City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Aileen Reynolds, Director, Housing and Human Services Department Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Policies for Boards and Commissions and Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending and establishing various Boards and Commissions Resulting from the 2025 Comprehensive Review and Establishment of a Restorative Justice Commission
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance to: amend sections regarding the Public Safety Reform Oversight Commission, Arts Commission, Disabilities Commission, and Human Services Commission to establish a new Housing and Human Services Commission; add new sections converting the Urban Forest Task Force into a Commission and establish a new Restorative Justice Commission;
2. Adopt the attached resolution amending various sections on the Policies for City Boards, Commissions, Committees, Task Forces, and Regional Advisory Boards, and repealing Resolution No. 11510 (CCS);
3. Review and provide direction on information requested at the January 13, 2026 Council meeting, and an alternative option for the Disabilities Commission; and
4. Adopt a finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Executive Summary
At the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting, staff presented the Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review and made recommendations to make the program: impactful, efficient, not overly burdensome to support, aligned with available 2 of 12
resources, and empower residents to contribute meaningfully. Council directed staff to effectuate the following beginning July 1, 2026:
1. Allow the: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Advisory Committee to hold their annual meetings jointly with a Council Audit Subcommittee meeting, and the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee (Clean Beaches Committee) to hold their quarterly meetings jointly with the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment (Commission on Sustainability);
2. Consolidate the Housing Commission and the Human Services Commission into a new Housing and Human Services Commission (HHS Commission), and maintain a standalone Disabilities Commission;
3. Reduce membership of the Arts Commission and Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC), and expand the age range for the two PSROC commissioners between the ages of 18-22 to “18-25”;
4. Convert the Urban Forest Task Force into a formal commission; and
5. Implement the proposed administrative changes to the general policies and procedures governing boards, commissions and task forces, and remove Sections 1.G (ineligibility of close family relatives of Council) and 2.G. Term Limits for Regional Advisory Boards.
Council also requested the following:
1. Review of the Landmarks Commission’s work, such as the Mills Act and Structures of Merit, and efficiency options;
2. Youth representation options.
3. A centralized system of measuring performance for boards & commissions through the City Clerk’s Office, such as efficiencies and positive impacts on policy; and
4. A review of the Airport Commission’s composition and potential conflict of interests;
Further, on January 27, 2026, as part of the consideration related to the Ebony Beach Club matter, the City Council directed the establishment of a new Restorative Justice 3 of 12
Program to advance the development of a programmatic framework for addressing claims of historically rooted harm in Santa Monica. As part of that overarching program, among other action, the City Council approved the allocation of substantial resources to redress past harms, including:
• Allocating $3.5 million towards the Restorative Justice Program in one-time funds that have been received by the City as part of a recent deal with the RAND Corporation.
• Directing that an additional $2 million in funding that will be received by the City in the future from the RAND Corporation deal be reserved to support the Restorative Justice Program initiative.
• Authorizing the establishment of a formal City Council appointed Restorative Justice Commission to help guide the efforts of the overall program.
Per that direction from the City Council, this Boards & Commission update contemplates the establishment of a new Restorative Justice Commission that would serve as an upgrade to the former staff-developed Landback + Reparations Task Force. If approved, the Restorative Justice Commission would be tasked with developing program criteria, eligibility standards, and oversight mechanisms for the broader Restorative Justice Program.
Overall, this item proposes a resolution and ordinance implementing Council’s direction, reports back on information requested, and provides an alternative option regarding the composition of the Disabilities Commission.
Discussion
Staff followed up with specific Departments regarding their applicable board or commission on next steps. Staff Liaisons for the applicable boards and commissions informed their members of Council’s direction. Liaisons for the TOT Advisory and Clean 4 of 12
Beaches Committee and will submit updated Bylaws for members’ approval and update agenda templates and webpages to reflect joint meetings after July 1, 2026.
Amendment to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
The proposed ordinance updates sections pertaining to the following Commissions with most proposals effective July 1, 2026:
Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Updates to SMMC 2.50.020 (a-d) would: 1) reduce membership from 11 members to seven in phases by dissolving two seats after June 30, 2026 and two more after June 30, 2027; and 2) change the age range for the two commissioners between the ages of 18-22 to “18-25”. Previously, it was also proposed to allow commissioners to not only reside in Santa Monica but work or go to school in the City. Upon further review, staff is withdrawing this proposal.
Human Services Commission
SMMC Chapter 2.62 would: 1) be to delete and dissolve the current Housing Commission and Human Services Commission after June 30, 2026; 2) replaced to establish a new consolidated Housing and Human Services Commission to allow the appointment of seven new members, where two members must be affordable housing participants, one of which must be 62 years of age or older and the other be unhoused or formerly unhoused; 3) incorporate Housing Commission-related powers and duties.
Arts Commission
Updates to SMMC 2.64.020(a) would reduce membership from nine members to seven after June 30, 2026. As other sections have not been updated since 1982, staff proposes additional updates to SMMC 2.64.020(b)-.040 to: 1) remove the requirement that Commissioners must also be members of the Santa Monica Arts Foundation as the Foundation’s Bylaws now only require three Commissioners in the Board and is consistent with current nonprofit governance practices and the operational independence of the Foundation; 2) add new artistic disciplines applicants and members may work in; 3) delete Section 2.64.030 as the Staff Liaison is the dedicated 5 of 12
support staff to the Commission, hiring the Department Director is under the City Manager’s authority and decisions on administrative matters are under the Department Director’s authority; and 5) clarify the Commission’s role to advise on programs and include the Arts Foundation as another body the Commission works with.
Urban Forest Commission
Adding SMMC Chapter 2.73 to convert the current Urban Forest Task Force to a Commission, reappoint current members to new terms, and direct the Department to stagger terms by drawing lots to ensure future vacancies are distributed evenly over time.
Restorative Justice Commission
Adding SMMC Chapter 2.74 to create a new, seven-member Restorative Justice Commission to help advise and lead development of the Santa Monica Restorative Justice Program. This new seven (7) member commission would be appointed by the City Council. Further, to ensure informed and meaningful participation, each appointee will need to be a resident of the City of Santa Monica, and shall have subject matter expertise relevant to restorative justice, or have lived experience representing communities impacted by past and present inequities. This new Restorative Justice Commission would be charged with developing program criteria, eligibility standards, and oversight mechanisms for the City’s broader restorative justice program. This would advance healing, accountability, trust building, and equitable community outcomes by addressing past harms and historical inequities. Any recommendations, policies, programs or implementation strategies developed by the Restorative Justice Commission would be returned to the City Council for full consideration, public review, and formal policy adoption prior to implementation.
Pending approval of its second reading, the Liaisons for the applicable Commissions would prepare Bylaws for members’ approval and update agenda templates and webpages as needed.
Proposed Modification to the Composition of the Disabilities Commission 6 of 12
During the January Study Session, Council confirmed keeping the Disabilities Commission as a standalone Commission from the proposed consolidated Housing and Human Services Commission. However, staff asks Council to consider aligning membership with most City bodies to seven members. Since its creation in 2002, the Commission was established as an 11-member body. In the first two Comprehensive Reviews, consolidating this body with other commissions under the Housing and Human Services Department was discussed but modifying membership was not. Of the 19 remaining City bodies, nine will have a membership of seven, seven have a membership of five, and two have a membership of 11. The other 11-member body is the Measure GS Committee that was established by ballot measure that prevents amendments, including the Committee’s membership, absent a vote of the people.
Should Council agree, staff proposes updating Chapter 2.66 to: 1) reduce membership to seven in phases by dissolving two seats after June 30, 2026 and two more after June 30, 2027; 2) adjust the number of persons with disabilities in the Commission to at least four; 3) confirm that members shall not be City employees or elected officials to align with other boards; 4) delete the section on meeting schedules to provide the flexibility for the Commission to amend their schedule through Bylaws; and 5) remove the requirement to hold annual public hearings for community input as commissions may hold public hearings at any time. As there are currently two vacancies, these seats can be removed and two more seats can be removed after June 30, 2027, when two more members complete their terms. This would allow all current members to complete terms and anticipated work.
Amendments to the Policy for City Boards and Commissions The proposed resolution updates the following sections with most proposals effective July 1, 2026:
Section 1. Appointments: 1) extends the application deadline to not less than one week prior to the Council meeting when appointments are schedule to accommodate more applicants; 2) updates the City’s current posting locations for legal notices advertising vacancies; 3) emphasizes that incomplete applications will not be considered; 4) 7 of 12
clarifies that applications for consideration are provided in Council’s meeting packets; 5) adding that applicants will be invited to Council meetings to provide public comment on their qualifications and improve their chances of being appointed, and to the extent possible, a special meeting can be scheduled to accommodate Annual Appointments; and 6) deletes Subsection G. prohibiting close family relatives of Councilmembers to serve.
Section 2. Term Limits: 1) reduces the wait time for a member who served the maximum number of consecutive terms on a board or commission to serve on the same body from four years to one; and 2) deletes Subsection E that established term limits for Regional Advisory Boards.
Section 7. Annual Dinner and Report: 1) deletes direction to City Clerk to organize an Annual Dinner as the time for boards and commissions to present Annual Reports and Workplans to Council; 2) provides an alternative to gather and provide written Reports and Workplans as Information Items if Council’s meeting schedule cannot accommodate presentations; and 3) requests exceptions for the Transit Security Advisory Committee, Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Travel and Tourism and the Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee to reduce duplicative work as the policies establishing these bodies already require them to present detailed reports at Council meetings or Information Items at different times of the year.
Section 9, Secretaries: Reference to secretaries as “Staff Liaisons” and clarifies their duties.
Section 10. Conduct of Meetings, Agendas and Minutes: adds that Staff Liaisons shall maintain up-to-date webpages and ensure that scheduled meetings are incorporated into the City’s Calendar of Events. Webpages will include meeting agendas, executed minutes, and video or audio recordings of meetings. Both public-facing locations would be updated promptly to reflect any changes, including meeting cancellations, rescheduled meetings, or special meetings.
8 of 12
Section 11. Attendance: 1) deletes direction to City Clerk to provide attendance reports for a second time in December of every calendar year; 2) standardizes policy for unexcused absences and automatic vacation of a member to no more than two in a fiscal year, regardless of a body’s meeting schedule, the consecutiveness of meetings and time of year.
Section 12: Deletes and incorporates reference to annual workplan in Section 7, and renumbers subsequent sections accordingly.
Section 14. Other Trainings: renumbered as Section 13 and added trainings required by Resolution 11605 (CCS) and future mandated trainings.
Section 15. Council Liaisons: Deleted.
Section 16: Clarifies that demographics reports will be submitted in June with the Annual Appointments packet.
Section 17: Delete as it is duplicative of Section 10.
Additional Council Direction
Landmarks Commission
Review of the Commission’s work was not conducted as Council directed staff to pause the Mills Act Program Assessment and any work on Structure of Merit Designation Processing the following month at the February 10, 2026, Council meeting.
Youth Representation Options
Upon reviewing past Youth Commission Council items, a 16-item from the September 9, 2025, Council meeting directed staff to discontinue this effort as it was duplicative of 9 of 12
current youth bodies, so no further work was conducted. However, City Clerk staff is reaching out to identify opportunities for boards and commissions and election outreach from active youth groups.
Evaluation of Proposed Changes
Council expressed a desire to see the effectiveness of the program changes they adopt and routed through the City Clerk’s Office. Staff reached out to municipalities with annual reporting requirements for their appointed bodies and found the City’s process to be similar but with slight variances from Redwood City and Ventura. Redwood City schedules Council meeting presentation by Staff Liaisons and/or Chairs bi-annually instead of in one meeting; and provides guidelines to align workplans with Council’s priorities and assess their plan’s benefits, required resources, metrics, etc. Ventura’s boards and commissions adopt workplans within their bodies at the beginning of a fiscal year, and report accomplishments toward the end of a calendar year via Consent Item.
The written report would allow for City Manager review and public comment, and generally be approved and filed without presentations and questions. City Clerk staff will: 1) update the Annual Evaluation and Workplan template using Redwood City’s template as a guide; and 2) provide an updated Staffing Cost for bodies with proposed efficiencies after a fiscal year.
Airport Commission
City Charter Section 1015 established the composition of the Airport Commission as five residents of the City who are not elected officers or City employees, and this is the case for the five members currently serving as Airport Commissioners. At January’s Study Session, Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) Regulation 18702.2(a)(7) on Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property was mentioned and concerns were raised over the distance of Commissioners’ residence from the Santa Monica Airport and potential conflicts of interest. This was not the first time that Airport Commissioners’ property interests have received scrutiny under state conflict of interest laws. In 2014 and 2016, separate complaints were received by the FPPC about alleged conflicts of interest by City Airport Commissioners. In both instances the City Attorney’s Office analyzed the alleged conflicts under California law and determined that the 10 of 12
“Public Generally” exception in FPPC Regulation 18703 applied to the Commissioners because the material financial effect on their property interests through their participation in Commission decisions involving airport closure would be indistinguishable from its effect on the public generally. As such City Airport Commissioners were not disqualified under state conflict of interest laws by their participation in issues related to airport closure. The FPPC agreed with City Attorney’s analysis and took no action on the 2014 complaint. In 2016, after reviewing a subsequent complaint about a different Commissioner’s financial interest in their home, the FPPC determined that City Airport Commissioners are not “public officials” under state conflict of interest laws. The FPPC concluded that: “The Airport Commission is an advisory board, which makes recommendations subject to ‘significant intervening substantive review’ by multiple entities, including the Santa Monica City Council, and therefore the Airport Commissioners are not public officials making or participating in making governmental decisions in these circumstances.” The City Attorney’s Office advises that the FPPC’s analysis from 2014 and 2016 continues to apply to today’s Airport Commission and its members.
Additionally, Airport staff compared the Commission’s membership composition with those of other commissions serving other Municipal/County-Operated Airports and found the following: Napa County Airport has an eight (8) member board/commission composed of three general public members, one Napa County Airport pilots group or club member, one local chamber of commerce member, one hospitality industry member, one local education industry member, and one non-voting planning commission liaison member. Similarly, Reid-Hillview County Airport has a seven (7) member board/commission composed of three members from the aviation community and four general public members. While Livermore Municipal Airport has a five (5) member board/commission composed of City of Livermore residents. Similarly, Santa Barbara Airport utilizes a seven (7) member board structure composed of county and city residents. These examples illustrate the range of governance models used across municipal/county airports in California and provide context for evaluating the composition of the Santa Monica Airport Commission. Staff is mindful that the Santa Monica Airport is scheduled to close after December 31, 2028. 11 of 12
Should the Council wish to amend Section 1015 to modify the Airport Commission’s composition or its criteria for membership, such as requiring aeronautical knowledge or experience for some or all members, this would require an amendment to the City Charter and thus a vote of the residents in Santa Monica. Alternatives to adding a measure to the upcoming election include City staff improving its outreach to aeronautical experts and the Council prioritizing aviation expertise and experience when making appointments.
Environmental Review
The proposed changes to the boards and commission program are not a “project” subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the changes do not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”. Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The changes are administrative in nature, and no action is being undertaken and therefore, are not subject to CEQA and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of these recommendations. Should Council direct staff to place a measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot amending the Airport Commission’s composition, then the cost is estimated at $ 77,225 and is included in the FY 2026-27 Approved Budget Plan. 12 of 12
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay-Wisner, Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Proposed Resolution
C. Airport Commission Charter Sections (Web Link)
D. FPPC 18702.2. Materiality Standard: Financial Interest in Real Property E. July 9, 2002 Staff Report (Web Link)
F. September 9, 2025 Councilmember Discussion Item (Web Link) G. February 10, 2026 Councilmember Discussion Item (Web Link) H. January 13, 2026 Staff Report (Web Link)
I. Written Comments