City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

The September 10th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board is called to order. Would the secretary please take the role?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Present.

Commissioner Gonska?

Here.

Commissioner Leslie?

Here.

Vice Chair Embrys?

Here.

And Chair Ivanov? Here. Please join me in the salute to our flag.

If anyone wishes to address the board either on a specific item on tonight's agenda or during public comment Please see our board secretary to fill out a speaker slip If commissioners have had an opportunity to review the minutes from the July 27th and August 13th 2026 meetings may I have a motion for their approval I Commissioner Leslie?

I move that we approve the minutes.

Vice Chair Ambres?

Second.

A motion by Commissioner Leslie, seconded by Vice Chair Ambres. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambres? Yes. And Chair Abanoff? Yes. Motion carries.

Does the Executive Director have anything to report to the Board?

Yes, thank you, Chair. First, I want to highlight the City's new Renters Energy and Cooling Heating, or REACH, program. The program provides free appliances to income-qualified Santa Monica renters to help improve comfort and safety in their homes. Available items include portable heat pump heating and air conditioning units, air purifiers, and portable battery storage systems. Eligible applicants may select up to two appliances, and applications are being accepted on a rolling basis for several rounds of drawings. More information about eligibility and how to apply is available on the City's website by searching for the REACH program. I also want to share a few updates on our public information and outreach efforts. Our public information staff hosted a rent control table at the Virginia Avenue Park open house and resource fair on Friday, August 28th. Last Thursday, September 3rd, staff also assisted the city's housing division with an information session at the Virginia Avenue Park Library for residents of properties being rehabilitated by Community Corporation of Santa Monica. And we have begun making greater use of the city's social media channels to share rent control information. Recent posts have included information about the September 1 general adjustment and reminders about tonight's board meeting. And we expect to continue Expanding our use of social media to reach tenants, property owners, and the broader community. I want to thank Rose Patel and our public information staff for their work on these outreach efforts and for continuing to find new ways to get useful rent control information out to the community. That concludes my announcements. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comment. This is the time set aside for members of the public to address the board on matters that are not included on the agenda. but that are within the Board's subject matter jurisdiction. Please note that the Board cannot take official action at tonight's meeting on any matter not included on the agenda. I will call each person who filled out a speaker slip, and you should come up to the podium and speak into the microphone when your name is called. If there's anyone who wishes to address the Board during public comment who has not yet filled out a speaker slip, again, please see our Board Secretary. And I have a Lori Searle, apologies if I'm mispronouncing the last name. Great. Yes. Yes, right there. No, you're good. And take your time. Whenever you're ready, you will have up to three minutes to address the board.

To fight for my life. That's exactly what I'm doing. Hi, guys. My name is Lori. Oh, God. Here we go. What's that?

Okay.

I moved to Santa Monica in 2005. My current apartment... I signed my lease in 2008, six months before my dad passed away. He co-signed the lease with me. It was our dream to live there. I've lived in Santa Monica for 30 years total. So much, I love Santa Monica so much that I got the city logo tattooed on my wrist. I never wanted to leave my home. Oh God, breathe, okay. After the Palisades fire, I couldn't get to work. My job has a property in New York, so they said I could go there and work. So I subleased my apartment. You're not supposed to sublease. I know this now, okay? But just for context, out of my 16-unit complex, I was the last person to sign the lease in 2008. The other units are only subtenants and sub-subtenants. So I'm aware that the property manager knows that this is happening, and that doesn't make it right. The rest of the units are empty. I rented to this woman. I gave her notice that I was coming back and she didn't leave. And she drew upon you guys and Legal Aid that helped her. So I've been paying her rent for the last seven months and living out of my car. I talked to 32 lawyers. Nobody would work with me because I'm a tenant, but I'm also a landlord now. I didn't know I was the landlord. I was just trying to cover my nut while I was working in New York. And, oh my God, a minute left. Anyway. My property manager wouldn't talk to the lawyer that I did find, who actually worked on the Amelia, not the Amelia, she works for the wrong person, the Ellie Mae case in Malibu. Anyway, my property manager wouldn't work with the lawyer. They said, you have to do it on your own. And I filed and I misfiled. I don't know anything legal. And then I finally got her out on the 2nd of September. And I moved in and nothing is salvageable. Everything was destroyed. I spent $12,000 to get her out. And then on the 5th, my birthday, I got my three-day payer quit. And I know it's important for you guys to focus on homelessness, you know. But maybe you can start with me and let me stay in my apartment. My home of 20 years. I don't know what else to do. I don't know where to go. Legal aid won't work with me because they work with my squatter and her name is Randy Cohn. I don't want anyone to rent to her.

Thank you.

Thank you. Could we have a member of staff connect with Lori to see if there's any possible help here? Great. Great.

Thank you.

Okay, jurisdictional items. Our first jurisdictional item tonight is an appeal of the dismissal of an owner occupancy application, Case P-2026-04778 concerning 1901 12th Street. May we please have the staff report?

Good evening, commissioners. This was an exemption that was filed by Mr. Salim Zakiri. And the property at issue 1901 12th Street is owned by 1901 Rishi LLC, which is a California limited liability company that acquired sole ownership of this three-unit property back in October 2023. And Mr. Zakiri says that he's the managing member of that LLC and has filed this exemption. However, the rent control law is very clear that in order to qualify for an owner occupancy exemption, you have to be a natural person. And board regulations specifically rule out business associations like a limited liability company as being eligible for an owner occupancy exemption. For that reason, the agency dismissed the claim. And staff recommends that the board affirm the dismissal. Mr. he says in his appeal that he did. So, you know, I believe I quoted it in the. My apologies in the. that it was only meant for the asset protection purposes and not to change the ownership or occupancy of the property, but his intent is not relevant. The law is quite clear. You have to be a natural person, and LLC is not eligible. And for that reason, staff recommends that you affirm the dismissal. Thank you.

Does any commissioner have any questions for staff? Commissioner Gonsko.

My question is related to this, not directly about the staff report, but I think we were informed and written comment from the tenant at the building that the units, maybe multiple units on this property are rented out by Airbnb. While we're not in a position to determine if they're complying with the law or not in that regard, what is the rent control? PROCEDURE FOR OR IS THERE A PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFYING CODE ENFORCEMENT WHEN, THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS, WE BECOME AWARE OF RENTALS ON AIRBNB? MY APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER.

THERE IS, AND I BELIEVE THOUGH IN THIS CASE STAFF TOLD THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WROTE AND CONTACTED US THAT THEY SHOULD CONTACT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND PERSONALLY FILE A COMPLAINT SO THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THEM AND OBTAIN THE INFORMATION WITH THEM. SO CERTAINLY THAT CAN, PRESUMABLY THAT'S BEING DONE.

Maybe it's a question for the executive director, but is there ever direct communication between you or the staff and code enforcement when you, maybe not in a case like this where it's somebody reporting to us, but if you come across through, maybe an inspector goes out and realizes or determines that somebody is using Airbnb in a property, do they ever directly report that to code enforcement or do anything as a next step?

Generally, the complainant needs to reach out to code enforcement in order for a case to be open. But we will direct them to do so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there a representative from the applicant who wishes to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, does any Commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion?

Commissioner Gonska? I move that we affirm the dismissal of the application.

I'll second that. Motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by myself. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek? Oh, absent. Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

And Chair Abanoff? Yes.

Motion carries. Our next jurisdictional item tonight is an appeal of a single-family dwelling exemption application, Case P2026-00610, concerning 614 7th Street, continued from the Board's August 13th meeting. May we please have the staff report?

Yes, Commissioners. Sebastian Cervinka filed an application to permanently exempt 614 7th Street, which is a property that he owns and resides in, as a single-family home. under Santa Monica Charter Section 1815. The agency dismissed the application under Board Regulation 12-200A2 because the property has been registered since the initial registration as a two-unit property. Mr. Cervinkel filed a timely appeal of a dismissal In his written response to the staff report, Mr. Cervinka has submitted additional evidence that was not in the Board records on which the application was based or in Mr. Cervinka's application. And to ensure the proper evaluation of all the evidence in the record, including the new evidence submitted by Mr. Cervinka, Staff recommends that the Board reverse the dismissal of the application in accordance with the Board's regulations and remand the matter to an evidentiary hearing. The hearing officer will then provide a recommendation to the Board on Mr. Servinka's application based on the record that's developed at the evidentiary hearing and vetted by the hearing officer.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Leslie?

How long was this unit accessory dwelling in existence before it acquired a kitchen?

That is the kind of question that it needs to be developed based on the evidence that's being presented, including the evidence that Mr. Cervinka would like to present. And so that's why we would like that to be vetted, not by me, but in a proper evidentiary hearing by a hearing officer. And then that recommendation will then come back to you.

Thank you.

Okay, and I believe Mr. Cervinka is here to speak. And whenever you're ready, you'll have up to five minutes to address the board.

Good evening. I'm Seb Cervinka. I own 614 7th Street. I've read the supplemental staff report, and I concur with its recommendation. So I'd ask the Board to reverse the dismissal and amend the matter to evidentiary hearing.

Thank you. Thank you. Does any Commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion? Vice Chair Ambrose.

Yes, I see that the appellant has submitted additional evidence, and for that reason, I'm going to follow Steph's recommendation. I'll make the motion to remand item SFDEX-P2026-00610 to a new evidentiary hearing.

Commissioner Dudek?

I second that motion.

Okay, motion by Vice Chair Ambry, seconded by Commissioner Dudek. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes commissioner did it yes commissioner guns go yes commissioner Leslie yes vice chair embrace yes, and try to have enough yes motion carries.

Okay, moving on to appeals our next item is an appeal of decrease case p twenty twenty five dash zero fifty two zero five may we have the staff report please.

Yes, commissioners. Savannah Garcia, the tenant of unit 214 at 1215 14th Street, filed a rent reduction petition for alleged maintenance conditions and reductions of housing services, and the hearing officer granted her decreases totaling $70 for living room ceiling and kitchen cabinet issues. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS FILED LATE TWO DAYS AFTER THE DEADLINE. MS. NORWOOD-DIMOLY, WHO IS THE AGENT FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, EXPLAINS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED LATE BECAUSE SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING SO AND FAILED TO DO SO BECAUSE OF UNFORESEEN PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS ONLY TWO DAYS LATE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PREJUDICE AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO WAS DUE TO MS. NORWOOD-DIMOLY'S PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD FIND GOOD CAUSE TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL. Substantively, property management argues that the record doesn't support the decreases because they had shown evidence of repair of the applicable conditions. As detailed in the staff report, however, substantial evidence supports the decreases granted, and staff therefore recommends that the Board find, first, good cause to consider the appeal, but to affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law because they are supported by substantial evidence.

Does any Commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Okay, seeing none, I don't believe we have any speakers on this item either. In that case, would any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion? Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yeah, addressing the first issue about the late appeal, I'll make the motion to consider the late appeal because they're showing a good cause for its consideration.

Second.

Motion by Vice Chair Ambriz, seconded by Commissioner Gonska. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys? Yes. And Chair Abanoff? Yes. Motion carries.

Do we now need a second motion on the substantive part of the appeal? Okay. Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes, as to the substantive item, I find that There was no abuse of discretion in the hearing officer's decision. I agree with the staff recommendation, and I will make the motion to deny the appeal at 1251 14th Street, Unit 214, and to affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Okay, I'll second that motion by Vice Chair Ambry, seconded by myself. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes, Commissioner Dudek.

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

And Chair Ivanov? Yes.

Motion carries. Okay, the next item is an appeal of Decrease Case P-2025-05257. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Commissioners. Brent Bambik, the tenant of Unit 201 at 131115 Street, filed a rent decrease petition for alleged maintenance conditions and reductions. of housing services, the hearing officer granted him decreases totaling $193. The owner, Ms. Sherman, has filed a timely appeal of the decision, and she argues that the record doesn't support the decreases because the conditions are only a result of ordinary wear and tear in an older building. As detailed in the staff report, however, substantial evidence, including the testimony and photos of the hearing investigator, support the decrease is granted and for that reason staff recommends the board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Does any commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Okay, and I believe Ms. Sherman is here. Okay, whenever you're ready, you can approach the podium, and you will have up to five minutes to address the Board. We just ask that you keep your comments to what is within the evidentiary record.

If possible, if I can ask for a little more time, because I got the paper from the, you know, on Friday. I didn't have a chance to submit anything.

Unfortunately, you're limited to five minutes.

All right, thank you. So... I have a tenant that came to rent from me back in 2013, an apartment, 201 in Santa Monica. He asked me if I can lower the price that I was asking. I was asking 1,900 per month, and I said, okay, I will reduce it by $100 a month, apartment as is. And I have it on the paper, which he signed. Back in, 7-24-2025, Mr. Bambik, I guess, submitted some letters asking for some repairs. I called him and I said, let's go to the apartment, show me what's necessary to be done. He said, you can go with my wife, Monica. I called Monica. We went on July 25. We went through the apartment on all the items that he said that needed to be fixed. And if you read my record, you see the outlets of the electricity, which I knew by code I didn't have to do it. I still went ahead and did it, spent $400 on it to do it. And there were a few other items. The kitchen, the bathroom window, it doesn't hold up, but the top one, the sash comes down. I mean, it provides equal air to the unit. There was no situation that the tenant suffered from no air because of this condition. I tried to fix that, but you know, the estimates, they are, like they say, start at $700 to fix it. And I mean, Monica agreed. She said, oh yeah, the top comes down. And in several location, I saw they were using it like that. In the bathroom, we went and we looked over. So I told her that my handyman will come and fix the bathroom and the cabinets in the kitchen. And it was done on August 4th, 2025. And then we did go to the hearing, which was in October 13, 2025, in which I wasn't given, you know, I'm not a photographer, so my photos are not as beautiful as Daniela, the lady that went to the building, took. But I have also pictures that I have submitted. Some of the stuff, you know, like broken tile in the bathroom. I did not have any broken tile in the bathroom. There is a scratch there. I don't know if you have those papers, you can see. and my handyman said actually one of it is a scratch but there is a kind of a crack that it was there even when we went through the mediator during the pandemic it was the same scratch and i still have the photo of it i mean the same picture that's from five years ago and that's from now it's exactly the same and my handyman filled it up with a you know, the stuff you put between tiles. There is no, you know, I understand the concern of the tenant that water might be seeping through the walls, but it always was covered. I always made sure that no water will go through it. The screen doors that they complain about, that falls under apartment as is because I did not install the screen doors. I could have just moved them when they rented it. When I worked with Monica, And we went to the screen door. She didn't even know what her husband was talking about, the screen door, because it did close. Right. I didn't even know at the hearing what closure means. I did say that the tenant removed it because I didn't know what is closure. But... You know, the tenant didn't suffer from lack of, you know, everything in my apartment worked, everything. There was nothing that the tenant suffered from. It's not good use. And then with regard of the balcony, it is wood balcony. I always spend a lot of money fixing it, pieces at a time and everything. I think that Daniela, the lady that took the photos, a bit exaggerated because I took also some photos and they are not as severe as it is. And I mean, for me, the safety of the tent is important.

Thank you. Okay, I have speaker slips from both Brent and Monica Bambeck. Are both of you planning to speak? Okay, you're limited to a grand total of five minutes, but you're welcome to divide up the time amongst yourselves however you please. And whenever you're ready, you can approach the podium. And same thing, we just ask that you keep your comments to what is within the evidentiary record.

Good evening, and thank you for hearing us out. My name is Monica, as she's the one that keeps mentioning my name. Yes, we did move there when we relocated from Florida with my seven-year-old daughter. Now she's 19, so it's been a while since we've been there. And yes, she did... At the time that we moved in, it was a property that was available. We negotiated. There wasn't something that she did for a favor. Everybody negotiated the rent. So that's one point. The second is that we did do a walkthrough of things that was outstanding and needed to be repaired. I understand that she says the apartment is as is, but it's not a house. We're not buying it. It is It's owned by her and needs to be repair. It doesn't justify it because of the age. Of the building, she can defer maintenance or it says it's old. It's not my responsibility. It is a responsibility as a landlord to maintain the property. That is a 73 year old property. It was not built in the 1950s and therefore. Like a car, you have to maintain a car, you have to maintain a building. Whether the bone structure is great, but the outside and the inside, it's work. Yes, it's going to get old. It still has the original cabinets, the original tile. And with earthquakes and everything, it tends to buckle and tiles tend to crack. So we've been here with earthquakes. Yes, the windows don't work properly, and we're in the middle of a heat wave, as everybody knows. I came early just to be in the air conditioning because my apartment is 20 degrees higher than it is outside. So without windows, proper windows working, we're basically melting. So me and my daughter has to go somewhere for her to do her homework and for me just not to start spritzing. Your people... are exceptional because when they come in, they don't want you to say anything. They go in, they tell us exactly what they're here for, not to make any comments. We just have to go and show them. So they did their due diligence. They did it properly. So we're here to rebuttal her that your control investigators did not do proper job. They did a very well job on the rehab. Thank you.

Okay. Hi, good evening. Thank you so much for the support. Sorry, I didn't mean to get emotional. I didn't expect that, but I appreciate the support of the city and the staff. Yeah, I had worked for quite a long time trying to get her to repair these things. When we first moved, the unit was in, that's why we rented it, it was in great condition. So for A long time I was working with her to try to get these things done. And finally, without taking up your time on these safety issues and just basic needs, I work in property management. And it was not acceptable. So I appreciate what you all are doing. Sorry. Thanks again. I'm sorry. I'm emotional.

One thing about the stairs, yes. We have front and back pathways. We have to use the back pathway, which we're on the second floor, to go down to laundry facilities. She expects us to go up the front, go outside the alleyway, around the corner to enter to the first floor. so we can use laundry, so therefore not to avoid going across the wooden pathway when, yes, it is termite ridden, yes, Her, she does her work, it's only patch, she patches things up. It's not fully for, like you said, she did the bathroom, she put paint, she put caulking. Yeah, but that's, you're putting paint on peeling paint. It's like putting nail polish, you have nail polish on chipping nail polish. It's not gonna hold, and it's gonna, then in a couple of months, it's gonna go back again. And here we are asking her, can you please do it properly? We're just asking her to do the fix, We're not expecting a brand new apartment, but just fix it appropriately and properly Thank you Thank you.

Thank you Does any Commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion? Vice Chair Ambrose?

Yeah, I'd like to say that I think that our hearings officer did an excellent job compiling the record. I also watched the videos that were contained and submitted to us. There were some things that were mentioned which were Not granted. I think one of those, well, it doesn't matter because it's not really for us to be deciding on. But overall, I found that the hearing officer's decision was fair and supported by substantial evidence on the record. I'll wait for someone else if they feel the same and would like to make the motion.

Commissioner Gonsko?

So I think some of the, definitely many of the things contained in the in the report, in the evidence. And frankly, some of the things heard here tonight are really concerning because it seems like some of the back and forth is really not about what our regulations state and what the law is. It's more about, actually, we heard in admissions tonight that there are problems and that they haven't been properly addressed. And somehow there's this suggestion that the tenant should just have to work around it, find some solution for it. when the solution is for the building owner to properly maintain, to properly fix these issues. And so I think it's very well detailed here. For example, the window that we heard addressed tonight, the workaround is to use the top half. Well, that's not how a window functions. It should be able to use the entire original functionality of the window. So I think that it's clear from our regulations that these things have not it's clear from the evidence that our regulations are not being properly implemented here with the landlord not properly fixing these things. And I think that there's, it seems to me hearing from the landlord tonight that there is an understanding of what could be done and just different decisions have been made. So I don't find any problem with what the hearing officer has determined in this case. And so I would support that. affirming the decision and its facts and findings and conclusions of law, and that's my motion.

Commissioner Leslie?

I would second that motion, but also with the fact that I would just suggest that the landlord keep up with the maintenance so that we're not back here in another year or so.

Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, it seems that there's maybe a little bit of a misunderstanding on the owner's part in terms of what the responsibilities are, and I would suggest that, you know, we have these meetings every year for landlords and for tenants separately that go over exactly what the responsibility is, so it's really clear and not something that just makes sense maybe to an owner, but so that you can really go by the guidelines and the law. So I would I think it would be really helpful. I think you meant well, but I think the law might be a little bit different than what you had in mind.

Okay. Motion by Commissioner Gonska, seconded by Commissioner Leslie. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrose?

Yes.

And Chair Ivanov? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay, item 10B3 has been withdrawn by the appellants and will not be heard. In that case, the next item is an appeal of Decrease Case P2026-00364. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Commissioners. Carol Barth, the tenant of Unit D at 2103 Oak Street, filed a rent decrease petition for alleged maintenance conditions. and reductions of housing services, the hearing officer denied any decreases for her petition and she has filed a timely appeal. One of the conditions for which Ms. Barth petition was for a decrease was for a backed up kitchen sink. The hearing officer denied a decrease for this condition Ms. Barth argues that the hearing officer erred in doing so because the hearing officer relied on the false testimony, quote, of the property manager. Ms. Barth, however, is incorrect. The hearing officer denied a decrease because after the plumber had replaced an old valve, the hearing investigator, Daniela Woodnicki, inspected the property and found no backup. The code enforcement officer who had investigated Ms. Barth's complaint closed the investigation because he found the problem to have been abated, and Ms. Barth herself testified that the backup had not recurred since the repair. These constitute substantial evidence. that support the hearing officer's finding that the condition was remedied by the repair and that the evidence did not warrant a decrease based on the evidence in the record. Ms. Barth also argues that the denial of the decrease should be reversed because code enforcement is purportedly investigating the completion of the plumbing repairs without appropriate permit. The rent control law, however, does not authorize decreases merely because work has been undertaken without a permit. That is the purview of the building and safety division and the code enforcement unit. The evidence still has to show an unresolved maintenance condition or reduction of housing services, and substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's finding that the preponderance of the evidence in the record did not. The hearing officer, however, did recommend waiver of the six-month waiting rule for Ms. Barth to file a new petition should any of the problems recur for the sink backup, the water heater, and supply and pressure of hot water. Should any of these problems recur, Ms. Barth can immediately file a new petition and, if relevant, seek to introduce evidence of unpermitted work. Staff recommends the Board affirm the decision and its findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the waiver of the six-month waiting period for the reference conditions.

Thank you. Does any Commissioner have any questions about the staff report? Can you speak a little more too about the waiver piece specifically? What are, just typically in general, what are, What are the criteria to get this sort of waiver?

Sure. The board regulation usually requires a tenant to wait six months before they can file a new decrease petition. It depends on what they're filing for and the conditions. But in this case, because of the testimony and the concerns THAT WAS TESTIFIED TO BY THE TENANT AND HOW THAT SEEMED CREDIBLE TO THE HEARING OFFICER THAT THESE MAY RECUR, SHE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD WAIVE THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD. SO IF IN FACT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE SINK BACKS UP AGAIN, BESIDES WHATEVER ELSE MS. BARTH CAN DO IN TERMS OF CONTACTING CODE ENFORCEMENT AND OBVIOUSLY HER LANDLORD, SHE CAN ALSO FILE A PETITION WITH US AND WHATEVER GETS DONE BECAUSE OF FILING A PETITION WITH US. including scheduling for mediation and obviously an evidentiary hearing. So that's the, I hope I answered your question, and if not, let me know what I missed.

Okay, no, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't believe we have representatives from either party to speak on this item. Would any commissioner wish to begin deliberation or to make a motion? I, for one, did not see any error here and would be inclined to affirm the decision. Commissioner Gonsko?

Yeah, I agree with that. I think, I mean, really here, as of the close of the record, there was no actual issue with the backup of the drain. So it would be fine with me to just, you know, affirm the decision, but we're bending over backwards here, and I think it's helpful. You know, things like this can sometimes ebb and flow in terms of being a problem one day but not the next. So I think we're going above and beyond here, which I think is a good thing for the tenant to waive that six-month waiting period. So I think this is an excellent solution. Commissioner Leslie?

I don't want to speculate, but I think the The premise of this is the fact that the tenant thinks that the landlord violated the permit and just wants proof, I think. And so I think that a lot of the tenants need to know what that proof is, the burden of proof is on the tenant when the walls are closed up, because we get this a lot. As far as tenants are concerned, as far as saying that someone's violated a permit, how do they prove that the permit has been violated? Yes.

Well, if they want to undertake either their own investigation or to engage either the Building and Safety Department or Code Enforcement, they can raise those issues with the appropriate departments to both inspect the work that was done, the scope of the permit, and to compare it to the applicable standards.

So is that something that they go through while the wall is open or while that work is in progress?

Well, I would suggest that whenever the tenant suspects that there may be a problem that they should complain immediately and whatever the state of the repair is, that's when it would ostensibly be dealt with. I mean, I would assume the earlier the better, but I don't think that they are denied the opportunity of that complaint just because the wall is closed up again.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Vice Chair Ambrose.

Yeah, just wondering, the motion that you made, was that to affirm and also to waive the six-month period or not?

I didn't make a formal motion yet. I'm just... You know making a comment that I did not see any any clear error in the record, but if I were to make a motion I would be inclined to Affirm the decision including with the waiver Okay, well then I would agree and I will make the motion to affirm the decision including the waiver of the six-month period Okay Commissioner Dudek I Would like to second the motion Motion by vice chair Ambrys seconded by Commissioner Dudek. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes, Commissioner Dudek?

Yes.

Commissioner Gonska?

Yes.

Commissioner Leslie?

Yes.

Vice Chair Ambrys?

Yes.

And Chair Ivanov? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay, administrative items. Item 12A is a presentation from our esteemed legislative advocate, Brian Augusta. Before we begin, are there any members of the public who would wish to be heard on this item?

Okay, seeing none. I'm glad to see there's five minutes on the counter because I think tonight will be an uncharacteristically short presentation. Sorry, let me begin. I'm Brian Augusta, your legislative advocate in Sacramento. For a couple of you, this will be the last time that I have the pleasure of appearing in front of you, and I wish you luck in your next endeavor. I hope that we continue to work together in the future. I am here tonight to talk a bit about what has happened in the legislature over the last several months since I appeared before you in March, which was this glorious time when there were a whole basket full of new bills and lots of hope about additional renter protections and other changes to housing law that would protect renters and expand supply of affordable rental housing and now I'm here to talk about two or three bills that made it all the way through that we have been tracking for you and as I said a moment ago this would be somewhat shorter presentation than usual because for a variety of reasons at least among the bills we've been tracking on your behalf There's really scant news to report from Sacramento. But let me talk about a few things, just, again, setting the context. The legislature wrapped up just about a week and a half ago, late on a Monday, and that started a 30-day period for the governor to act on the, what did I say, about 800 bills that are on his desk. And he has 30 days to do so to either sign or veto them. We kind of expect that most of the bills that have landed on his desk will get signed. In recent years, there's been a lot of communication between them. legislators and the governor's office and they have a pretty good sense of what it would take to get a governor's signature on a bill and can make a choice about that. So I think a fairly strong percentage of those will get signed. The other thing that happened just towards the end of session was some additional refinements to the budget that was adopted in June. One thing that people were watching very closely was whether there would be any additional money for housing, either as part of the state's cap and invest program, previously called the cap and trade program, or other general fund allocations. Generally speaking, no additional money was allocated for affordable housing, in part because everyone has their eye on the bond that will be on the November ballot, which if passed by the voters, would infuse a number of housing programs with a portion of 11 point something billion dollars that We'll be on the $11.25 billion ballot measure, which is Proposition 1 on this November ballot. And so nothing big on the budget front, but we did see a few bills that we were watching die and a handful, as I said, make it to the governor's desk. But let's stick on the bond for just one moment. I think this is an important piece of the... policy-making in Sacramento with respect to housing stability is expanding and preserving the supply of affordable deed-restricted housing. And the bond will put money into a variety of programs that help expand the supply of affordable housing, including MHP, which is sort of the flagship state program for funding affordable housing. There'd be $5.1 billion that can go to a variety of housing types to both expand, create new housing, and preserve housing. There's also the Cal Home Program, which provides home ownership opportunities in a variety of ways. There's funding for veterans, for supportive housing, for farm worker housing, for a newly created tribal housing grant program, which will, for the first time, create a program that will meet the unique needs of tribes and tribal members and tribal entities that are creating affordable housing and some money for local housing trust fund programs. So covers a wide range of funding streams and will be closely watched on the November ballot. And hopefully the voters, as they have done in the past, will approve that badly needed infusion of funds. On the policymaking front, I want to just note a couple bills that made it to the governor's desk. I actually first want to correct that in our summary, we made one mistake, which is that we said that SB 1160 had died on the Senate floor. This is a Durazo bill. It's actually, it did not die on the assembly floor. It is on the governor's desk. And that bill is... a policy that advocates have sought over a number of years to start collecting the data that courts have in their possession statewide that helps tell the story about evictions, how many cases are filed, how many people are represented, how many of those cases result in a dismissal before judgment, how many of those result in a settlement or stipulated judgment or some other form of resolution to essentially get a sense of what is the volume of cases, what are the trends, and what are the outcomes. I think in part to make it through the Appropriations Committee process, the bill was amended to say that none of that reporting has to take place unless there's money in a future budget that is sufficient to cover the cost of judicial counsel implementing that bill. But assuming the governor signs it would be the first step forward to start collecting that data and making it publicly available. Unclear whether a bill that doesn't have funding attached to it may sort of be used in the future, sort of inspire additional demands for funding, something that up in Sacramento they call cost pressure on the budget, whether that Will affect the governor's decision-making on that hopefully not would be an important piece of the Policymaking puzzle to understand a little bit better the eviction trends, but we'll see but of the other two bills I wanted to mention that did move forward and AB 2128 Quirk-Silva is a response to a Trump administration policy, proposed policy, that would impose time limits and work requirements on certain federally funded housing programs, including public housing, voucher programs, and some privately owned housing that has subsidies attached to it. That bill is on the governor's desk, and it would prohibit those entities in California from implementing that policy, even if it is adopted by the Trump administration. So keeping work and time limit requirements out of those programs. The other notable policy that we've been following on your behalf is SB 1296, also by Senator DeRozzo. As you know, generally speaking, state policy does not have any mandate that landlords and private housing accept pets. This bill is looking at how to encourage fairer policies around pet policies. And it sort of began as a proposal around if you do have a pet policy, you have to disclose it so that the renter knows. It now more broadly says everyone should have a pet policy and they must disclose it. So if you allow pets, you can say we allow all pets. If you don't permit pets, that's your policy. If you have a policy that allows pets under certain circumstances, that too needs to be disclosed. But the key sort of change to the policy in terms of protections for tenants is that if that policy is, if the renter pays the application fee or screening fee and then later learns of this policy and declines to rent because they can't meet the policy, they don't want to comply with the policy, and the policy hadn't been disclosed prior, then they're entitled to a refund of those fees paid. That's, I think, the most substantive provision of that bill. Finally, I just want to mention, you know, obviously one of our chief roles on your behalf is protecting the city's charter and your ability to regulate rents in Santa Monica, but we also closely watch other policies that may help expand rent stabilization policies in California, and one of those bills this year was a bill that started out as a Quirk-Silva bill and later was amended into a bill by Assemblymember Marasucci, which would, as you may know, the Tenant Protection Act, which provides a rent cap and just cause protections certain non-locally rent-stabilized units, does not generally apply in mobile home parks. So if you're a renter in a mobile home park renting from the homeowner or if you are a homeowner renting the space from the park, you generally don't have state-level protections because that's excluded from the TPA. And there's been efforts to adopt a TPA-like rent cap that applies to mobile homes and mobile home spaces, but those have failed. This year's entry was a gut and amend, meaning it was first introduced in the second house very late. Stiff opposition for park owners when it got to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the author was essentially forced to take an amendment to limit it to one city in his district, which is the city of Torrance. It did pass the Senate floor, but when it got to the Assembly, it died when the session wrapped up and the bill had never been presented for a vote. So that policy, which has been pushed a couple times, did not make it once again this year. On that subject, when I come back at the beginning of the year, we'll do some more sort of predictions about what's coming in the following legislative year, but those two pieces, the TPA and TPA-like protections or rent caps for mobile home parks are definitely going to be a hot issue in the coming year. There's already conversations about reintroducing something like the Murasuchi bill. And as you may be aware, the Tenant Protection Act is set to sunset in 2030, which would mean that the entire law would be effectively repealed absent a bill to extend or remove that sunset. then that conversation about extension is gonna renew a lot of the conversation around the original enactment of the Tenant Protection Act, what is needed, what is fair, what's the scope of the good cause protections. Tenant advocates are pointing to some definite limitations in the good cause protections, also a growing sense that the rent cap is maybe a bit high, a bit generous, and so On the other hand, landlords will likely argue for letting the bill sunset and returning the law to what it had been before the TPA. So that will be an ongoing conversation over the next year or two as policymakers and advocates talk about what's really needed to protect renters in California at the state level. So with that, Chair, let me return it back to you and appreciate your time.

Thank you. I'm sure everyone will have questions. I just have a couple questions. With respect to AB2128, the bill that you mentioned was in response to the Trump administration rule. Are there any, if this gets signed, are there any federal preemption concerns and that it would get struck down on that basis?

Well, I'm going to say in this public forum, obviously not. But I do think that actually the answer is conveniently true. California definitely has the authority to direct public housing authorities, their creature, their creation of state law. I think that question had been vetted very carefully in the legislature. And the determination is that there's clear authority to regulate it in this space. Okay.

And then with respect to the proposed, or not the proposed, but the $350 million allocated towards affordable student housing within the bond, Yeah. Does that include any of our community college districts across the state, or is that just Cal State and UC?

I'm fairly certain it's just the CSUs and UCs, yeah.

Okay, so there was nothing allocated here for the community college districts?

I can double-check that and get back to you, but I don't believe so. It was the UCs and CSUs who kind of came to the table saying, we want to be in on this pie that you're baking. Of course, student housing that gets built could potentially benefit

students so if you've got community college and you see close together you know obviously that could potentially benefit both depending on who develops and owns the housings but let me double check that I'm right on the scope of that okay great that's that's all I had for now Commissioner Dudek oh I did have a question but I didn't know I was in the queue getting back to AB 2128 yes I know HR 1 I believe it is in the big beautiful bill mandates that everybody work regardless of any extenuating circumstances, et cetera, et cetera. And I know that this program does have a voluntary work program and career planning path and so on and so forth. But my question is, by law, could H.R. 1 usurp Or California law, by chance?

Well, I mean, this is an open question, but I think those who've worked on it are fairly confident that the state has the authority to tell state entities that they do not, they cannot implement that policy.

I'm sure that the legal arguments are in place.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Ambrose?

I don't remember the name of the bill, but I believe it was the one that would have extended the time period for UDs from three days to 10 days. Can you talk about?

I think, was there a bill? Okay, two things. Two years ago, we did pass that policy. with respect to You're really testing my memory now. That was not that was not a bill there this year on that But we did extend the time period for Non-payment of rent from 3 to 10 So but that was a cholera bill a year or two ago. Is that what you're thinking of or something else?

I'm probably misremembering

I keep coming up in the queue, and I do have a question.

Oh, okay. Commissioner Dudek?

I think it's because I'm not turning it off. Okay. Where's my question here? Hmm.

I can come back to you if you need a few minutes. Commissioner Leslie?

Yes. My first question is about SV1155 by Smallwood Quavis. Is there a possibility that this bill could be returned back in the queue?

So this is the eviction pause for nonpayment of rent during government shutdown, which builds on a policy that was enacted last year protecting Social Security benefits. That policy that related to Social Security benefits was clearly, I'm not sure everyone expected that to pass as easily as it did. This bill, which expands that same thinking to other government programs, anyone who's impacted by the shutdown, if their income is impacted, obviously much broader policy. I don't know yet whether the author intends to bring that back, but I think that remains a continuing concern. And obviously, a refined version of that could be reintroduced in the new session. Thank you. Can I return? I'm sorry. You caught me off guard, and now I've got my wits about me. I wish it were true that we have expanded the nonpayment of rent time period. The policy I was thinking of is that we took a five-day summons and extended it to 10. We have not touched the nonpayment time period. I know that's a policy that we're that lots are pushing for. I don't remember if there was a bill this year to do that, but if it was, it was short-lived.

Commissioner yeah okay I wondered if you could explain again when something is held held in committee exactly what that means and sure and then when it dies it dies does was sometimes when things died do they come back maybe in a different form

Yeah. So at this stage in the legislative process, where we're at the end of the two-year session, so the legislature convenes. This is an even year, so they convene in odd years for two years. And a bill that's introduced in the first year of that two-year session can, even if it doesn't pass through the whole process, can pick up where they left off in the second year of the session, and we call that a two-year bill. So even bills sometimes that die in a committee can be revived during that time period. Where we are now at the end of the two-year session, is all these bills that are listed here or elsewhere in reports that I've provided as held in committee, those are dead because the session ends and those bills and that bill number are history. Next year, that same bill number will be used for some other bill. Can it be revived? Yes. The following year, there's no restriction on reintroducing exactly the same bill and trying again. When we put in our reports to you that is held in committee, and maybe we should put a little bit more detail, but typically that means one of two things. Number one, it did not get out of the policy committee because it didn't have sufficient votes or the author chose not to bring it up for a vote because they knew they didn't have the votes. But in most cases, and that's true of the ones listed here as held in committee, We're talking about the Appropriations Committee suspense file, which is the fiscal committee that looks at the costs associated with all the bills that have some costs attached to them. And in this process that happens twice a year, they look at all of the bills that are on suspense file, look at all of the costs, and they make a determination about which ones are going to continue to move forward and which ones will be held on the suspense file. And that means not move forward. And when they're held on the suspense file, they are typically dead-dead. They will not move forward, even if you're in the beginning of a two-year session, they are dead. Now, the author of that bill could reintroduce it in a second year, but that bill is dead. So in these cases where it's listed as held, because we're at the end of session, it's indisputably dead. But they could come back, as I was just saying to Commissioner Leslie, with that same policy next year if they desire to do so.

Okay, any further questions for Brian? Commissioner Leslie?

So I'm looking at this infill infrastructure grant. Is there a possibility for that to be utilized for ADUs?

Which program? I'm sorry, the infill infrastructure grant? Infill infrastructure grant program. I don't know, but I mean, potentially, this program supports the infrastructure program, that is needed to support infill development as opposed to actual development of the units. So it's possible that it could support, as part of a broader project, some ADUs, but it wouldn't typically be a funding source for a single ADU, for example.

Some of our ADUs have become multi-level. They're not just a couple of levels high.

Yeah. Even so, the main thrust of that program is the the infrastructure to support the housing development. So it's a little diffused from that ultimate goal.

Is there a possibility also with the college bill for the affordable housing for that to come down to the community college level?

Let me look into that question that came up earlier. I'll get an answer.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

okay I have a comment yeah I just have a comment that it's really good to see you again thank you and um I remember when we were up at the in Sacramento at the housing conference in March, last March, this Prop 1, the hope for Prop 1 was everywhere. And so it really shows how that work paid off, and it will be a valid measure.

Yeah, amazing work by a lot of people. That's great. Thank you.

Okay, and I think all of us commissioners echo Commissioner Dudek's comments that it's always great to see you. So thank you so much for the report. We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, board discussion items. Vice Chair Ambriz has requested board discussion regarding engaging the services of a professional to provide implicit bias training for the board. Before we begin, are there any public speakers on this item? Seeing none, Vice Chair Ambriz, the floor is yours.

Yeah, I'd just like to have a discussion. Back in August 2024, most of this board voted for us to take implicit bias training with Dr. Karen Gunn. We did after the election when Commissioner Dudek had joined our board. So I'd like to explore that option again, either with the same facilitator or also to see if there's some interest in doing something different. There are other jurisdictions who have utilized either implicit bias training or have done other options such as doing some sort of facilitated retreats with the purpose of team building in order to build working relationships, to have better communication, and to focus on roles and responsibilities and to have long-term plans discussed. This has been done in the city of Kenmore, Washington. took place in Mount Rainier, Maryland. So I would just be interested in seeing if this board would like to discuss whether we could do something like that and if we could have staff come back with some options for what that would look like in terms of different facilitators and different formats, whether that's focusing on the implicit bias training or something more generalized like the retreat.

Commissioner Leslie.

So I understand the gist of it. I just was wondering if it could have came in with, like, say, a board retreat instead of the implicit bias training, because we've already done that. I'm just a little, just for clarity's sake.

Yeah, so I just agendized it that way. So that's what it's called. When we last took the training, actually when we approved the allocation of the $4,000 for the implicit bias training, it was discussed that the allocation would be that amount, because the first time with Dr. Gunn would be a larger amount in order to get to know the style of the board in general. And then if we so chose to do the same implicit bias training, the fee would possibly be reduced because she would already have familiarity with our agency. So I think that's just one option. Again, I'm suggesting that we would have staff consider that. And I hear also that, you know, we would, if this were to be done, and I think it would be my suggestion that we do this after the election, but at least those who took the training were myself, well, that would be returning would be potentially three of us. So I see that there could be some redundancy if we utilize the same facilitator. So I think that's an excellent point.

No, not so much redundancy. It's just, I guess I'm questioning as far as the labeling of the agenda item. And I don't recall, I think it was the three of us, it was Danny, Kurt, and myself that took implicit bias training. I don't recall.

We were all there.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's been a while. It's been a while.

The comment is just the title of what's written.

Not so much redundancy because then you'll have potentially two more additional board members. So it'll be still having to get acclimated to new board members and work styles and communication styles. And so it would still have to be a familiarity as far as when you move forward with implicit bias training or whatever, maybe a board retreat.

Right. Yeah. I think that was definitely a good option for staff to explore. I think this is agendized exactly the way that it was two years ago and along the exact same timeline. We voted on this August of 2024, and we implemented it after the election. But again, maybe I should have said implicit bias training or other options. So my apologies for not agendizing it with more clarity.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, I'm assuming that you're bringing it up because we're going to have some new board members. But I'm wondering, since we're going to have some new board members, if we might want to include them in the conversation and the direction and path that we take or that we don't take. And so I'm wondering if we should, you know, keep this And the hopper, but maybe discuss it after the election and after we have the board confirmed. The total board confirmed. Just a thought.

Mr. Ambrose.

I definitely would like whoever is our next five commissioners to take part in that discussion. I'm just following the same timeline as what occurred the last two years ago. And I think that this would give sufficient time for staff to come up with options. So, you know, we're in our September meeting, you know, there's November, then October, October, then November. So I'm just sort of getting a head start on this while we have this this board meeting. And that was the reason why I brought it up. But, you know, if those who are departing and not seeking re-election would choose not to take part in that discussion, then, you know, that's also a way to go. It's just different. But that was the point of me agendizing it.

Commissioner Leslie?

I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE MORE EQUITABLE IF YOU ALLOWED THE, YOU KNOW, THE COMPLETE BOARD TO TAKE A FULL DISCUSSION IN THAT INSTEAD OF THEM BEING LEFT OUT OF THE CONVERSATION. NOT SO MUCH THAT I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO PARTAKE IN THE DISCUSSION, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT'S FAIR.

I definitely hear that point. The reason why again, I'll just say the reason why I agendized it earlier rather than later is simply following what happened last time where all five of us, I'm sorry, four of us all voted yes. And this was just the way that it was done. But I hear my fellow commissioners. WANTING THE NEW BOARD TO PARTICIPATE AND PERHAPS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE EQUITABLE FOR EVEN THOSE WHO ARE NOT GOING TO BE HERE AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION TO TAKE PART IN THAT DISCUSSION. SO IF YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO TAKE PART IN THAT DISCUSSION, I UNDERSTAND.

IS THERE A PROPOSED ACTION THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TAKE BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION ITEM THIS

Yeah, my suggestion was just to have staff begin looking for today in order to allow staff as much time as possible. So there's no urgency sometimes finding facilitators and with costs and just those types of things can, you know, BE TIME CONSUMING WITH THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, WE'RE MOVING THE RANKING. ANYWAYS, IT WAS JUST TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING INTO THESE THINGS AND THEN TO COME BACK AFTER the election for us to have to look at the options. So we would not be voting on anything tonight other than it would be my suggestion to have staff begin looking at what the options are, whether it's implicit bias training or just something like different kinds of retreats.

Is there a proposed timeline for when staff would come back with a recommendation, whether it be 60 days, 90 days, etc. ?

Well, hearing from my fellow commissioners, it seems like the timeline would be our November meetings, because those are the second Thursday. So that would be after the election. Is that correct?

Just to clarify, if the intent is to have the new board vote on anything that staff brings back, it would be December. Oh, okay. That's correct.

Okay.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, I'm very grateful that you brought up the topic. I mean, that Commissioner Ambry's brought up the topic today. My only concern is that to, you know, I don't know if anyone would agree with this, but to ask staff to start looking at things that we're recommending may not leave the door open for new ideas that may come up we haven't thought about. And so when I said, I thought, would be great to I would like to hold the idea to even directly staff at this time until we have the whole board because they may have some ideas we haven't thought of so I'd like to suggest that we take the idea but hold it until the board is seated

So from what I'm hearing, it sounds like there's really two options here. Option one would be, as Vice Chair Ambry suggests, to direct staff to issue a recommendation by the December meeting in terms of how to proceed with this retreat or training. And option two would be to table the item and bring it back at a later time once the new board is sworn in.

I think there could be a third option actually where we have staff explore this, come back in December, and then we can have more input with what is presented by staff and hear from our new commissioners if there's something else that has been left out. I don't necessarily think that what staff comes back with in December has to be our final option.

Okay, so you're saying at the...

I just don't want to start this in December and then it takes more time, like say if it takes two months after December and then we're not looking at this until like the spring and then we don't start it till the summer and the idea is just you know to welcome the new commissioners and To if this is either Implicit bias training or if the option is something like a retreat where we're talking about goals and priorities Or this is team building or whatever the option may be that this is started sooner when we sooner whenever the new board arrives. So those are my comments.

Okay, so in option three in that case, the staff would give a presentation at the December meeting, but no final vote would be taken until the January meeting?

Yes.

Okay, so it sounds like there's three options on the table. Commissioner Leslie, are you in the queue? Commissioner Leslie? Okay, so it sounds like there's three options on the table would any commissioner wish to make a motion I as to their preferred option.

Okay, this doesn't require a motion? Okay. If there's no consensus, then it requires a motion? Okay. The consensus of the board is to take one, and that's clear, then we can do that. But if it's... It's not clear then, I suppose, a motion.

Okay. Are there any strong preferences as to the three options? Sorry, I'm not in the queue. Vice Chair Ambrys?

My preference would be for option three.

Okay. Commissioner Leslie?

Once again, I would prefer to wait until the new commissioners come on so their voices can be heard and be included in the conversation. I understand the lookout, but let's not have the staff cut twice as far as trying to do, because it would be a different direction once the other commissioners get on the board.

Commissioner Dudek?

Yes, my idea remains taking the idea, but I agree with

Commissioner Leslie to hold it until we have our full board in place by sharing a breeze My question is the staff procedurally since I brought this item for does that mean I can no longer bring it agendize it in the future Okay, so Okay, so Is that option one? Two. Or option two?

Option two.

To push this item until December? Until the new board is seated.

Yeah, to table the item until December or January or whenever.

Okay, sorry. It was my misunderstanding that if I brought this and there was not consensus that I would not be able to bring it forward again.

Still yours.

Okay, in that case, is the consensus to table the motion for the time being?

Table the discussion.

The discussion item.

Yeah. So we'll agendize it for the December meeting as a discussion item from Vice Chair Ambrys to, but would you like to add the items that you mentioned, facilitator, retreat, or implicit bias, so that it's clear that those are the things that you want to talk about?

Yes, we can add that to the title.

Is the December meeting, that's the first meeting that the new board is sworn in, correct? Yeah. Okay.

Right.

Okay.

Okay. Does it make more sense to agendize this for January or December?

That's up to you.

It's a discussion that would be brought at any time. If the Vice Chair would like to bring it in December, then we'll put it on for December.

And the new commissioners will be seated by the December meeting, so. Do you have a preference?

Do you have a preference?

I mean, this is a discussion, so I'll defer to my fellow commissioners. But the preference would be mostly to Commissioner Dudek. I'm going to move on to January.

Okay. Move it to January, then.

Is that agreeable? I think December would be fine because the new boards here and we can Okay, it's the direction for December then I Looks that way. Looks that way.

Yes, I would like to start the year off. Thank you. Start the year off. Yes, please, December agendas would be great. I can always work with the staff if it seems like our agenda is flooded or if it needs to be pushed.

Okay, do you have the direction you need?

Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay, is there any further business before the board? hearing none. The September 10th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Monica Rental