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

1 Mitchell Kois
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Subject: In Support: 11.A

EXTERNAL
As a recent applicant to a City commission, I support the proposal of having a special meeting for annual appointments, where applicants can make their case and introduce themselves—and not have to wait until near midnight for a vote on their appointment (or worse, do so twice when the initial vote is postponed during the first meeting, as happened to me). Thanks for the process improvement! Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 12:42 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11.A. (Airport Commission Composition, Cost, and Scope of Staff Review)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I write to respectfully raise a concern regarding the City’s recent staff report, specifically its treatment of the Airport Commission.

The discussion on pages 9–11 of the staff report focuses almost exclusively on prior FPPC findings related to airport closure and conflict analysis. While that issue may have historical relevance, it is not the primary function of the Airport Commission between now and December 31, 2028. The Commission’s advisory role extends broadly to “all matters pertaining to the Municipal Airport and to aviation matters generally to the extent that they affect the City,” including operational issues such as noise, safety, and community impacts.

Notably absent from the staff memo as well as the January 13, 2026, staff report, is any meaningful evaluation of the Airport Commission’s effectiveness in addressing these ongoing operational concerns. This omission is significant. The community continues to raise concerns about noise and airport operations, yet the report does not assess whether the Airport Commission, as currently constituted, is equipped to address them.

Equally concerning is the cost of the Airport Commission. At approximately $67,270 annually, it is the most expensive advisory commission in the City. Despite this, the report does not evaluate whether the Airport Commission is delivering commensurate value or whether its composition contributes to inefficiencies.

The staff report itself acknowledges that other municipal airport commissions commonly include members with aviation expertise. Yet rather than prioritize qualifications in appointments, the report suggests that meaningful reform would require a costly Charter amendment, estimated at over $77,000.

That conclusion is not supported by the record. The City Charter does not require the appointment of commissioners lacking subject matter expertise, nor does it prohibit the Council from prioritizing qualified candidates during the appointment process. No Charter amendment was required to appoint the current Airport Commissioners, none of whom have aeronautical expertise. Similarly, no Charter amendment is required to replace Airport Commissioners who lack relevant aeronautical knowledge or to prioritize the appointment of those who possess it.

Just as the City Council previously addressed concerns with DTSM Board on July 29, 2025, by making changes based on effectiveness and diversity, similar action can be taken with the Airport Commission. No ballot initiative is required to do so, despite what the staff report appears to suggest.

In other words, the City already has the tools necessary to improve the Airport Commission’s effectiveness without incurring additional public expense.

For so long as the airport remains operational, the Airport Commission’s role is practical and immediate, not theoretical. It should be focused on operational realities, noise mitigation, safety, and community interface. Those issues require informed, technically grounded input. Continuing to staff the Airport Commission without regard to subject matter expertise risks both inefficiency and public frustration, while unnecessarily increasing staff burden and cost.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
2 I respectfully urge the Council to:

1. Acknowledge that improved Airport Commission performance can be achieved through a diverse and balanced composition that includes, rather than excludes, commissioners with relevant aviation knowledge and prioritize a balanced Airport Commission;

2. Avoid unnecessary expenditure on a ballot initiative when the Council already has the authority to improve the Commission’s composition by appointing qualified commissioners in place of existing members; and

3. Ensure that, given its cost, the Airport Commission delivers meaningful, informed, and efficient advisory so long as the airport remains operational.

The issue here is not policy preference, it is governance. The City should expect that one of its highest-cost advisory bodies is structured to provide the expertise necessary to fulfill its mandate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Jerry Rubin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 12:56 PM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall
Subject: Thank you for respectfully making the Santa Monica Urban Forest Task Force a standalone Commission! 💚🤗

EXTERNAL
곒곓곔곕뱑뱍뱎뱏뱒뇪뇫뱐Thank you tree-mendously for your ongoing full support for our Santa Monica trees! Your support is truly needed and deeply appreciated!
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
2 Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
3 Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
1 Mitchell Kois
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete
Subject: City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Agenda Item: 11.A - Boards & Commissions

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
Read the room.

We are living in an unprecedented time of nepotism, grift, and erosion of democracy. And yet this is the time you choose to:
 Remove limits on appointing family members to boards and commissions;  Remove term limits for regional boards and reducing the waiting period to restart terms; and  Remove public meeting structure and consistency.

These changes beg the question: Why?
Which family member are you trying to appoint? Who are you trying to keep on? Surely in a city of 90,000 people, we have many qualified applicants who aren't nepotism hires and haven't already been in the position for 12 years. Frankly, the only changes you should be making are those that give residents our speaking time back, so we can participate in our own government.

Shame on you for wasting staff time and our time on undemocratic policies to solidify your control, and giving me another opportunity to use my No Kings sign, right here in Santa Monica.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
2 Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
3 Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
4 Mitchell Kois
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Fw: City Council 5/12 Ítem11-A: OPPOSE

EXTERNAL

May 11, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 5/12/26 agenda item 11-A

Removing Section 1.G -- It currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on Boards and Commissions.

We see no good reason to remove that provision.

Amendments to Sections 2.D.1 ad 2.E.1-2 -- The amendments would remove term limits and allow members of regional advisory boards to serve an indefinite number of 4-year terms.

With the current term limits, appointments can be extended to additional terms with the approval of 5 City Council members.

Therefore, we see no good reason for these amendments.

Removing Section 17 -- It currently requires adherence to applicable City rules, in order that the various Boards, Commissions, etc., operate in a consistent manner.

We see no good reason to remove this section.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
5 Again, the FOSP Board opposes these three changes to the Policies for Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
6 Mitchell Kois
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A - OPPOSE - May 12, 2026 Council meeting

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Tricia Crane, Chair of Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11A, Council meeting of May 12, 2026 I am writing to challenge the changes proposed in Agenda Item 11A, Council meeting of May 12, 2025.

Why end term limits for boards and commissions? Why open the door to family members? What's the truth here? Who stands to benefit from these strange proposed changes in Agenda Item 11A? The public has a right to know.

I am concerned that City Council will weaken the value and independence of boards and commissions if the City implements the changes proposed in Agenda Item 11A (below):

Section 1.G (page 4) removes ineligibility for those who are CLOSE RELATIVES of City Council members;
Question: Which City Council relative is seeking a position on a board or commission? Section 2.D.1 (page 5) and 2.E.1-2 (page 6): adds the provision that members of regional advisory boards MAY SERVE FOR AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF FOUR-YEAR TERMS;
Question: How is this beneficial?
Section 17 (page 14): REMOVES the REQUIREMENT that all boards, commissions must adhere to all applicable City Council rules.

Please explain to the community why this is an improvement of the current process and procedure.

Who stands to benefit from these proposed changes?

11. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
A. 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
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
7 Mitchell Kois
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting: May 12, 2026 Agenda Item: 11.A - Boards & Commissions

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’m writing to express deep opposition regarding the several proposed revisions included in the proposed Resolution Amending the Policies for Boards and Commissions.

For a council that consistently extols the merits of good governance, these proposed changes reflect the Council’s choice to implement the absolute worse of governance practices.

These changes all go in only one direction: they weaken important safeguards intended to preserve public confidence, independence, accountability, and effective oversight. They reduce the resilience of the city by institutionalizing a single viewpoint governance framework. It is the opposite of what democracy intends.

There is no way to defend the proposed changes that:

1. Enable and encourage nepotism (proposed removal of Section 1.G, which currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on City boards and commissions)

2. Limit resident participation and viewpoint diversity by:
a. Effectively eliminating term limits through the reduction of the wait time for between appointments for termed-out board members (proposed amendments to Sections 2.D.1). b. Outright elimination of term limits for Regional Boards and Commissions (proposed amendments Sections 2.E.1-2)

3. Eliminate fair dealing and accountability of Board and Commission members (proposed deletion of Section 17, which currently requires City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards to adhere to applicable City Council rules unless inconsistent with their bylaws.) NONE of these changes should be approved. Frankly, it is appalling that these proposed changes have even made it to the Council’s agenda.

Respectfully,
Marc L. Verville
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
8 Mitchell Kois
From: Teresa Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Teresa Clark
Subject: Public Comment on Reducing Number in Disabilities Commission

EXTERNAL
Dear Esteemed Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members, First I’d like to thank each and all of you for your Ɵreless and selfless service to our city that you do everyday to make it a beƩer place for everyone. I can literally see it improving in my walks and it’s amazing. Thank you so much.

I wanted to write in on an item that’s being touched on this evening that’s 11 A.3. If I believe it I got it correctly it is the staff recommendaƟon to cut the disabiliƟes commission membership from 11 members to 7 members. I am a disabiliƟes commission member and I speak from experience when I say I believe it should remain at 11 members and I will explain why.

First the purpose of the disabiliƟes commission is to be inclusive of Santa Monicans with disabiliƟes that includes having representaƟon on the commission of people with disabiliƟes. I believe it has been recommended at four. Also there is interest, naturally, such as our vice chair Gerald, in interest in the commission when there is a family member with a disability.

When folks have disabiliƟes or take care of those with disabiliƟes they are not on a level playing field to those without and so you could say that having the 11 seats works as an accommodaƟon for the disability community so that it permits absences and yet a quorum can be met and it permits ad hoc work commiƩees in such a structure such as not to overwhelm our community.

With Respect,
Teresa Clark
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
9 Mitchell Kois
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:26 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11.A. (Proposed Repeal of Resolution 11510)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I write to respectfully express concern regarding several proposed revisions to the Resolution governing City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards. While modernization of governance policies is appropriate, several of the proposed changes would weaken important safeguards intended to preserve public confidence, independence, accountability, and effective oversight.

Family Relatives:

First, I am concerned by the proposed removal of Section 1.G, which currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on City boards and commissions.

That provision serves an important governance purpose. Boards and commissions function most effectively when the public has confidence that appointments are based on merit, qualifications, and independence, rather than personal or political relationships. Even where no actual conflict exists, allowing close family relatives of Councilmembers to serve on City-appointed bodies unnecessarily creates the appearance of favoritism, insider access, or political influence. Public trust in advisory bodies is fragile and depends not only on avoiding actual impropriety, but also avoiding circumstances that reasonably create the appearance of impropriety.

Santa Monica’s boards and commissions routinely weigh issues involving land use, housing, airport operations, public expenditures, environmental policy, ethics, and quality-of-life concerns. Residents should not be left questioning whether commissioners were selected because of qualifications or because of familial relationships with elected officials. The existing restriction is modest, clear, and entirely consistent with sound governance principles designed to protect public confidence in the integrity and independence of City advisory bodies.

Removal of Term Limits
Second, I strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Sections 2.D.1 and 2.E.1-2, which would allow members of regional advisory boards to serve an indefinite number of four-year terms.

Term limits exist for a reason. They encourage fresh perspectives, prevent institutional stagnation, reduce entrenchment, and create opportunities for broader civic participation. Regional advisory boards often address issues involving infrastructure, utilities, vector control, water policy, environmental matters, and intergovernmental coordination that have substantial impacts on Santa Monica residents. Those positions should not effectively become permanent appointments.

Allowing indefinite terms risks concentrating influence in a small number of long-serving individuals and undermines the City’s longstanding policy favoring rotation in public service. It also creates inconsistency within the broader framework of the Resolution itself, which repeatedly recognizes the importance of maximizing participation in local government and ensuring productive, accountable advisory bodies.

Importantly, expertise and continuity can already be preserved under the existing framework, which allows additional terms through a supermajority Council vote where justified. There is no demonstrated governance need to eliminate meaningful term limits altogether.

City Council Rules
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
10 Finally, I am deeply concerned by the proposed deletion of Section 17, which currently requires City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards to adhere to applicable City Council rules unless inconsistent with their bylaws.

This provision is one of the core mechanisms ensuring that advisory bodies remain accountable to the City’s broader governance framework. Eliminating this requirement risks creating fragmented and inconsistent practices across boards and commissions, with varying procedural standards, inconsistent conduct rules, and diminished oversight.

Without a requirement that advisory bodies adhere to applicable Council rules, the City risks weakening transparency, consistency, accountability, and procedural uniformity across its advisory system.

The proposed deletion is particularly concerning given the significant authority and influence exercised by some commissions, as well as the substantial staff time and public resources devoted to supporting them. Governance structures work best when expectations are clear, consistent, and uniformly applied. Removing this language would move the City in the opposite direction.

I respectfully urge the Council to retain:

1. The prohibition on close family relatives of Councilmembers serving on City advisory bodies;

2. Meaningful term limits for regional advisory boards; and

3. The requirement that boards and commissions adhere to applicable City Council rules.

These existing provisions promote transparency, independence, accountability, and good governance, all of which are essential to maintaining public trust in Santa Monica’s Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
11 Mitchell Kois
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: RE: 5/12/26 agenda item 11-A

Family Relatives:

First, I am concerned by the proposed removal of Section 1.G, which currently provides that close family relatives of sitting Councilmembers are ineligible to serve on City boards and commissions.

Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
12 Importantly, expertise and continuity can already be preserved under the existing framework, which allows additional terms through a supermajority Council vote where justified. There is no demonstrated governance need to eliminate meaningful term limits altogether.

City Council Rules
Finally, I am deeply concerned by the proposed deletion of Section 17, which currently requires City boards, commissions, committees, task forces, and regional advisory boards to adhere to applicable City Council rules unless inconsistent with their bylaws.

Boards and commissions are creations of the City Council. They exercise delegated advisory authority and frequently speak on matters affecting public policy, expenditures, land use, transportation, public safety, and community welfare. Without a requirement that advisory bodies adhere to applicable Council rules, the City risks weakening transparency, consistency, accountability, and procedural uniformity across its advisory system.

Governance structures work best when expectations are clear, consistent, and uniformly applied. Removing this language would move the City in the opposite direction.

I respectfully urge the Council to retain:

1. The prohibition on close family relatives of Councilmembers serving on City advisory bodies;

2. Meaningful term limits for regional advisory boards; and

3. The requirement that boards and commissions adhere to applicable City Council rules.

These existing provisions promote transparency, independence, accountability, and good governance, all of which are essential to maintaining public trust in Santa Monica’s Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
Item 11-A
May 12, 2026
13 Mitchell Kois
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 8:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose proposed changes to Boards and Commissions- Agenda Item 11A - Council meeting of May 12, 2026

Why end term limits for boards and commissions? Why open the door to family members? What's the truth here? Who stands to benefit from these strange proposed changes advanced in Agenda Item 11A? The public has a right to know.

I am concerned that City Council will weaken the value and independence of boards and commissions if the City implements the changes proposed in Agenda Item 11A (below):

Please explain to the community why this is an improvement of the current process and procedure.

Who stands to benefit from these proposed changes?

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 12, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
May 12, 2026