Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, June 9, 2026

1 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:22 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Add to Item 11.B: Remote Comment and Meeting Options for Advisory Boards

EXTERNAL
City Council and City Clerk,
As a city commissioner (albeit one not eligible for this particular option) and a resident of Santa Monica, writing only for myself, I wish to bring to your attention that Senate Bill 707 (2025) allows for advisory bodies to meet virtually or in a hybrid fashion. I hope your discussion on Agenda Item #11.B will touch on this, along with the agendized changes to City Council operations.

Allowing for remote or hybrid advisory board participation can expand the pool of people able to serve and can open meetings up to a wider audience. And while virtual public comment is always an option open to a board, even if the members themselves meet in person, holding virtual or hybrid meetings for the board is also a good occasion to figure out the procedures for and to implement virtual public comment for advisory bodies as well (required for virtual/hybrid meetings).

Even if a board plans to mostly continue to meet in person, having a virtual option provides flexibility. For instance, a board could regularly schedule every other meeting virtual and in person. Or a board could generally meet in person but use the virtual option to hold a meeting that would otherwise be canceled for lack of quorum when certain board members are unavailable to come in person. Or a board could always meet in person—with a social (or bylawsmandated) expectation of in-person board attendance—but allow hybrid participation for members to occasionally participate remotely when they can't make it (without having to worry about the strictures of other, more limited hybrid meetings options under state law).

The rules for this include the following:
 City Council must first approve each body's use of these provisions. Then the body itself must approve, in person, before meeting thereafter remotely.
 City Council must renew each body's use of these provisions every six months.  Cameras must remain on if possible at all times.
 A physical location must still be selected by vote of the body to be open for public viewing and comment. A staff person must be there.

These are the types of bodies that are eligible:
"For purposes of this section, 'eligible subsidiary body' means a legislative body that meets all of the following:
 ...Serves exclusively in an advisory capacity.
 Is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or any other entitlements, grants, or allocations of funds.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
2  Does not have primary subject matter jurisdiction, as defined by the charter, an ordinance, a resolution, or any formal action of the legislative body that created the subsidiary body, that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing from, or restricting access to, materials available in public libraries, or taxes or related spending proposals.

An eligible subsidiary body may include members who are elected officials, members who are not elected officials, or any combination thereof."
I believe this applies to the following bodies: Airport; Arts; Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment; Disabilities; Housing; Human Services; Recreation and Parks; Audit; Transit Security; Urban Forest; Community Gardens; Virginia Avenue Park; Field Sports; Santa Monica Aquatics By my read, the following bodies are not eligible for the following reasons: Architectural Review (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Building and Fire-Life Safety (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Landmarks (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Library (may set policy on book availability and not purely advisory—can accept money); Personnel (quasijudicial/not purely advisory); Planning (quasi-judicial/not purely advisory); Public Safety Reform and Oversight (addresses police oversight among primary subject matter); Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight (addresses taxes as primary subject matter); Housing Authority (not purely advisory); Measure GS Resident Oversight (addresses taxes as primary subject matter); Transient Occupancy Tax (addresses taxes as primary subject matter) Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Magdalia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Agenda item 11-B - June 9 2026

EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Santa Monica and appreciate the role of city council members. While at times, tough conversations need to be had, that needs to be continued and to eliminate the ability for any one voice to speak up is not acceptable. Therefore city council should NOT pass this agenda item.

Regards,
Magdalia Armstrong
Santa Monica resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi; Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: ITEM 11-B OPPOSE

EXTERNAL

STOP GAGGING EVERYONE - RESIDENTS AND LANA- YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYING POWER

GAMES WITH THIS SINCE YOU GOT IN- JUST STOP IT
The first is Agenda item 11-B, which would change the City Council “Rules of Order” to eliminate the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item” because it is among the last items on the Council Agenda.

Currently any one of the seven individual council members can place a “16 item” on the Agenda.

Council will vote tomorrow (Agenda item 11-B) on whether to end this long standing practice. If 11-B passes on Tuesday, more than one Councilmember will be required to agendize a 16 item.

While the proposed change is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete. Negrete is frequently a lone voice to bring forward issues of concern to residents. Negrete is urging residents to fight for the preservation of the current practice.

Even when such items fail to gain Council support, she says, "the 16 items are an important means of fostering open and transparent governance."
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Shari Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I ask that you keep 11-B in place. There would be no logical reason to remove it unless you have an ulterior motive.

Let’s keep transparency and fairness a part of the council’s meetings.

Thank you,
Shari Phillips
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Subject: 11-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
This move is truly anti-democratic. We must not have a city council that censors minority views and that is what 11 B does.

Each council member was voted in by the residents. Limiting the ability of one council member to place an item of
interest to the residents on the agenda is negating all those residents’ votes for that council member.

It may in fact be a violation of the first amendment. I’m not a lawyer but if this passes, I am sure it will be challenged
in court. Further, if you support 11B, Santa Monica residents will certainly let you know how we feel at the ballot box. And
we will not support you. Do you really want to be known for supporting censorship? No you don’t.

While the proposed change is not, on its face, about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete (or any council member in the minority on the council in the future) and squashing a council member's right to place an item of interest to residents on the agenda. Former Mayor Lana Negrete is frequently the lone voice raising issues of concern for residents. She has every right to continue doing so. As each of you has every right to raise whatever issue you want to raise.

This is a sad and ugly day in Santa Monica when City Council considers violating our first amendment on the Dais.

Do the right thing. Vote against 11-B.

Sincerely,
Karen Croner
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B -

EXTERNAL
I am writing today to demand preservation of the current 16 item. The 16 items are an important means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Thank you,
Kelli Urode
SM Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Brittany de Guzman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall Subject: Agenda Item 11B

EXTERNAL
RE: Opposition to Agenda Item 11B – Proposed Amendments to City Council Agenda Procedures Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of residents of the Virginia Avenue Apartments to express our opposition to the proposed changes contained in Item 11B, specifically the requirement that no fewer than two and no more than three Councilmembers sponsor a Councilmember Discussion Item before it can be placed on a Council agenda.

As residents who have spent the last several years advocating for transparency, accountability, and public oversight regarding the rehabilitation of our homes, we are deeply concerned that this proposal would create unnecessary barriers between residents and their elected representatives.

The purpose of electing Councilmembers is to ensure that residents have multiple avenues through which their concerns can be heard and brought forward for public discussion. Requiring a Councilmember to obtain the support of additional Councilmembers before an issue can even be discussed weakens that relationship and limits the ability of individual Councilmembers to independently represent the constituents who elected them.

Our concern is not theoretical. At the start of the Virginia Avenue Apartments rehabilitation project, residents had reached out to Councilmembers individually seeking assistance, oversight, and advocacy.

Those requests were met with silence or no action. In those circumstances, residents relied on finding a single Councilmember willing to listen and help elevate our concerns. Under the proposed rule, even that pathway could be blocked if additional Councilmembers declined to support placing the matter on an agenda.

This proposal risks creating a gatekeeping process that makes it more difficult for residents to have important issues discussed in a public forum. Matters that affect public safety, housing, transparency, accountability, neighborhood concerns, or emerging community issues should not require multiple Councilmembers’ approval before they can be publicly considered. A single elected representative should retain the ability to bring forward issues raised by constituents and allow the full Council to determine their merits during an open meeting.

We are also concerned that requiring multiple sponsors could discourage independent voices on the Council and reduce opportunities for public discourse. Healthy democratic governance depends on the free exchange of ideas, differing viewpoints, and the ability of elected officials to raise issues on behalf of their constituents—even when those issues may not initially have broad political support.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
7 The residents of Virginia Avenue Apartments strongly oppose any policy that effectively censors or limits the ability of individual Councilmembers to bring constituent concerns before the public. Rather than restricting access to the agenda-setting process, the City should be strengthening pathways for resident engagement and ensuring that every member of the community has meaningful access to their elected representatives.

We respectfully urge the City Council to reject this portion of Item 11B and preserve the ability of individual Councilmembers to place discussion items on the agenda without requiring the approval of additional Councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to the residents of Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Brittany de Guzman, Diana Flores, Kiana Achoy, and Soledad Jimenez Virginia Avenue Apartments
@generations_of_virginia_ave
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: John Redfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Deer Council,
As a many years Santa Monica resident who who follows local politics, I’d urge you all to retain item 16, to maintain the ability for individual council members to keep an open dialogue to the benefit of Santa Monica residents and general public John Redfield Business owner
1501 Colorado Av.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Mara Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11B

EXTERNAL
Leave the “16 Item” rule alone. It is critical to allow council minority members a voice to raise issues in a public matter.

Mara Thompson
Santa Monica 90405
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
10 David Yakobson
From: Brice Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please vote No on 11-b

EXTERNAL
Council,
Please vote now on item 11 – B.
11 – B allows minorities in their opinion in your council to raise valid concerns of citizens that may not share view points with an overwhelming majority of your council members.

By preserving 11 – B you are preserving what is a positive effect of responsible governance. In today’s’ current political climate, I think we can all agree that silencing those who simply don’t agree with you has rather dangerous implications. You can do better.

Thank you.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
11 David Yakobson
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:21 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B - OPPOSE Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11 - B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Council Member Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

While Agenda item 11-B is not on its face about any one council member, it is clearly aimed at silencing Councilmember Lana Negrete who is frequently a lone voice on the Council raising issues of concern to her constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Tricia Crane, Chair with Unanimous Support of the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
12 David Yakobson
From: Kiana Achoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:29 AM
To: Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Cc: councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: Opposition to Item 11B - 9JUNE26

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I respectfully oppose the portion of Item 11B that would require multiple Councilmembers to sponsor an agenda item before it can be discussed.

Residents elect Councilmembers to represent their concerns and bring issues forward. Requiring additional Councilmember support before an item can even reach the agenda creates an unnecessary barrier to public participation and limits transparency.

One Councilmember should be able to place an item on the agenda when residents raise concerns that deserve public discussion. Open government depends on allowing issues to be heard, debated, and considered in a public forum.

Please reject this proposed change and preserve direct access between residents and their elected representatives.

Sincerely,
Kiana Achoy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
13 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO on Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Hello, the current “rule of order” must not be changed.

The the right ethical thing & bite NO on 11-B.
50 year resident of Santa Monica. Lou Steiner
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
14 David Yakobson
From: jzhawk13 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FROM Jill Hawkins 11-B preserve current practice.

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council, Regarding. 11B, Please preserve the current practice. Don't be one of those people who vote to silence others.

Sincerely.... Do the right thing.

Jill Hawkins
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
15 David Yakobson
From: KAREN HARRIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not pass 11-B !!!!

EXTERNAL
Please keep the Rules of Order as is and allow the 16th-item discussion to be introduced by one council member.

Thank you,
Karen Harris
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
16 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oliver Chi
Cc: Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Susan Cline; Denise Anderson-Warren Subject: June 9, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 11-B. - Councilmember 16. Items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis, Mr. Chi, and Councilmembers -
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

I believe all Councilmembers will appreciate the opportunity to act from time to time as a single voice on the Council raising issues of concern to constituents.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Thank you!
Sincerely, Ann Bowman, Resident 29+ years
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
17 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:08 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Cc: Nicola Scott
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: Gavin and Nicola Scott, 1801 Marine Street, Santa Monica CA 90405 We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
18 David Yakobson
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: Ferris Gluck
I stand with the Board of Northeast Neighbors regarding the following letter submitted by them on June 9, 2026::

We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

You have been methodically chipping away at the democratic processes in Santa Monica - taking away time for citizens to speak at city council meetings, removing funding for neighborhood associations if they don't comply with new anti-democratic rules, reneging on ballot measures passed Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
19 to preserve our airport as parkland, and on and on. Where will this end? Stop destroying our beloved Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
20 David Yakobson
From: Isaac Yerushalmi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:07 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Item 11-B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I oppose Agenda Item 11-B. Allowing a single elected Councilmember to place a Councilmember Item on the agenda helps ensure transparency and gives residents a voice, even when that voice is in the minority. Requiring two Councilmembers to do so would make it harder for individual representatives to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents and would diminish open public discussion.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Isaac Yerushalmi
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Tom Davidson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item

EXTERNAL
11-B should not be allowed to pass on Tuesday.

A Resident against this
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Neil Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 7:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 Item

EXTERNAL
Please do not remove 16 item.

Thank you,
Neil Kaplan
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: afnelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 8:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request that you NOT pass 11b. Keep present policy in place. Thank you

EXTERNAL
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Helen Landon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:34 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B and the 16 item

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I just learned about the vote to take place tonight to remove the "16 item".

Over the years many important issues have been brought forward by a council member using this process.

Please do not get rid of it. It's a way that residents are heard and can feel like they truly matter and have a say.

A few years ago when one of my daughters was in high school, she wrote to the council multiple times about the Big Blue Bus no longer taking cash payment. She found this discriminatory. Eventually the item was brought forward. She ultimately had a meeting with the head of the Big Blue Bus leadership and cash payment was brought back!
This is only a personal example of something important that was brought forward through this process, but there are many more...

Please do not end this important process.

Helen Zielinski Landon, PhD
resident and business owner Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Priestley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 Council Meeting Vote

EXTERNAL
Hello
I am a long time resident of Santa Monica and want to express my concern that the council plans a vote to change the long standing rule that any one council person can bring a topic up for discussion as an “item 16”. We as residents deserve to be represented by all council members and have a transparent and open discussion of all items of concern.

Sincerely
Elizabeth Priestley
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Jessica Yingling <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to demand preservation of the current system which allows any one of the seven individual council members to place a “16-item” on the Agenda. This is an important means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Attempting to require two council members instead of one will result in the silencing of any council member in the minority and will hinder their right to place an item of interest to residents on the agenda.

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Santa Monica praises itself as a city that welcomes a diversity of voices yet this is in direct opposition to that ideal.

I’m disappointed this is even being considered — please do better for your constituents.

Jessica Yingling
220 San Vicente Blvd.

Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-991-8495
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: Tracey Hom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Oliver Chi; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Esther Hickman; Molly; Roni Crichton; Lenny Hom; Karen M. Fisher Subject: 11-B

EXTERNAL
Whenever you think you have heard it all, it just gets worse, My entire family is against 11-B. You are trying again to silence the minority and not let contrary opinions have a voice. This measure would prevent a single council person from bring forward a measure. How dare you attempt to silence Lana who sometimes singlehandedly brings forth agenda items. We, your residents deserve to hear all points of view and to have all matters that the minority wants to put in front of the citizens and council. You are getting more trumpish each day.

Just like Torosis preventing people from having time to speak. You prepare for 2 or 4 minutes and get 30 seconds. You are destroying the democracy in Santa Monica.

Tracey P. Hom Esq.
310 749 5343
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:15 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Council members to post a Council member Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:20 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I respectfully oppose the proposal requiring two Councilmembers to sponsor a Councilmember Agenda Item before it can be placed on the agenda.

Good governance depends on the free exchange of ideas, especially ideas that challenge the status quo. Many of the most important discussions begin with a single elected official raising a concern, asking a difficult question, or bringing forward an issue that others may have overlooked. Requiring a second sponsor creates a gatekeeping mechanism that allows majority viewpoints to suppress minority viewpoints before the public even has an opportunity to hear them.

Santa Monica has approximately 90,000 residents and only seven Councilmembers. Each Councilmember represents thousands of residents. When a single Councilmember is prevented from agendizing an item, it is not merely that Councilmember's voice being limited, it is the voice of a significant portion of the community.

The purpose of a Councilmember Agenda Item is not to guarantee adoption of a proposal. It is simply to allow public discussion and consideration by the full Council. If an idea lacks merit, the Council can vote it down. There is no compelling reason to prevent the discussion from occurring in the first place.

I am particularly troubled because this proposal comes on the heels of other actions that have reduced opportunities for public participation. Public comment is already reduced to one minute per speaker when more than twenty residents wish to speak. While efficiency has its place, the cumulative effect of limiting public comment and now limiting the ability of individual Councilmembers to place items on the agenda moves us further away from open government and robust civic engagement.

Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, not merely to vote on items selected by others. Requiring a Councilmember to obtain permission from another Councilmember before raising an issue risks silencing independent voices and discouraging thoughtful dissent. A healthy democracy is strengthened, not weakened, by hearing perspectives that differ from others.

I urge the Council to preserve the longstanding practice that allows a single Councilmember to agendize an item.

Transparency, accountability, and public trust are best served when ideas are debated openly rather than filtered out before the discussion can even begin.

Respectfully,
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: David Abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: vote no on 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Please vote NO on item 11-B. To retain credibility and public trust, you must not silence council members who are doing their jobs and serving constituents by raising, alone, a "16 item" on an agenda.

Regards,
David Abrams
1632 5th St.

Santa Monica, CA
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
4 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:22 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/9/26 - Item 11-B - Wilmont Board comments on proposed changes to council rules

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
With Item 11.B the City Council is doing more than implement SB 707; it is changing local city council procedural rules. The Board of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) provides its comments on the options it opposes as well as the options it supports.

Wilmont Board opposes these options:
 Increase the number of council members required to submit Discussions Items to no more than a majority of the council as prohibited by the Brown Act (ex. No less than two and no more than three councilmembers
o While this option has high efficiency it does not have high quality. On a seven-member city council EVERY VOICE counts. What makes a healthy community is not that everyone agrees. It is that people are willing to thoughtfully raise concerns, ask difficult questions and ensure decisions are fully examined before they permanently affect the city. The movie 12 Angry Men reminds us that progress does not always begin with unanimous support. Sometimes it begins with a single person willing to say, "This deserves a closer look". This is not obstruction. This is civic responsibility. Strong communities depend on city council members and residents who are willing to engage, speak thoughtfully and advocate for outcomes that they believe better serve the long-term well-being of residents. We support the city in allowing a single city council member to place a future agenda item forward without having a second to present that item as a 16 item (soon to be called a Council member Discussion Item) without a second. In a seven member council, that ensures even one elected representative - 14.285 % of the council and the residents they represent can raise issues of public importance for discussion. Who knows, maybe that city council member will be similar to juror 8 and help an innocent man be freed or a poor policy/decision be improved or rectified.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
5  Rule 15. Public Testimony - Oppose "that no general public input shall be taken on any item on a Special Meeting Agenda and Oppose that four minutes to speak when registering to speak on only one item is being deleted
o We continue to see the reduction and degradation of public comment, and specifically resident public comment. This continues an abysmal trend by this city council. You kept the fourminutes of time as a compromise to discontinuing time donation. And now, conveniently you are getting rid of the four minutes. Again, how efficient but lacking in a look to quality. We have no understanding of why there should be no public input on a Special Meeting but would be willing to understand the city council’s logic.
 We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least two council members.  Current Practice - We oppose the current practice of giving public input before the staff report and clarifying questions and request that public input comes AFTER the staff report and clarifying questions.

Wilmont Board supports these options:
 Setting Closed Session - Support Option - First by keeping the start time of 5:30 pm, and set a time limit to hear the open session at a certain time (ex. Closed Session at 5:30 pm and open session at 7 pm)
o We agree with the staff report regarding this option so a set start time or estimated return for open session to inform the public of when they: can sign up for comment, will be called to speak, and can continue listening to the meeting.
 Setting a Time for Public Input on Non-Agenda Items - Support Option - Move public input on non-agenda items prior to adjournment
o The city council develops an agenda. It has been unclear how they determine what goes on the agenda but we assume it is important. Why are we giving away our earlier times to any issue that anyone wants addressed? It seems generous that the city council gives time to provide public input on non-agenda items at all.
 Managing Speaking Time for 25+ Speakers - Support Option - At whatever threshold of people (see recommendation below) we agree with reduction from two minutes to one minute "per agenda item" with all speakers for other agenda items to retain their requested speaking time o In a survey of public agencies, the standard of 30 people to reduce the amount of public input time is a standard. We would appreciate consideration to expanding that number from 25 to 30 people.

Many thanks,
Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
6 David Yakobson
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: NO on Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Council,
As a longtime Santa Monica resident, I strongly oppose Agenda Item 11-B. This would make it more difficult for individual Councilmembers to represent their constituents. It is obvious that the purpose of 11-B is a blatant attempt to muzzle Councilmember Negrete. We don’t need Trump tactics in Santa Monica from our very own leaders! Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:24 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
I vigorously OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Once again this Council seeks to silence those who support residents. This proposal negates the right of the people to hear all sides. It is prior censorship and unacceptable.

Each and every councilperson has a right and duty to express an opinion on topics concerning Santa Monica. DO NOT REQUIRE TWO TO MAKE A STATEMENT. If you oppose an idea, vote against it when it comes to a vote. DO NOT SILENCE IN ADVANCE an elected councilmember because you do not agree with her views.

Harriet P Epstein
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Ravel Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council:

I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve. Additionally, if ever the council ends up having to move to a district representation model, the ability to speak for a particular area of the city would be increasingly important.

The proposed changes in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on. Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent discussion and governance.

Thank you,
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel
[email protected]
310/736-5300
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:29 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE ITEM 11-B. CHANGES TO RULES OF ORDER

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
STOP THE GAMES WITH FREE SPEECH - WITH LANA AND THE RESIDENTS.. STOP YOUR

AUTHORITARIAN GAMES -
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

DANIELLE CHARNEY
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
10 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I oppose the proposed change to the “Rules of Order” that eliminates the current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place a "Councilmember Discussion Item" on the public meeting agenda.

Please preserve the current system.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
11 David Yakobson
From: stephen youngerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)

EXTERNAL
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
Stephen Youngerman Santa Monica resident
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Stephen Youngerman
310-478-3780
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse the typos.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
12 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:

Dear City Council members,
I am writing to preserve the “Rules of Order” and current practice of allowing one Councilmember to place on the Agenda a "Councilmember Discussion Item" – commonly referred to as “a 16 item.” Any council member should have the option of adding pertinent city discussion topics to the agenda should a subject arise that they feel needs immediate resolve.

Best,
Elizabeth Chang

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
13 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:51 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda iten 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members and City Manager Chi.

At a time when democracy is fighting for its survival, I urge you not to make participation in government more difficult.

Requiring two council members to raise an Item 16 would make it more difficult for opposing views to be heard.

While it may feel like an act of efficiency, making dissent more difficult chips away at a vibrant democracy. Please don’t do it.

Thank you.

Victor Fresco
Santa Monica
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
14 David Yakobson
From: Heather Thomason <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Oliver Chi; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 11-B - Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
I write respectfully to oppose Agenda Item 11-B.

I don’t fully understand the reasons for this proposed change. As I understand the current 16-item practice, any one of our seven Councilmembers our residents elect can use the 16-item portion of the agenda to raise a question, surface a concern, or bring an idea forward on behalf of the people they represent. That seems to me like a healthy and ordinary part of representing a community, and I’m not sure what problem the proposed requirement is meant to solve.

I’d be curious to know how often, in practice, a single Councilmember has actually brought forward a 16 item on their own, and whether there are any patterns in the topics those items tended to raise. That would help all of us understand whether this change is responding to a real and recurring issue, or to something far narrower.

What does concern me is the effect it could have. Requiring a second Councilmember’s support before an item can even be placed on the agenda means that some issues residents care about may never reach a public discussion at all. I’d respectfully ask each of you to consider how it would feel and what your concerns would be if you had an issue you believed was important, one you knew community members wanted brought to light but that your colleagues on the dais didn’t happen to share, would you want to be told you couldn’t even raise it without first finding a second member to sign on? What if you tried and no one would?
It seems to me that the 16-item process isn’t about whether an item ultimately wins a majority. Its strength is that the item gets aired, so that residents can hear it, weigh in, and watch their government engage with it openly. Preserving the ability of any single Councilmember to bring an item forward keeps that process transparent and accountable, and I’d hate to see us narrow it.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject Agenda Item 11-B. I think in retrospect you will be glad you did and the community will thank you.

Thank you for your consideration,
Heather Thomason
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
15 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11 – B June 9 meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
It’s over obvious that this item was added to ensure nothing of her than GROUP THINK exists among elected officials in this town. It is an abhorrent excuse for dEMOCRACY.

Oppose this shameful recommendation.

Ann Thanawalla
Wilmont
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
16 David Yakobson
From: Loren Greenfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 11B

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Santa Monica praises itself as a city that welcomes a diversity of voices yet this is in direct opposition to that ideal. I’m disappointed this is even being considered — please do better for your constituents.

Loren Greenfield
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
17 David Yakobson
From: ALAN MONT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Item 11B

EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
I am asking you to oppose Item 11B on tonight’s agenda.

Every council member should have a voice. Our founders recognized the importance of minority representation. This is one reason the Senate has a filibuster rule.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alan Mont
818-261-8172
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
18 David Yakobson
From: TheLosAngelesCaliforniaAssembly <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: tuesday proposed change on "item 16"; agenda 11-B

EXTERNAL
Hiya, I am member of the general public in your area and I do not consent to the new proposal to change 'item 16 "; requiring two council members to place a
concern on agenda for the people; it shall remain as one; The role and obligations of the council and any officer holder is to present on the peoples behalf and
to hear their concerns, directives, et;. The council is a service provider, for hire by the people to serve the people and they are not their to obstruct process and
make it more difficult and remove access to be heard;
in the spirit of Freedom
By Diana Rosemary Carey
All rights reserved without prejudice
one of the people on California and Santa Monica Bay Area Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
19 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Rode <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:05 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11B

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
20 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:09 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Subject: Agenda Item 11-B Changes To Rule of Order

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026
To: Santa Monica City Council and City Clerk
From: John Alle
I OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Often residents and business owners ask their councilmembers to hear them on certain issues, and present solutions. Any single councilmember has the duty and right to present such an issue as a "16 Item." Each of you is there and elected to serve us. Listening and consideration of all ideas is what you are there for, and is one of many principles upon which our democratic republic was founded.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are a means of fostering open and transparent discuusion andgovernance.

Please save yourselves time and later grief by removing the item from the Agenda or vote NO.

John Alle
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
21 June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)
Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.
--
John E. Alle

JOHN ALLE COMPANY

THE SANTA MONICA COALITION / SAFE CITIES
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
22 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:

Please oppose the rule change of item 10-B, out of concern for retaining the means by which individual City Council members may raise issues on behalf of us citizens.

Thank you for acting on my behalf.

Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
621 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
23 David Yakobson
From: William Schoene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
This proposal strikes us as a purely political measure. How would this benefit the residents of Santa Monica?
What is the public justification for curtailing an individual councilmember's responsibility to raise issues on
behalf of his or her constituents?
Please vote against Agenda Item 11-B.

William and Mary Lou Schoene
1519 Oak Street Santa Monica CA 90405

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
24 David Yakobson
From: Marc Verville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11.B. : Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Mayor Torosis and City Council,
I strongly oppose Agenda item 11.B.: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items).

Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the pracƟce that any one elected could use the secƟon at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask quesƟons, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve. Even if such 16 items fail to gain Council support, they carry significant and essenƟal value in fostering open and transparent governance.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on. The only jusƟficaƟon for this item is a vague appeal to “collaboraƟon”. That is code for silencing of minority points of view. This is clearly aimed at silencing non-majority Councilmembers and is a direct violaƟon of the essence of democracy and free speech. This item is so egregious, the Council has resorted to camouflaging the descripƟon as “cleaning up language and procedures for Council to submit Discussion Items (16-items)…” This is absolutely unacceptable.

This council item also proposes to:
 DisconƟnue the opƟon to request four-minutes to speak when speaking on only one item with the jusƟficaƟon that this would “opƟon would simplify the registraƟon process and give speakers consistent opƟons of one or two minutes.” Under this logic, the ideal simplificaƟon would be to eliminate speakers zero minutes  Movement placing of public comment at the end of the council meeƟngs Combined with the prior changes allowing relaƟves to service on Boards and Commissions, this council seems intent on pursuing a path of seƫng new lows in standards of governance and representaƟve democracy.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
25 Please reject this resoluƟon and refrain from any future aƩempt to change current procedures regarding these items.

Respecƞully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
Former Chair, Santa Monica Audit SubcommiƩee
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
26 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:18 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Comment on 11B - what I do not support

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on 11B - what I do not support
Date: June 9, 2026 at 10:59:14 AM PDT
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>, Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>, Dan Hall <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Denise Anderson-Warren <denise.anderson[email protected]> Dear Councilmembera
I cannot be with you tonight as I am out of town relaxing in the high desert after my exhausting Secretary of State campaign.

However I wanted you that I fully oppose this particular part of what is proposed under Agenda Item 11B

Increase the number of Councilmembers required to submit Discussion Items to no more than a majority of the Council as prohibited by the Brown Act (ex. No less than two and no more than three Councilmembers); or I find the comment about this being needed because it can increase ‘collaboration’ to be uncomfortably euphemistic. An individual Councilmember can certainly increase the chances of getting Council direction on their Council member discussion item by finding co-sponsors. But I do not believe that should be a pre-requisite for any Councilmember to be able to submit such an item individually.

All seven council members won enough support under our plurality system to be elected, and thereby have - IMHO - a sufficiently significant base of support in the Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
27 community to be able to introduce a Council member item on their own, if that is their choice.

The problem we’ve had in recent years with Councilmember Discussion items was during the 2021-2022 Council, some newly elected Councilmembers did not seem to understand the jurisdiction of the City Council — and brought forth Councilmember Discussion items that simply were not within the bounds of what the job of the City Council entails and/or the jurisdiction of the City Council itself. That was a different problem - and not something that the proposed change in 11B would solve.

Given that, I think that while the City Staff should not be blamed in the least for bringing back all logical options to cut back on the length of Council meetings -- that is their job and this is not an illogical option in the least to be presented for your consideration — I believe that as elected officials with the responsibility to represent our entire community, you would be doing a grave disservice to cut off the option of a single council member to raise an issue on their own via a Councilmember Discussion Item, and to allow discussion of it to happen in an open and transparent public forum.

If the idea brought forth in a Councilmember Discussion item does not have meaningful support, it won’t take very long for it not to get a second on the dias, and/or not gain a majority vote of the entire council. IMHO that relatively small amount of extra time is well worth ‘suffering’ through for the benefit we gain in an open exchange of ideas and the empowerment of all residents who voted for each and any of the Councilmembers. I do not believe the ’trade-off’ in time ’savings’ is in the broadly defined public interest.

Having served for eight years myself on the City Council, I believe we all who are given that sacred responsibility on behalf of our community must assume the responsibility to hear out the potential business of the City in a variety of forums, including taking the time in public to consider Discussion items from individual Councilmembers.

Good luck tonight with your meeting.

Mike Feinstein
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
28 David Yakobson
From: Mariana Small <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please preserve single-member access to Councilmember Discussion Items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a rent-controlled tenant and Santa Monica resident asking you to reject any proposal that would require more than one councilmember to sponsor a Councilmember Discussion Item before it can appear on the agenda.

Earlier this year, the Council directed staff to study options for increasing collaboration before items come forward, including requiring multiple sponsors for councilmember requests. For tenants and other residents, that is not a neutral housekeeping change. It raises the threshold for getting a community concern in front of you at all.

I am paying close attention as a tenant. For renters facing habitability, renovation, and relocation problems, a single councilmember willing to put an issue forward is often the only route onto the public agenda. Concerns like these rarely arrive with two sponsors already lined up, and a multi-sponsor rule would fall hardest on the residents with the least power to begin with.

If the concern is meeting efficiency, there are narrower tools (time limits, batching similar items, internal guidelines) that do not restrict access to the agenda itself.

Please keep the current rule that lets any individual councilmember bring forward a discussion item raised by constituents.

Sincerely,
Mariana Small
220 San Vicente Blvd Apt 510, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Santa Monica resident and rent-controlled tenant
___
Mariana Small
+1 (858) 405-5313 | [email protected]
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
29 David Yakobson
From: Paula Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

Please vote to oppose tonight’s agenda item 11-B, proposed changes to the Council’s “Rules of Order” for bringing individual issues to the full Council’s attention.

We know you have a difficult job, and have to assume that no individual member would bother bringing up frivolous items.

Why would you take away that right from each other?
Wouldn’t you begin to get into Brown Act territory by forcing members to discuss issues in advance? This is something that is not broken, and does not need fixing.

Again, it is pointless to remove an important discussion tool from individual members. It serves no purpose, and is indeed punitive.

Thank you,
Paula Goldman and Brian Wolf
2821 Washington Avenue
Paula Goldman
PaulaGoldman.com
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
30 David Yakobson
From: Susan Marzec <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:28 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11- B: Changes to Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026
To: Mayor Torosis and City Council
We OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items) Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them, and it has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

We do expect to be able to participate in our local government and need for the current council to take our ability to participate seriously, and not take actions to prevent our participation.

Sincerely,
Susan & Randy Marzec
1040 Cedar Street
Santa Monica, CA. 90405
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
31 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-B Rules of Order

EXTERNAL
Hello Council members,
Thank you for pulling Item 10-B.

Now please oppose Item 11-B.

Thank you.

Best,
Katharine (Kit) Dreyfuss
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
32 David Yakobson
From: Mindi Shank <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:54 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose 11-B

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
It is incumbent upon us to re-establish the most democratic principles in our nationally and locally fraying democracy. Every voice counts.
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting.

3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes?

4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

5) We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mindi Shank
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
33 David Yakobson
From: Mike Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Denise Anderson-Warren; Heidi von Tongeln Subject: Comment on 11B - what I do support

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers
Some brief additional feedback on 11B.
(1) General Public Comment
In the two times that I ran for Secretary of State - in 2018 and 2026 - I used General Public Comment opportunities to speak about how their City’s representation could be affected by changes in how we elect the State Legislature via proportional representation, and why they should be tracking this issue as representatives for their community (especially now that top two jungle primaries are likely going to be repealed) In most cases, I found General Public Comment to be an option at or near the beginning of meetings. Some cities allowed unlimited General Public Comment at that time, while some had a time limit and/or speaker limit for the beginning of meetings, and deferred the rest until the end.

Only in a few cities did it come fully at the end, with no early General Public Comment option.

I think that it is reasonable to allow some at the beginning, but have a limit by time and/or number of speakers. ***But I would be reluctant to make that judgement without hard data about how often this option was exercised by the public. So I would not want to make this decision without asking City Staff to run a count over the last several years, and see how many people actually speak on General Public Comment, and then come back with this at a future date. Presumably this would not be so hard to do with computers being able to search our meeting minutes.***
The reason this is relevant, is it would be helpful to know how often General Public Comment would exceed a speaker and/or time limit - because we don’t want it to squeeze the ability of people to speak on items already on the agenda, but if it is only a relatively small number of people in most cases, to also not have to require people who want to speak on General Public Comment to have to guess to arrive at 11pm or 11:30pm to have their short time at the microphone
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
34 (2) Separate meetings to consider Closed Session Items I support this idea in concept. When I first got on the City Council, Closed Session came after all other business was concluded. This allowed the meetings to start earlier and hear from the public earlier. But we rarely had a full Council in closed session when we were making very important decisions, because some Council members simply could not stay that late and still get up in the morning for work. That was unacceptable given the gravity of decisions made in closed session
Starting closed session at the beginning also creates management problems as you know, because it squeezes the Council and the public in other ways.

I think experimenting with quarterly Council meetings to consider Closed Session items only would be a good experiment, while keeping other Closed Sessions at the beginning of the meetings - and see if that could achieve a better balance by reducing the number of Closed Session items that have to precede ever meeting.

Again, this approach probably would have needed more preliminary work by the City Manager and City Attorneys offices to estimate how often Closed Session items are time sensitive and how often they could be addressed via quarterly Closed Session-only meetings.

But without this information, you are just shooting from the hip. (3) Revising total speaker limit
I fully support revising the rule on reducing time for more than 25 speakers registered to speak per public input section to“per agenda item”, rather than in total. The focus on time savings should not be to reduce all speakers ability to express themselves on all items.

The focus should be when there is an item that draws a lot of speakers, many of them will likely be expressing similar viewpoints made by others, and therefore if time per speaker must be shortened, it should be for those specific agenda items, not for the entire night. (4) Meeting starting times
In the end, there is not easy answer or balance, unless you start your meetings at 3pm like Anaheim, Riverside and a few others cities that I am aware of. Otherwise there will always be conflicts in finding the right balance.

Best of luck tonight
Mike
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
35 Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
36 David Yakobson
From: Leanna Einbinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council member items

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section. 2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting. 3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. 4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item. 5)We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.
6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Leanna Einbinder and Chris Knauf (and family)
Sunset Park residents
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
8 David Yakobson
From: Alyssa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No on 11-B

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica resident
933 9th street #90403
Alyssa Ganezer
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Carol Poletti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Preserve - one council member can place “16-item” on the Agenda

This is going to prevent residents’ concerns from being heard which subverts democracy and diminishes our right to have our concerns addressed by those we voted into office.

Carol Poletti
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Rebecca Terlizzi <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11-B for 6/9/26 Meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please maintain the current practice of allowing a single council member to place an item on the agenda as a “16 Item.”
I oppose 11-B. Let concerns be brought to the table and discussed. Adding an item for discussion doesn’t mean it gets passed. It allows concerns to be brought forward. Do not limit any of our representative’s ability to bring something to the agenda.

Thank you,
Rebecca Terlizzi
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 11- B: proposed changes to the City Council “Rules of Order” that would require at least two Councilmembers to post a Councilmember Item (known as 16 items)

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As you are well aware, Santa Monica residents elect seven individual council members to represent them. I would be very nice, if the Council Members actually listened to all residents, and even thought about what they are saying.

It has been the practice that any one elected could use the section at the end of the Council Agenda – known as 16 items – to raise issues, ask questions, and bring forward ideas on behalf of the people they serve.

The “proposed changes” in Agenda item 11-B would make it harder for individual council members to raise issues for the public to discuss and comment on.

Preserving the ability of an individual Councilmember to place a “16 item” on the agenda ensures a more open and transparent process.

Even if such items fail to gain Council support, they are means of fostering open and transparent governance.

With great regret,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Maya Knauf <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:50 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,

1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We support moving general public comment to the end of the meeting.

3) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment.

4) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

5)We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

6) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Maya Knauf
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln
Subject: June 9, 2026 - City Council Item 11B - Council Meeting Rules - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
Residents have long been asking for changes to City Council’s extreme limits on public meeting participation, implemented in the name of efficiency, that have resulted in closing down opportunities for the people of Santa Monica to engage with our elected officials on important City Council Agenda items.

Now, after no engagement with the public or study session presenting any facts or analysis, you are updating the meeting rules to make one positive change to mask many negative changes that further erode the ability of the public to address our elected officials.

I support capping time by item instead of by section, a change I have asked for in public comments before.

However, the number of speakers should be higher (at least 30) or no cap at all, as discussed below.

Placement of general public comment requires additional analysis. On the surface, it makes sense to hear agenda items first. However, given the track record of this council, the change appears designed to silence dissent. Requiring people to stay until the end to address council will reduce participation, especially in tandem with your proposed limit on Councilmember Items.

I oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes? Also, this change was made when you eliminated donation of time by claiming it made time donation unnecessary, yet you aren’t restoring time donation. You are just continuing to chip away at our ability to speak.

I oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. We have seen how this plays out at the school board. The Special Items become unchallenged propaganda sessions for the council majority by silencing those who might take issue with what council chooses to celebrate or make the subject of a resolution. In an election year, these Special Items will become election ads. Hopefully Council and Staff will only bring forward Special Items that reflect our collective values, but maybe they don’t. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

I strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least two councilmembers.

These items are the only way we have to bring issues forward that are important, yet not of interest to the majority. If one councilmember is willing to bring an item forward to address the legitimate concerns of the people, they should be allowed to do so. Requiring two proponents silences minority viewpoints. This can’t be about efficiency because there is no limit to the number of items, just who can bring them. Furthermore, this is a petty addition on the heels of Lana Negrete’s 16-item at the last meeting, where two other councilmembers were asked and refused to join, and the rest of you appeared more concerned about your appearance than the plight of the residents bringing the issue forward. It was petty.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
3 And why are you restricting the ability to censure? Have some of you done something we should know about? I don’t recall ever seeing censure used, so clearly this isn’t about time or efficiency. Therefore, it also appears to be a petty move by the majority to insulate itself from criticism. I oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least two councilmembers.

Since you are amending the meeting rules, below is a list of requested changes I submitted to you back on January 27, 2026, and should be part of a legitimate study session. Ironically I raised these in response to Lana Negrete’s 16-item, which attempted to open up our increasingly top-down local government, which she alone brought forward and then got unanimous support from the other councilmembers. If your new rules are implemented, that item wouldn’t be allowed.

When I challenged Caroline Torosis on these extreme measures on No Kings Day last year, she responded, "It's what the County does." Well, Councilmember Torosis may be beholden to the County (which is its own problem), but we expect better here in Santa Monica.

Undemocratic meeting rules implemented since Covid include:
 Capping total time at 6 minutes, regardless of how many bad or impactful items are on the agenda. If you feel the item is important enough to place on the agenda, the public should be able to comment.
 Limiting the total number of items we can speak to, regardless of how many bad or impactful items are on the agenda. Again, if you feel the item is important enough to place on the agenda, the public should be able to comment.
 Cutting time based on number of speakers. This might have made sense in theory before implementing, but it clearly has produced bad results and a disengaged and angry public. If 100 people show up to speak, it's because you are doing something we don't want and you need to hear us, not cut us to one minute.
 Cutting public hearing time just because the hearing takes place during a council meeting. This is likely a violation of law. Based on our city attorney's advice, we could be denied the ability to speak at a public hearing if they had 7 hearings in one meeting. That is the wrong result and policy when the law separately requires a public hearing.
 Eliminating donation of time. This ensures it is more difficult to convey longer, thoughtful comments, thereby squashing opposition. It also ensures that certain people who are good speakers and leaders are denied the opportunity to present alternatives to the sitting councilmembers and build a following to challenge them in an election.
 Putting closed session in the middle of the meeting. This is disrespectful of the public's time. Closed session should be at the beginning or on a different day. Making people show up at 5:30 and then wait around for an unknown period of time that can stretch from 1 hour to 4 hours is not ok.  Shuffling the meeting order depending on council conflicts. This is disrespectful of the public's time who have planned around a posted agenda. A councilmember's conflict is the councilmember's issue.

They can wait outside instead of inconveniencing everyone else. Or they can eliminate their conflicts.

Or resign.
 Moving public comments to before the item. This creates many problems. First, the correct order is to hear the staff report and clarifying questions before public comment to ensure we are all working with Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
4 the same information and are making the most informed comment possible. It's a waste of time to require the public to spend its limited comment time on things that might be clarified or rendered moot by the staff presentation or council questions. Second, combining all public comment into one segment results in confusion as to the item being commented on and bouncing around from item to item, which is no way to thoughtfully consider an item. Third, the practical result of this change is that the public comment becomes separated from the council's discussion, both on the video so it's less likely to be seen, but also in council's mind when the comments are made several hours before the matter is heard.

Staff now uses its staff report to rebut the public comments. Councilmembers do the same and prepare grandstanding speeches that malign the commenters and are disjointed from the public sentiment. The temporal separation is why we can have hundreds of people show up in opposition, with only a few lobbyists in support, and council still votes against the public. The meetings have become mostly performative instead of a real engagement of elected officials with their constituents.  Signing up for remote comments the day before. This is Silicon Beach. Even the school district is able to take remote comments at the time of the meeting. City Staff should be able to manage remote comments in real time to maximize participation.
 Minutes with no information. The minutes no longer list speakers by "for" and "against" an item, so there is no way to know the amount of support for or against the item from the minutes. The minutes also no longer state the issues raised during the meeting unless it's in a clarifying question by council, so when the councilmembers simply ignore hundreds of comments, there is no reflection in the minutes that there was an issue raised and ignored.
 Boards and Commissions follow the same bad rules. Ideally, boards and commissions are where there should be more discussion, not less, so that ideas and policies could be more fully fleshed out and discussed before they make it to city council. Cutting public comment at the boards and commissions ensures the ideas will be pushed through. Furthermore, most boards and commissions don't have written staff reports so it's almost meaningless to force the public to comment before the staff report is presented, guessing at the content. The rules need to be fixed at all levels.  School District follows similar bad rules. Because the same interests control city council and the school board, these bad practices are utilized by both agencies. The school district takes it even farther by no allowing comment on agenda items that aren't a study session, discussion item, or action item. The school district also refuses to maintain a repository of written public comments, claiming they aren't legally required to do so, resulting in there being no record of who lobbied our elected officials and how much support or opposition there was for their decision. This lack of transparency is unacceptable, and all of our public agencies in Santa Monica should be committed to transparent engagement with the public and accountability.

I dream of the day when I won't have to check an agenda on Friday night to see how our lives will be made worse on the following Tuesday. When we no longer have to spend precious weekend hours scrambling to educate neighbors and draft opposition comments, picking the two worst items to speak to, and then spending eight hours at City Hall only to be cut to one minute. It feels like a constant assault on residents by the people elected to represent us and the staff paid to support us.

In addition to giving us our voice back, the single most important thing you can do to make meetings more efficient is WORK ONLY ON THINGS THE RESIDENTS WANT AND NEED. That's it. No more. It's really that simple.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
5 Santa Monica Resident and Voter
ps. This gives me another opportunity to use my No Kings sign.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11-B

EXTERNAL
June 9, 2026

To: Mayor Torosis and City Council members

From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park

RE: 6/9/26 agenda item 11-B

The FOSP Board has the following recommendations:

Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
1) We support capping time by item instead of by section.

2) We oppose eliminating 4-minute option for a single comment. If you are already capping us at 6 minutes, why should you care how we use our time when it’s only 4 minutes?

3) We oppose elimination of public comment on Special Items. If you are taking time at a public meeting to hear the item, you should be willing to hear from your constituents about the item.

4) We strenuously oppose restricting Councilmember Items to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers. If one councilmember believes it’s important enough to raise in order for people to be heard, they should be allowed to do so.

5) We oppose restricting censures to those brought by at least 2 councilmembers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 11-B
June 9, 2026
Item 11-B
June 9, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
June 9, 2026