickets or other objective measures. So how would an expert compare the relative benefits to narrowing lanes to reduce speed versus other considerations like potential for increased crashes due to large vehicles? I hope you will take time to more thoroughly and responsibly seek input and data on this plan before moving forward.

Best,
Caitlin O'Brien
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Deborah Dinsmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments on City Council meeting agenda item I. Approval of Revisions to the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and Adoption of the Plan

EXTERNAL
I’m going to be critical about a number of items in this study, not because I don’t care about safety but because I do. I don’t think the consequences of some of the proposals have been well thought out, as they contradict lived experience. For context, I have been both a pedestrian and cyclist more often than a driver through much of the area studied for 40 years. A beloved friend was killed by a reckless hit and run driver on Wilshire, and I understand the painful personal cost and real impact of street safety.

The curb extensions for pedestrians “look” helpful, but I doubt they’ve taken into consideration the reality of how the human brain responds to motion. They place the pedestrian about 2 steps closer to the traffic lane. Two steps is about the time it takes the brain to process the motion, especially in an active environment, and more time to initiate reaction, even at a safe speed. It’s the same principle of why it’s harder to visually fasten on to a static body standing on a moving scooter vs. a cyclist whose legs provide kinetic motion that catches the eye and quickens response time. What looks good on paper can turn out to be more dangerous in reality. I noticed this on the first extension I saw, on Pico Blvd. where the pedestrian was literally one step from oncoming traffic, and had been quite visible before the change. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. This is why I say a hard NO to curb extensions. Where are the data?
I’ve asked this question on NextDoor and received links supposedly with supporting data, but which actually speak to different circumstances that aren’t necessarily applicable to the ones being discussed. So I’ve learned to be careful with “the data show.” I hope you are too.

Curb extensions also make transit of some streets harder for cyclists. I’ve had to bail out on the sidewalk on a narrow street to avoid a curb protruding into my path of travel when there was a UPS truck. Plus they make for more stop and go traffic when they block the ability for a car to pull over to the right curb to make a turn. I’m surprised, frankly, at the unsustainable notions being proposed without data to support greater safety in exchange for greater gas consumption and wear and tear.

The study claims that making lanes narrower makes for fewer accidents. That just flies in the face of common sense. But it DOES make for a more difficult driving experience and disrupts a smoother Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
2 flow of traffic as the current example on Broadway amply illustrates. Talk about throwing sustainability out the window! Let’s learn from that mistake, please. Consider re-setting the speed limit, not that there is much speeding on my end (west) of crowded SMB! The study claims they want to “enhance accessibility for all, especially pedestrians with disabilities” and then proceeds to recommend truncated domes (those bumpy yellow mats) at curb ramps. Have you no idea of the danger and difficulty these pose to people with even slight mobility or stability issues in walking?
Your own report notes seniors experience injuries out of proportion to their number in the population. Our pedestrians include many stroke survivors, people with Parkinson’s, and others with cognitive and CNS impairments that make walking difficult. Walking or shuffling or dragging a foot across these bumpy mats is an absolute trip hazard. I’ve experienced this firsthand helping such a person over this dangerous terrain. I’ve had several older women tell me how much harder it was to cross these mats and feel stable. One was a tourist – otherwise fully able - who could not walk on them safely in her normal, low heeled walking shoes and had to quickly buy a pair of flats to get around town.

You cannot enter the UCLA Orthopedics clinic without walking over one, and I’ve joked (while helping a person with a shuffle make it across the mat) that they must be drumming up more business for their clinic. But it’s no joke. They are dangerous. And I can affirm it’s no fun navigating a wheelchair over them either. Please, just stop it.

One can’t figure out what a bus jump queue lane is from the description given, but one bright spot in the study is the suggestion that far side bus stop relocations be made. This seems like a good idea, although I imagine having to take out some parking in front of the stop so the bus can pull away from the curb.

I noticed throughout that crosswalks were illustrated with wide bands painted all the way across the walkway. While this might look pretty on renderings, the reality is they are dangerous to pedestrians when wet. That paint is slippery for the first several seasons until it wears down. It’s slippery enough to injure a pedestrian. I know. I’m one of them. After two injuries, and the second one severe, I learned to walk outside of the crosswalk if it’s raining or dewy. I would prefer we all have safe crosswalks to use. Please drop this paint scheme! Consider leaving an open, safe path between the lines. (BTW, the same applies to the paint on the bike lanes. It’s not common, but I’ve had my back wheel start to skid out from under me when it lost traction on the slick new paint in an emergency stop in the rain.)
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
3 Bike boxes – yikes! I’m an experience biker and I would never ever consider parking my bike at the front of a traffic lane instead of safely to the side, but slightly forward to be seen. This is an absurd and dangerous idea. I suspect most bikers think so too because I am out a lot and never see a fellow cyclist in one. Please, just say no.

It’s odd that “the community” found it difficult to cross 6th and Santa Monica Blvd. since it’s a light controlled intersection. I walk through there a lot and have no trouble crossing that street. Of course, I wait for the green light. I don’t know what others do.

Did the city actually conduct before and after assessments of other pedestrian scrambles installed? It would be good to hear the results. Hopefully you have actual numbers. It “sounds” good and may help all traffic. What is the documented evidence? If it’s positive, then by all means install more at very busy intersections. But make signage clear. We have a lot of tourists, and this is an odd arrangement that many don’t figure out and dart in front of cars anyway.

It was helpful to read about the problems at 14th Street. As a cyclist, it’s my preferred transit across SMB. Makes me reconsider, and I would if the information were not incomplete. E.g. how many total cyclists cross that intersection vs. others? Is the percentage of cyclist injury higher there? Or just the absolute number higher because there are so many more of them? I’ve crossed SMB easily 3,000 times on my bike without a light, but tend to pick 14th now, so I’d like to know.

Pedestrian Refuge Islands cut two ways. They do provide some armored cover in the middle of the street. The planting strip enhances appearance. The problem is what gets selected for planting. On the strip in front of City Hall they used a blooming plant that just perfectly masked the typical pedestrian the strip was meant to help. And I mean masked them so drivers couldn’t see. So please, pay attention to the landscaping and don’t shoot yourself in the foot by offering a safety measure then planting it in a way that makes it unsafe. Save the tall stuff above thigh height for mid-block.

Bus lanes. I commuted to work for years on the bus down SMB. So I know just what the pattern of the ride is like. It seems odd to put a bus lane where traffic seems less dense, on the east end of SMB. What would be the point? If the targeted segments for bus only lanes have the slowest transit times, is that not also true for cars? Why would you try to make it a little faster for a small cluster of vehicles and intensely worse for the majority, which is how the report reads? I would like to trust that the study carefully evaluated traffic densities to determine the actual impact but don’t see the evidence. Let’s see actual simulations based on real traffic patterns and the effect on ALL vehicles. After the Broadway fiasco, until the city is transparent with that kind of data, this is a hard NO.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
4 There is a common theme here of not thinking things through carefully. After the recent experience on Broadway, which is a mess, (and I say this as a constant cyclist on that street, but a mess for drivers as well as cyclists and walkers crossing the street) I’m invigorated to write to try to prevent more pre-packaged thinking based on unsupported theories and shaped community input that is common to public work sessions which are easy to influence to a preferred conclusion, whether or not it is the optimum one.

Sincerely,
Deborah Dinsmore
Santa Monica
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
5 Mitchell Kois
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:36 AM
To: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4I- Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Still Needs Improvement Attachments: Santa Monica Safety Study (3).pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers,
Please find attached my over-the-top comments on the revised Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study (SMBSS).

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 revised plan has many improved recommendations, it does not achieve the needed speed reduction and crosswalk safety required to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries, as was directed by council previously.

Additionally, since the last time the SMBSS was at council, the WSCCOG Westside Bus Connection Program has now transferred all responsibility for transit improvements to Santa Monica. Therefore, it is more critical than ever that transit improvements are maximized, and all of the WSCCOG recommendations are included in this proposal.

We cannot miss this generational opportunity to make Santa Monica Blvd safer for all users and a high quality transit corridor. I think this plan still needs safety and transit improvements (whether it be another revision or incorporated directly into 30% design), and council needs to (re)emphasize the direction to prioritize the proposed Chelsea Ave pedestrian signal to McKinley Elementary as a phase 1 or separate near-term priority in the interim.

Sincerely,
Connor Webb
Mid-city resident, 90404
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Mike <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Christopher Dishlip; Jennifer Taylor; Peter Wheelon; Liz Kennedy
Subject: re: Re: Agenda Item 4.I, Revisions to Chelsea/SM Blvd Intersection Concept Plan - Mike Sullivan/LAcarGUY
Attachments: Kia Santa Monica - Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Review and Recommended Modifications (04.06.2026).pdf; Kia SM - Alternative Route.pdf; Sullivan to Council (SM Blvd Safety Study) 2026.05.12.docx

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Please see the attached letter from myeslf, Mike Sullivan, owner of the Kia Santa Monica dealership at 2440 Santa Monica Boulevard. LA Car Guy respectfully requests that the City Council direct City Staff to refine the scope of the improvements at the Chelsea/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection to maintain the ability to turn left from Santa Monica Boulevard (westbound) into the Kia Dealership. As explained in the letter and the enclosed memorandum prepared by traffic engineering firm Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (“LLG”), this left turn can be maintained in line with the City safety goals. LLG has proposed one alternative concept plan that achieves both the City’s safety goals and maintains the left turn into the Kia dealership; however, there are likely other workable solutions.

Sincerely,
Mike Sullivan
LAcarGUY

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
7 Mitchell Kois
From: elnaz rahbar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As a McKinley Elementary parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

We heard that the construction of a proper crosswalk and pedestrian traffic signal at Chelsea and Santa Monica Blvd. won’t happen until Fall 2028 for logistical and financial reasons. But we can’t wait that long to take short-term action.

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.  Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Elnaz Rahbarlayegh
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Item 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Attachments: May 2026 SMFFSS Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Good morning council,
As a Santa Monica resident just a block away from SM Blvd, I support the attached letter from SM Families for Safe Streets and their recommendations for the SM Blvd Safety Study.

That corridor continues to invite unsafe driver behavior, kneecaps bus speed along critical transit routes, and remains an extremely hostile environment for pedestrians (even if they drove there). These improvements must deliver safety for local residents, business patrons, drivers, and children trying to get to school.

Dustin Shahan
90401
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:07 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]; Christopher Dishlip
Subject: Support Agenda Item 4-I: Approval of Revisions to the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and Adoption of the Plan
Attachments: 2026-05 CC Agenda Item 4-1 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 Agenda Item 4-I to approve the Revisions to the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and Adoption of the Plan at tonight's City Council meeting.

Staff and council have done the hard work. It is time to move forward with purpose and urgency. It is time to give staff the green light to hit the ground running to seek the funding required to make these projects real -- asap. We sincerely appreciate council's guidance and vision from the first presentation in June and again in February 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 led us to this point. We are looking forward to seeing these safety improvements implemented expeditiously as we know they will help reduce crashes – vehicle/pedestrian, vehicle/bike and vehicle/vehicle conflicts on the corridor and make our streets safer for everyone.

Creating a vibrant, people-first boulevard and a gateway into Santa Monica on Historic Route 66, as Councilmember Hall envisioned last June, makes a firm statement that we want to see realized.

What we do now improves the safety and resilience of our community and indeed everyone who visits Santa Monica now, and for generations to come.
--
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 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
10 Mitchell Kois
From: Lauren Dombrova <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; [email protected]; Barry Snell
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Lauren Dombrova
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
11 Mitchell Kois
From: leigh fenwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Forward this email to the following addresses below. But before clicking send, delete these emails and add your name and identify whether you're a parent, staff member, etc. [email protected]
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As a McKinley Elementary parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
12  Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
[Your Name] Leigh E. Fenwick
McKinley Elementary GrandParent
This message was sent to [email protected] from McKinley Elementary PTA. To unsubscribe from this list, click here. If you would like to manage your subscriptions, please visit https://mckinleypta.membershiptoolkit.com/user_subscriptions --
leigh e. fenwick
908-295-0311
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 4I: Please stop using RRFBs in the absence of other safety measures

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and Honorable City Council Members:

I am writing to request that City staff stop proposing/using RRFBs, in the absence of other safety measures, on our busy boulevards.

As anyone who's used them or attempted to use them knows, they're death traps -- sometimes literally, as we've now seen multiple times on Wilshire. And in some cases, they're even worse than no treatment at all because they create a false sense of security for pedestrians who think traffic will stop even though it often won't.

I'm a big guy and, even with a kid on my shoulders (so 8+ feet off the ground -- should be highly visible), cars on Wilshire still regularly blow through crosswalks "enhanced" by RRFBs while me and my kids are attempting to cross. I can't imagine how, let's say, a 10 year-old or someone in a wheelchair is supposed to use an RRFB safely on their own. And if that's the case, then our City is failing us when it designs and redesigns our roads.

I think some strong direction to staff that these kind of treatments will no longer be welcome or sufficient would be immensely helpful to achieving our Vision Zero goals.

Thank you,
Brian Sweeney
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
14 Mitchell Kois
From: Zachary Dietrich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; [email protected]; Barry Snell
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Zach Dietrich
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
15 Mitchell Kois
From: Erin Buckley Burnett <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; [email protected]; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As an active Santa Monica resident and McKinley Elementary parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Erin Buckley Burnett
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
16 Mitchell Kois
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

Sam Shapiro-Kline
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
17 Mitchell Kois
From: Jonathan Balk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
18 Mitchell Kois
From: Jessica Carpowich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: ‼URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As a McKinley Elementary alumni parent, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Jessica Carpowich
McKinley Elementary Alumni Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
19 Mitchell Kois
From: Anh Pham <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.  Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.  Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Anh Pham
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
20 Mitchell Kois
From: J B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

EXTERNAL
I urge the Council to immediately adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard to unlock criƟcal state and federal safety funding and signal pedestrian and cyclist safety as an immediate policy priority.

Thank you,
Jesse Budlong
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
21 Mitchell Kois
From: Krystal von der Lieth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Krystal von der Lieth
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
22 Mitchell Kois
From: Philip Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 13.I: Support for Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

EXTERNAL
I urge the Council to immediately adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard to unlock critical state and federal safety funding and signal pedestrian and cyclist safety as an immediate policy priority. -Philip Taylor
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
23 Mitchell Kois
From: Lauren Movius <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Dr. Lauren Movius
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
24 This message was sent to [email protected] from McKinley Elementary PTA. To unsubscribe from this list, click here. If you would like to manage your subscriptions, please visit https://mckinleypta.membershiptoolkit.com/user_subscriptions Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
25 Mitchell Kois
From: Ayelet cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Ayelet Cohen,
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
26 Mitchell Kois
From: r3000 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Santa Monica City Council,
As parents of two McKinley Elementary students, I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan at tonight’s meeting. Our community has been an active partner in this study for 18 months, and we need these safety improvements moved from "plan" to "reality" immediately.

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

I would like to add that even with new and greatly appreciated safety measures at Arizona and 26th St. impatient drivers are constantly "blocking the box" (especially in the afternoon) in their race to get North or South and it would be great to see some enforcement at this intersection and along Arizona generally.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Rael Lewis & Ellen Moody
McKinley Elementary Parents
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
27 Mitchell Kois
From: Michele C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Street safety comment for May 12, 2026

EXTERNAL
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for over 25 years, and I love it here. I have always loved how forward-thinking we are and the new safety features on our streets are a great example of that. I value human life and safety above all else when evaluating our road design. It is more important than moving cars quickly, providing on-street parking or convenience. Please continue to improve our streets so we can become a city where nobody dies or is injured by traffic accidents that could have been prevented with better infrastructure.

Thank you, Michele
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
28 Mitchell Kois
From: Elena Natou <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell Subject: URGENT: Protect McKinley Students – Vote YES on Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for right-turn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.
 Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Elena Natou
McKinley Elementary Parent
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
29 Mitchell Kois
From: Sofia Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study

I specifically ask that you include the following in your motion:
 Implement "Quick-Build" Medians by August 2026: The plan already calls for rightturn only treatments, thus eliminating left turns from southbound Chelsea to SM Blvd and left turns from eastbound Santa Monica to Chelsea northbound - but only through striping and signage during “phase 1”. We ask you to go one step further, and use a “quick-build median element” (plastic bollards or a “hardened centerline”). We already know that signage isn’t enough, as the City installed a no left from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica two years ago.
 Explicitly Include a HAWK Beacon for Chelsea: For Phase 2, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon would work. It is a proven, cost-effective red-signal technology essential for a school zone with a significant special education population.  Prioritize Green Infrastructure: The landscaped median proposed for Chelsea will transform the street into one meant for kids and also, slow drivers down.

The families at our school cross these streets every single day. We are asking for a "quick win" this summer and a commitment to a safer, greener corridor for the long term.

Thank you for your leadership and for keeping our students safe.

Sincerely,
Sofia Garcia
McKinley Elementary Parent
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
30 This message was sent to [email protected] from McKinley Elementary PTA. To unsubscribe from this list, click here. If you would like to manage your subscriptions, please visit https://mckinleypta.membershiptoolkit.com/user_subscriptions Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
31 Mitchell Kois
From: Sirinya Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:46 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Sirinya Matute; Elizabeth Badger; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems Subject: Support item 4I
Attachments: McK SM Blvd Safety Study Letter to Council 5.11.2026.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and members of the City Council:

The McKinley Elementary PTA is voicing strong support for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study and urging the City Council to adopt it, with modifications PTA representatives have already discussed with staff. Please see the attached letter.

Our top priority is requesting certain safety improvements at Santa Monica Boulevard and Chelsea Avenue be installed before the 2026-27 school year. This will provide immediate safety benefits before a fully-redesigned intersection is constructed after the citywide roadway construction moratorium for the summer of 2028 Olympic and Paralympic games. Specifically, we request use of quick build materials to restrict left turns from EB Santa Monica Blvd. to NB Chelsea and from SB Chelsea to eastbound Santa Monica. There is posted signage presently prohibiting lefts from SB Chelsea to EB Santa Monica, but compliance is hit-or-miss. If you don't believe me, just consult with our crossing guard Mr. Victor. He's been there for 17 years.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sirinya Matute MA UP, PMP
President, McKinley PTA
2025-2026 School Year
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
May 12, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, On behalf of the 228 members of the McKinley Elementary School PTA (including 33 kids!), we are pleased to voice our strong support for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study. That said, understanding that construction of the proposed improvements for the Chelsea Ave intersection may not begin until Fall 2028, we have a suggestion for a short-term fix (you may call it quick-build, I call it a quick-win.)
Our Community's Engagement with This Study
Our PTA and school administration have worked closely with the study team to support public outreach, far beyond a single PTA meeting. The project team attended McKinley events four times over 18 months, enabling them to speak with hundreds of families reflecting the demographics of this neighborhood, and welcomed our children to their February 2025 walk audit. We also conducted our own outreach, culminating in a Traffic Safety Session on February 9, 2026, attended by City staff, including the Chelsea Avenue crossing guard, to gather input on the plans for this corridor.

Highlights and concerns raised by our community at that session included:
● Potential spillover traffic on Arizona Avenue if a full traffic signal were added; ● Traffic signal synchronization, including at Arizona and 26th Street; ● The need to monitor changes in travel behavior and traffic patterns when our new building opens and the car line returns to Chelsea Avenue southbound; and ● The importance of designing our streets to meet the needs of our school's sizable special education student population.

We voted as a group to formally back Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study and to take steps to advocate for its implementation.

Chelsea Avenue: We Support Acceleration — With Two Tweaks We know that the complete buildout of Chelsea is a “Phase 2” project, and are pleased that staff will be seeking funding for the phase 2 design in your FY27-28 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) request. Our PTA will be tracking and voicing support.

For the record: we support a HAWK beacon (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) as an acceptable Phase 2 crossing technology. We urge Council to instruct staff to include this explicitly in the bid package. A HAWK beacon is proven, cost-effective, and appropriate for an elementary school zone.

1. Priority Request: Quick-Build Turn Restrictions Before the Next School Year Parents kept asking, what can be done sooner?
Our suggestion is: a quick-build restrictive median at Santa Monica Boulevard and Chelsea Avenue that prohibits the following turning movements:
↰ Left turns from eastbound Santa Monica Blvd. to northbound Chelsea Ave.; and Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
↰ The resulting conflicting movement: left
turns from southbound Chelsea Ave. to
eastbound Santa Monica Blvd.

These movements create dangerous vehiclepedestrian conflicts and serve no school-access purpose once our new building opens this fall.

Families driving to school will turn north on 23rd
Street and follow the established car line
circulation on Chelsea Avenue. As recognized
in the Phase 2 intersection re-design, allowing
turning movements from Santa Monica
Boulevard onto Chelsea at this location adds
conflict points that serve no legitimate
school-access purpose and endanger the
children we are trying to protect.

Importantly, this is not a complex engineering
project. City staff already has the in-house
expertise to design and install a hardened
centerline or quick-build median of this kind. The
April 28 study already contemplates right-turn
treatment at this intersection.

We are asking for one additional step: make it
physically restrictive, not just marked. McKinley Elementary is ready to be a model for this type of quick-build
school-zone intervention. We know there are other schools around Santa Monica that face similar challenges. If we can demonstrate that City staff can move quickly and effectively at McKinley, it creates a template that benefits children across the city.

Landscaping: We Strongly Support Green Infrastructure
We urge the Council to direct staff to:
● Prioritize shade tree planting along the Chelsea Avenue intersection redesign as part of both the Phase 1 quick-build and the Phase 2 capital project; ● Design the new raised median at Chelsea Avenue with landscaping that creates a visible, continuous green presence at the entrance to the school zone; ● Ensure that landscaping decisions are coordinated with the planned traffic signal and pedestrian improvements so that no trees or plantings obstruct signal visibility or crossing sightlines; and
● Incorporate this project into the City's implementation of Parks Master Plan Action 5.1.1 — Safe Routes to Parks — which prioritizes bike and pedestrian improvements on routes near parks and streets with the highest injury occurrence.

Our families cross Santa Monica at Chelsea every school day. We are grateful for the City's investment in this safety study and for the commitment to bring the Chelsea intersection improvements forward. We look forward to partnering with the City on implementation.

Sincerely,
Sirinya Matute, MA UP, PMP
President, 2025-2026 McKinley Elementary School PTA

1. We were grateful that the City responded to our school's suggestion that the city install this MUTCD-compliant sign prohibiting left turns onto Santa Monica Blvd. It would've taken an element of unpredictability out... if everyone complied.

Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Fun Pictures of the outreach process!
L: Carlos and Kyle at Multicutural Day January 2025; R: Edgar at Back to School Night in Fall 2025.

We wanted to make sure that this project team got to talk to everyone at our school (we did not want a repeat of the controversy of the 17th Street Protected Bike Lane project). So, we showed our annual event calendar to the city project team and began to piece together when the team could come to meet directly with all of our families - not just those lucky enough to go to a PTA meeting. This project team attended our Multicultural Day in January 2025 (an epic event, drawing so many people), our Back to School Nights, and our Literacy Night (we justified it when we realized that teaching a child (OR an adult, for that matter) how to read a conceptual design was definitely a form of literacy!)
McKinley families turned out for the February 2025 walk audit, making up Item 4-I
May 12, 2026
Item 4-I
May 12, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 12, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
May 12, 2026