Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Ruthann Lehrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7
EXTERNAL
City Council Meeting January 13, 2026
Item 7. Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review
Dear City Councilmembers,
These comments are submitted on my own behalf as a former Landmarks Commissioner.
First: The recommendation to eliminate the residency requirement for five Landmarks Commission appointments is not constructive and should not be approved. In its 50 years since adoption, recruitment has not been a problem and there have not been long vacancies. While many issues in the landmarks ordinance have been identified as problematic, such as the Structure of Merit, the residency requirement is not one of them. This recommendation is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Residency requirements for appointments to a historic preservation board or commission are standard throughout California, and for good reason. Residents have an in-depth knowledge and commitment to their community through their lived experiences. They are stakeholders in the history and future prosperity of the community that is theirs. They have deep connections to many aspects of the community and will strive to improve their environment because that’s in their personal interest.
The review and update of the landmarks ordinance is badly needed and hopefully the City will be in a position to address that in a comprehensive way, with professional guidance, in the near future. A piecemeal approach is ill-advised, and this recommendation should be rejected.
Secondly: The financial costs of staffing the Landmarks Commission.
The numbers provided for the Landmarks Commission reflect activity for the entire historic preservation program, and do not reflect the actual workload of staffing the Commission itself as a stand-alone activity. Over the last few years, the Landmarks Commission’s role and responsibilities have shrunk so that meetings are sometimes cancelled or lack a robust agenda. This is due to some legal decisions from the City Attorney, but mostly derive from the steep financial barriers to file designation applications. The filing fee is around $7,000, far in excess of any other California city, most of which charge no fee or a minimal fee to encourage public participation in its historic preservation program. Clearly Santa Monica is an outlier from an equity standpoint. Currently applications come in as a response to a demolition permit (a rare event), where the cost burden is on the demolition applicant, or from rich people. The fee problem is a major impediment to public participation in recognizing and protecting our diverse cultural heritage.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ruthann Lehrer
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 9:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7a - Boards and Commissions - Failure to Evaluate Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Re: Failure to Evaluate Airport Commission as Required by Resolution No. 11510 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Airport Commission Was Improperly Excluded From the Staff Report I am writing to express concern regarding the exclusion of the Airport Commission from the recent staff report reviewing the City’s boards and commissions. This omission is inconsistent with Resolution No. 11510 (CCS), which expressly requires a comprehensive review of all advisory bodies every five years to evaluate effectiveness, accountability, scope, and alignment with City needs. The Airport Commission appears only in Attachment A (Staff Cost Snapshot), which confirms that it is the second most costly commission and includes its workplan, yet the report contains no substantive staff analysis or evaluation of the Airport Commission itself. In effect, during a period of financial crisis, one of the City’s most expensive commissions was identified, but not reviewed, contrary to the Council’s adopted governance requirements.
The Airport Commission is the Second Highest Cost Commission This omission is particularly troubling given that the Airport Commission is the second highest cost commission in the City.
Despite its significant cost, which may reasonably be attributable to the absence of a single commissioner with aeronautical knowledge or experience, the report contains no assessment of the Commission’s composition, qualifications, performance, or continued fitness to serve in its advisory role.
None of the Airport Commissioners Are Pilots or Have Aeronautical Expertise The need for evaluation is critical. The Airport Commission is charged with advising the Council during a period of unprecedented operational, regulatory, and environmental complexity, including the introduction of public charter operations and the City’s first aviation business to complete the environmental review process for a COP. These matters implicate FAA regulation, aviation safety, airfield operations, and technical compliance. Yet none of the current Airport Commissioners are pilots, aeronautical users, or individuals with aviation expertise. A commission tasked with advising on aviation matters but lacking aviation expertise cannot meet the standards contemplated by Resolution 11510 or serve the Council or residents effectively.
Three of the Five Airport Commissioners Live Less Than 1,000 Feet from the Runway in Violation of FPPC Regulation 187202.2(a)(7)
Equally concerning are unaddressed transparency and conflict-of-interest issues. As illustrated below, three of the five Airport Commissioners appear to reside within 1,000 feet of the airport. Under FPPC Regulation 18702.2(a)(7), this proximity constitutes a presumptively material financial interest, raising serious concerns regarding conflicts of interest and the Commission’s ability to provide neutral, unbiased advisory input.
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
2 The Council has recently recognized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of conflicts of interest, including Councilmember Dan Hall’s recusals due to residential proximity as defined by FPPC Regulation 18702.2(a)(7). That same standard must apply to appointed commissioners. The Airport Commission routinely advises on noise policies, operational changes, and development matters that directly affect the commissioners’ own homes and neighborhoods. Concentrating all commissioners within the airport’s immediate impact area undermines objectivity and public trust.
These issues mirror those that led the Council to restructure the Downtown Santa Monica Board in July, 2025 due to concerns about transparency, accountability, and balanced representation. Yet the Airport Commission, despite comparable and arguably greater concerns, was not evaluated at all.
Updating and rebalancing the Airport Commission is required by Resolution 11510 and essential to ensuring informed decision making, regulatory compliance, and public confidence. A proper evaluation should address commission composition, subject-matter expertise, geographic balance, independence, and compliance with conflict-of-interest standards.
The failure to evaluate the Airport Commission is not a minor oversight. It represents a departure from the Council’s own governance requirements at a time of fiscal constraint and significant operational change at the airport. To remedy this, I respectfully urge the Council to take the following corrective actions:
1. Direct staff to immediately conduct and present a full evaluation of the Airport Commission, consistent with Resolution No. 11510 (CCS), including an assessment of the Commission’s effectiveness, scope, staffing Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
3 demands, qualifications, and continued necessity. That evaluation should expressly address whether the absence of commissioners with aeronautical knowledge has contributed to increased staff and time of the City Attorney's Office, reliance on outside consultants, and higher overall costs including staff resources.
2. Require staff to analyze potential cost savings and efficiency gains that could result from appointing commissioners with aviation expertise who are capable of independently evaluating FAA guidance, operational data, and technical claims, thereby reducing avoidable demands on City staff and the City Attorney’s Office.
3. Schedule a Council study session focused on the structure and composition of the Airport Commission, including whether the current configuration complies with best practices for transparency, balance, and independence, and whether changes are necessary to address conflicts of interest arising from residential proximity under FPPC Regulation 18702.2(a)(7).
4. Direct the City Clerk and appointing authorities to develop recommendations for rebalancing the Commission, including criteria to ensure subject-matter expertise, geographic diversity, and independence from concentrated proximity impacts, consistent with the standards the Council applied when restructuring other city Boards.
These actions are corrective, fiscally responsible, and required by the Council’s own resolution. Taking them now will strengthen public trust, improve the quality of advisory input, and ensure that decisions affecting Santa Monica Airport are informed by expertise, balance, and compliance with conflict-of-interest standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Gail Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete
Subject: Housing Commission - opposed to consolidation
To All:
I am writing as an individual who happens to be Chair of Housing Commission. Because we did not have suƯicient time to discuss among the other Commissioners, I will speak for myself.
I am presenting concepts which support why I believe combining Housing Commission and Disabilities Commission is not in the best interest of the people of Santa Monica.
Here are my reasons:
1. Section 8 renters under CCSM and People’s Choice management of their buildings.
We present a nonbiased front where these issues can be voiced and heard without fear of threat or reprisal to the tenants. Particularly if the typical route becomes non satisfactory to the tenants.
2. Consulting regarding continued adjustments to the BMH list in favor of those with immediate needs who are residents of Santa Monica. Tier 1 being of the most vulnerable. a. Tier 2 seems to be taken over by the Union Local 11 to Hotel works by the lobbyists, not even our staƯ can get housing in the city they work for and support.
3. We oƯer the City Council extended research on potential builds that may or may not benefit the residents of the city. Ex: too many Studio units vs 2-3 bedroom units that would promote families in Santa Monica.
a. The City is being built not for families and their progeny, but single transient workers who may or may not give back to the city in a meaningful way.
Basically we believe our voice oƯers a very important Advisory body to City Council to “strengthening the social, economic and cultural vitality and diversity of Santa Monica through Habitable, fair and equitable housing for all.
Gail Gordon
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Info <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 4:59 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A: Boards and Commissions Report
Attachments: 2026-0113-Item&A-BoardsAndCommissionReview-SMC - Letterhead.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please find a letter attached from the Santa Monica Conservancy regarding issues related to the Landmarks Commission, which appear on the January 13, 2026 agenda, Item 7A.
Thank you!
Santa Monica Conservancy
Preservation Resource Center
at the Shotgun House
2520 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 399-3599
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
January 13, 2026
Dear City Council,
Landmarks Commission Residency Requirements
The Santa Monica Conservancy understands the need to look at the Boards and Commissions structure in the city as whole. But the recommendation made in your staff report for the Landmarks Commission to eliminate the city-residency requirement for five of seven commissioners is substantive not structural and is out of sync with the purpose of the review, to ensure commissions “are impactful, efficient, not overly burdensome to support, aligned with available resources, and empower residents to contribute meaningfully.”
A change to the Landmarks Commission residency requirement cuts to the foundation of nationwide best practices for local heritage conservation programs which are designed to tap into the deeply embedded familiarity with the context of a city found only in its residents. Of all our boards, the Landmarks Commission relies the most on this kind of familiarity with the city, yet it is the only one for which this change has been proposed. Furthermore, as there has never been a longstanding vacancy on the Landmarks Commission, we don’t see the reason or the need to broaden the field for applicants at this juncture.
Please do not change the local residency requirement for Landmarks Commissioners.
Boards and Commission Staffing Cost Snapshot
Equally, if not more pressing is the need to understand the disproportionately high figures for time spent by staff on Landmarks Commission meetings in Attachment 7Ab, which is almost four times higher than the time and money spent on the second most costly commission on the list.
Perhaps these numbers refer to the time staff spends on all work related to the Landmarks Ordinance, not just on the Landmarks Commission itself. If that is the case, we hope the numbers will nonetheless be probed. Considering that the heavy lifting of study and analysis of Landmark designation applications is sent to outside consultants whose fees are paid by the applicants and not the city, the numbers are very high.
Please help get more information about the reported staffing costs before taking any action.
The Future of the City’s Heritage Conservation Program
Ultimately, today’s proposed tweaks to the program amount to what we refer to in the historic preservation world as incremental degradation. It happens to historic structures when they change Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
2 the windows, and then the doors, and then the roofing without ever considering the impact on the integrity of the building as a whole. In Santa Monica, it is happening to our Landmarks Program.
Recently, City Council has discussed Structures of Merit, Mills Act Contracts, and now the requirements and staffing of the Landmarks Commission itself. In recent years there have been changes to the demolition review process, extreme hikes in the cost of filing an application by the public and by non-profits, and the removal of the ability of the landmarks commission to file a nomination for designation on its own behalf. All these things are chipping away at the integrity of the program. This is evident in the significant drop in applications filed. We should cease to piecemeal adjustments to the city’s historic preservation program. Instead, we should spend our time and money to look at it holistically.
In 2020, the City of Santa Monica was in the process of hiring a specialized preservation planner with the training and experience in historic preservation principles and practice to manage the program. This single change has the potential to reduce city costs, and to create significant efficiencies. As a reminder, historic preservation is a core principle of our LUCE, and we have adopted a Historic Preservation Element.
The Santa Monica Conservancy has always been and remains a willing partner in the modernization of our historic preservation program, and we urge the city to be cautious about making any further piecemeal changes to it. Please consider an investment in proper consultation and public process that will realign historic preservation here holistically so Santa Monica’s heritage can continue to be celebrated.
Sincerely,
Mario Fonda-Bonardi
Board President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: item 7
From: Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:09 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: item 7
EXTERNAL
p.s. The same for Boards and Task Forces too. .Thanks.
Bonnie Johnstone
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 7:07 PM Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
Before mandating Commission reductions and/or mergings, I strongly suggest that all of you meet with the various members and get their take.
Bonnie Johnstone
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Stedge-Stroud <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7.A. Boards & Commissions Comprehensive Review
EXTERNAL
Hi Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I support the staff recommendations.
Thank you!
Brian Stedge-Stroud
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Alex Elliott
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 11:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 7A Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review My name is Alex Elliott, I am the Chair for the Santa Monica Disabilities Commission, and I urge you not to eliminate the Santa Monica Disabilities Commission.
Consolidating the Disabilities Commission, Housing Commission, and Human Services Commission into a single “Housing and Human Services Commission” would quietly erase something profound: six guaranteed seats for people with disabilities. Six lived-experience voices that exist today by design.
Those seats are not symbolic. They are how Santa Monica ensures that programs and policies are shaped by people with disabilities. In other words: nothing about us without us.
In a consolidated body with only seven seats total, it will be impossible, by design, to preserve the representation of people with disabilities. This is not streamlining. It is silencing by dilution.
The consolidation is also rooted in a flawed assumption: that disability is merely a housing and human services issue. It is not. Disability is a civil rights, infrastructure, and design issue that touches every system that Santa Monica operates. The proposed consolidation reduces the advisory scope of people with disabilities to a fraction of what is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Eliminating the Disabilities Commission does not eliminate the need for accessibility. It eliminates early warning. It shifts the burden onto individuals to advocate alone, navigate bureaucracy, or pursue legal remedies that could have been avoided through planning and community input from people with disabilities.
When a city removes its disability advisory body, it sends a harmful message that disabled residents are optional stakeholders. Do not move Santa Monica backward. Keep the Disabilities Commission.
Please do not consolidate us out of the room.
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Kevin McKeown <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 7 -- Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica’s board and commission system came about over multiple decades as a triumph of progressive inclusionism, a quite deliberate attempt to engage more people in local governance and give the Council the benefit of broader expertise.
Please weigh carefully whether that is a luxury we can no longer afford, or continues to be a worthwhile investment in community. If some boards and commissions have become dysfunctional or redundant, prune minimally and with great care.
Keep in mind that running our boards and commissions requires a truly tiny percentage of the City budget.
Six years of COVID and financial constraints have left us with much rebuilding to do. Rather than discard boards and commissions because of quorum challenges, the Council could choose to redouble recruitment efforts and bring on a whole new generation of energetic, informed contributors.
One reason the boards and commissions used to be more relevant was ongoing Council involvement, with a Councilmember assigned as liaison to each one. Yes, that meant more work for Councilmembers.
The liaison policy did not end because of undue influence, but because some Councilmembers at the time did not want the additional commitment and resented the recognition other Councilmembers got for continuing to work as liaison for multiple commissions. There was never, to my knowledge, an actual problem with “undue influence” — and both the commissions and the Council benefited from ongoing communication.
This study session is a welcome opportunity to ask probing questions and give thoughtful direction to staff. The bathwater may be brackish, but let’s keep the baby, OK? Thanks,
Kevin McKeown
Retired former Mayor
————————————
K e v i n M c K e o w n
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mckeown.net__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!ob5Uw3sOuVbGiZpuKzPQo_VyB RbuHMSH4ZFs7kI3WaVk9bC-3MYJ1KxK8rEwXxNLl638nK3dX8l9hhJCW9QTTWhWEkM$ Choose to be conscious
————————————
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026
Item 7-A
January 13, 2026