Fairfax City Council
March 4, 2026

Outlook
Public Comment for March 4, 2026 Town of Fairfax Town Council Meeting re MMWD Pipeline/ Upcoming Street Repairs Agenda Item: Please promptly provide copies of this to all Town Council Members and Staff.

From todd greenberg <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/16/2026 11:47 AM
To Christine Foster <[email protected]>
Cc Linda Kenton <[email protected]>; Janabai Owens <[email protected]>; Heather Abrams <[email protected]>; Kristin Arnold <[email protected]>; Mark Lockaby <[email protected]>; Fairfax Town Council <[email protected]> 1 attachment (547 KB)
Potential Improvements to Fairfax’s Street Repair Regulations Street Cut Restoration, No‑Cut Policies, and Utility Coordination in California Local Agencies.pdf;
February 16, 2026
(16 Days prior to 3pm, March 4, 2026 deadline for Public Comment) Public Comment for March 4, 2026 Town of Fairfax Town Council Meeting re MMWD Pipeline/ Upcoming Street Repairs Agenda Item:

Dear Deputy Clerk Christine Foster,
The paving contractor that worked on Mono Way some years ago, alerted me that he believed that the reason the Town of Fairfax's streets look like a third world war torn zone of potholes, patch repairs, mismatched sections, with areas of dangerous subsidence was that Town of Fairfax's Municipal Code was, in his words, "Weak".

He suggested that the Town of Fairfax should look to strengthen its Municipal Code related to Street Repairs by making changes similar to the the Municipal Codes adopted by Rohnert Park and Saratoga. I have publicly made the Town of Fairfax aware of this multiple times over years now.

Attached, as per your February 13, 2026 verbal request:
18 page PDF version
"Potential Improvements to Fairfax’s Street Repair Regulations" report and for easy reference, an inline email version (with live hyperlinks to referenced documents) Notes:

I previously hand delivered 5 copies of this report to you, 1 for each Fairfax Town Council Member at the Friday 2/13/2026 Fairfax Town Council Annual Retreat.

The report provides examples from other CA Towns and Cities as to how Town of Fairfax can improve and strengthen its Municipal Code and thus save monies and ensure that Town of Fairfax Streets and Sidewalks are maintained in better condition.

Please ensure that each Town Council Member, Town Manager Heather Abrams, Town Public Works Director Kristin Arnold, and Building Inspector Mark Lockaby receive copies.

This very important report indicates "best practices" changes that should be made to Town of Fairfax Municipal Code prior to the commencement of the MMWD and other major Utility and Contractor projects involving Street and Sidewalk Repairs.

As part of the Public Comments Section for the March 4, 2026 Town of Fairfax Town Council Meeting MMWD Agenda Item,
please include the attached Cost Savings Cost Share Responsible Party focused Street Repairs report in its entirety, along with complete copies of each of the hyperlinked documents which the report references
so that the Public is made clearly aware of the reports existence and recommendations in a timely manner, and
so that the Town Council and Staff can publicly discuss any needed changes to the Town's Municipal Code at the March 4, 2026 Town Council Meeting.

There are 30 or more hyperlinked documents.

Please promptly provide a copy of each of those linked documents to the Town of Fairfax Town Council Members and Staff Members and i repeat,
please ensure that ALL the documents are included as part of the public comments at the forthcoming March 4, 2026 Town Council Meeting, so that all involved parties may be prepared to do their best for Fairfax at the March 4, 2026 Regular Town of Fairfax Town Council Meeting.

For ease of reference and electronic use, below is an inline email copy of the best practices report with live hyperlinks to the referenced documents towards the end of the report.

Thank you for considering these best practices and thoroughly discussing:
urgently needed updates of Town of Fairfax's Municipal Codes related to Street and Sidewalk repairs, at the March 4, 2026 Town of Fairfax Town Council Meeting, prior to the significant MMWD Pipeline work commences later in March 2026 along Bolinas Rd.

Please also note that i have previously asked for, but not yet been provided, Town of Fairfax documents that indicate ALL other Utilities have been properly notified of the planned street, gutter, and sidewalk work.

I've asked for proof of adequate proper notice of needed MMWD Pipeline Construction Project Coordination so that MMWD and Town of Fairfax can coordinate potential "Cost Shares" and "Cost Efficiencies" and thus minimize disruptions to residents, visitors, and businesses, and lessen the negative impacts to Town of Fairfax Merchants and Restaurant Sales and therefore Sales Tax Revenues.

Please promptly provide those documents, and include them as part of the Staff Report and Agenda Item at the March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting.

Specifically, please provide documents that show communications with MMWD, PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, RVSD, CMSA, and any other utilities along or adjacent to the project.

Reportedly PG&E has already replaced its Natural Gas lines along Broadway/Center and Dominga, but has not done so along Bolinas Rd in Downtown Fairfax.

Has PG&E been asked by the Town of Fairfax to replace its documented as frequently leaking 1935 Natural Gas Main that runs along Bolinas Rd, that has been subject of numerous "Emergency Gas Leak Repairs" over the last 10 years?
Note: A PG&E Employee has stated that this now ~91 year old, 1935 PG&E Natural Gas Main which runs along Bolinas Rd, is "Whipcircled as needing replacement" but with no date certain as to when this work will ever be scheduled Has AT&T been asked to upgrade its lines to Fiber along Bolinas Rd, as it has already done elsewhere in Fairfax?
As these matters involve the cost efficient expenditure of Public Funds and significant matters of Public Safety,
please provide complete documentation of Utility correspondence and communications and formal requests made to ALL adjacent Utilities, as part of the MMWD related Agenda Item Staff Report at the upcoming March 4, 2026 Town of Fairfax Town Council Meeting.

Please provide ALL of the requested information online as part of the Meeting Agenda documentation, as per CA Law, via online posting, at least 72 hours prior to the Public March 4, 2026 Town of Fairfax Town Council Regular meeting, rather than, as has happened related to prior Town Council Agenda Items, as a last minute or last day supplement, that would leave no reasonable person with sufficient time to read or prepare comment for them.

I ask this because there are numerous Public Comments submitted to Town of Fairfax that are documented to have not been properly included in prior Town of Fairfax Town Council Meetings, Meeting Documentation, subsequent Meeting Minutes, or ever even having been provided to Town Council Members as they were addressed or requested to be.

The ongoing lack of timely provision of public documents upon public request is very concerning and is indicated to be contrary to CA Laws.

Further concerning are the large unnecessary costs that occur when Town Staff doesn't respond to these simple requests that are common process in other Municipalities and Special Districts. Additionally, the current practice of referring routine Public Records requests out to legal counsel costs Fairfax large amounts of monies that otherwise wouldn't need to be spent.

Thank you again for your attention to these matters and work on behalf of Fairfax residents, businesses, and tax payers.

Sincerely,
Todd Greenberg
Here is the email version of the report. the PDF version is attached.

Potential Improvements to Fairfax’s Street Repair
Regulations
I asked “Perplexity” to:
“Provide examples of CA Cities, Towns, and County Municipal code sections or other rules which require contractors doing street repairs to pave out to at least the middle of the street, when doing street repairs.

Include discussion of Saratoga's and Rohnert Park's, along with any others.

Provide a comparison table of differences amongst those codes, Including notice requirements to other utilities for cost savings prior to major work being done such as the upcoming MMWD pipeline project along Bolinas Rd, in Fairfax, and "no cut" regulations.

Discuss "Best Practices" and provide samples of suggested best implementation policies and codes.

Provide in line hyperlinks for all relevant citations, code sections, standards, and other relevant materials..

Produce a thorough report, including a Title, Table of Contents, Index, and Bibliography”
Below is the resulting 17 page report:

Street Cut Restoration, No‑Cut Policies, and
Utility Coordination in California Local Agencies
Permission to cut local streets in California is typically governed by a combination of municipal code, public works “excavation” or “encroachment” ordinances, and standard detail sheets or construction specifications that control how far a contractor must restore pavement (often to a lane line, center of lane, or full width of the street).[1][2]
Table of Contents

1. Overview of “Pave to Centerline” / Full‑Lane Requirements

2. Examples from California Cities and Towns

2.1 Saratoga

2.2 Rohnert Park

2.3 Tiburon

2.4 Millbrae

2.5 Pinole

2.6 Fairfax (context for moratorium streets)

3. Notice and Utility Coordination Requirements (incl. 811)

4. Best Practices and Model Policy/Code Elements

5. Comparison Table

1. Overview of restoration and “no‑cut” concepts
Many California agencies have moved away from narrow “sawcut just outside the trench” restoration and instead require:
· Full lane restoration, or
· Restoration to the center of the lane or to the centerline of the street, or · Full‑width restoration for long trenches or work that affects a large share of a block.

For example, Millbrae’s standard plan R‑10.2 states that centerline trenches with combined length greater than 50% of a block require “minimum restoration – width of full street for entire block,” while even shorter centerline trenches require full‑lane restoration for the length of the block. Pinole’s pavement restoration guidelines similarly require that patches exceeding 50% of the pavement width be full lane width, and state that “all repairs should be full lane width.”[2][3] “No‑cut” or “moratorium” provisions typically:
· Prohibit excavation in streets resurfaced or reconstructed within a defined period (often 3–5 years),
· Allow limited emergency or mandated work, and
· Impose enhanced restoration (full lane or full width) and/or fees if cuts are allowed during the moratorium.

Davis adopts a formal “street cut moratorium” with a defined moratorium period and special restoration rules; a trench restoration fee is required for excavations within 5 years of reconstruction or 2 years of slurry/cape seal streets.[4]

2. Examples from California cities and towns

2.1 Saratoga
Saratoga governs work in the right‑of‑way primarily through its encroachment permit system and public works standard details:
· The City’s encroachment permit page states that all work in the right‑of‑way requires a permit and that applicants must comply with the City’s Standard Details and Specifications.[5][6] · Standard detail 401 (“Asphalt Overlay and Rehabilitation Street Cross‑Section”) and 402 (“Road Repair Typical Cross Section”) set cross‑sections for overlays and repairs, and detail 405 (“Restoration of Utility Excavations in A.C. Pavement”) governs utility trench restoration.[6] · The encroachment permit page specifically requires, for streets not under moratorium with Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ≥ 51, that the applicant “micro‑surface the full width of the road for the full length of the work area or pay the City $4.50/SY for the same.” For streets under moratorium, emergency work must provide a 2‑inch overlay of the full width of the road for the full length of the work area or payment at $25/SY for that overlay.[5] Functionally, for significant trenching on streets that are not under moratorium, Saratoga pushes the contractor toward full‑width restoration of the entire cross‑section over the work length, which is stricter than a simple “to the middle of the street” rule.[6][5]

2.2 Rohnert Park
Rohnert Park uses a Manual of Standards, Details, and Specifications (Volume 3 – Construction Specifications) that incorporates Caltrans Standard Specifications with city‑specific trench details.[7][8] · Section 19 (Earthwork) states that “Specifications for pipe bedding, trench backfill and surfacing shall be as shown on City Std. 215, ‘Standard Trench Detail.’”[7] · Standard Trench Detail 215 (referenced in the manual) is the city’s control for how pavement is restored across and along lanes; in practice, these details commonly require restoration at least to the adjacent lane line, and in many agencies functioning as Rohnert Park’s peer group, centerline or full lane width is the minimum for trenches in travel lanes.[1][7] The Rohnert Park manual does not spell out the “middle of the street” phrase in the narrative sections that are publicly visible in the PDF excerpt, but the standard trench detail referenced is where lane‑width or centerline restoration requirements are normally enforced.[7]

2.3 Tiburon
Tiburon’s “Trench Restoration Standards” explicitly adopt Caltrans standards and then add a lane‑based restoration requirement:
· The document states that for trench repairs in vehicle travel lanes, “the restoration shall be extended to the lane line or center of lane whichever is [applicable].”[9] For work near lane centers, this effectively requires restoration at least from the trench to the center of the lane (i.e., half‑lane or full‑lane width, depending on the trench location).[9]

2.4 Millbrae
Millbrae’s standard plan R‑10.1/R‑10.2 is a clear example of centerline and full‑width restoration requirements:
· For lateral trenches that collectively exceed 50% of block length or involve eight or more laterals, Millbrae imposes “minimum restoration – one full lane for entire length of block.”[2] · For centerline trenches with total length less than half the block length, the standard shows restoration to at least one full lane over the trench length; where centerline trench length exceeds 50% of the block, “minimum restoration – width of full street for entire block” is required.[2] Where a trench runs along or near the centerline, the requirement to restore the full street width for the block effectively forces the contractor to pave from curb to curb, going well beyond just “middle of the street.”[2]

2.5 Pinole
Pinole’s Municipal Code 12.04.090 (“Pavement Restoration Guidelines”) is unusually explicit:
· “All patches that exceed fifty percent of the transverse pavement width shall be full lane width and the non‑patched areas shall be milled and resurfaced.”[3] · “All repairs should be full lane width.”[3]
· For trenches extending from curb into parking lane, a complete 2‑inch grind and overlay of the parking lane for 25 feet each direction is required, and trenches that extend transversely into the traveled lane require cold milling up to the nearest lane line and two‑inch overlay for 24 feet each direction.[3]
· For trenches in recently paved “prohibition streets,” the entire lane must be key‑cut two inches deep and repaved with asphalt concrete, unless the engineer authorizes slurry seal instead.[3] Together, these rules create a strong presumption of at least full‑lane restoration and, for large cuts or moratorium streets, de‑facto full‑width restoration in many circumstances.[3]

2.6 Fairfax (moratorium context)
Fairfax’s code does not, in the section reviewed, set a specific “to centerline” restoration formula, but it does impose a moratorium regime that directly affects the MMWD Bolinas Road pipeline project timing and cost:
· Fairfax Municipal Code § 12.24.100 defines a “moratorium street” as a street that has been repaved with at least 1 inch of asphalt concrete or is listed on the annually updated “Town Road List,” and states that permission to excavate such streets “will not normally be granted for five years after completion of the street renovation.”[10]
Separately, Marin Water’s project description for the Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement notes that pipeline work is “planned to be completed in coordination with Fairfax’s upcoming street overlay work,” implying an intentional effort to avoid later cuts in newly overlaid streets and thus preserve moratorium compliance.[11]

3. Notice and utility coordination requirements

3.1 One‑call (811) / USA requirements
State law overlays local codes with mandatory “call before you dig” obligations:
· California’s “DigAlert” / USA system requires that an excavator notify the one‑call center (811) at least two working days before planned excavation, after which affected utilities mark underground facilities at the site.[12][13]
· Websites summarizing California dig law emphasize that notification must include accurate site information, and utilities must respond by marking lines before excavation starts.[13][12] · If a subsurface installation is damaged, the excavator must immediately notify the facility owner and, if required, emergency services.[12][13]
Local excavation permit conditions (e.g., San Francisco Public Works’ excavation requirements) routinely echo these obligations by requiring contact with Underground Service Alert before trenching in the right‑of‑way.[14]

3.2 Local utility coordination / “joint trench” and cost‑saving coordination Most California municipal codes do not explicitly require notification of other utilities by a private contractor before every street cut. Instead, coordination is handled at the agency side:
· FHWA’s Utility Program guidance recommends establishing Utility Coordinating Committees and formal processes for joint trenching and schedule coordination, including:
o Routing highway/road project plans to utilities during the design phase, o Convening meetings of highway and utility personnel prior to major project phases, and o Publishing maps and project schedules so utilities can plan participation in joint trenches. [15]
The guidance also suggests that utilities reciprocate by providing updated system plans, capital improvement programs, and a single point of contact to coordinate with agencies.[15] For the Bolinas Road pipeline project, Marin Water explicitly notes that pipeline work will be “completed in coordination with Fairfax’s upcoming street overlay work,” indicating an agency‑to‑agency coordination mechanism aimed at avoiding subsequent cuts into fresh overlays.[11]

4. Best practices and suggested model code elements
Drawing from the California examples and federal/state guidance, several best practices emerge for pavement protection and utility coordination:

4.1 Restoration extent (lane and full‑width standards)
From Millbrae, Pinole, Tiburon, and Saratoga, useful restoration practices include:
· Requiring at least full‑lane restoration for any trench that:
o Crosses a travel lane, or
o Affects more than a defined width (e.g., > 50% of pavement width).[9][2][3] · Requiring full‑width (curb‑to‑curb) overlays for:
o Centerline or longitudinal trenches exceeding a specified fraction of the block (e.g., 50%), or
o Work on designated major arterials or moratorium streets.[5][2] · Using moratorium‑specific restoration standards (e.g., key‑cut entire lane and repave, not just a narrow patch).[4][3]
Sample policy language (conceptual)
· “Any trench in a vehicle travel lane shall be restored from the edge of the trench to the nearest lane line or center of lane, whichever results in the greater restoration width.” (modeled on Tiburon) [9]
· “If the cumulative width of pavement removed in a transverse direction exceeds fifty percent of the pavement width, the entire lane shall be milled and resurfaced for a minimum distance of X feet beyond each edge of excavation.” (modeled on Pinole)[3] · “Longitudinal centerline trenches whose total length exceeds one‑half of the block length shall trigger full‑width restoration for the entire block.” (modeled on Millbrae)[2]

4.2 Street cut moratoria and overlays
Fairfax, Davis, San Francisco, and other agencies use moratoria to protect new pavement:
· A 5‑year moratorium on newly reconstructed or overlaid streets, with limited exceptions for emergencies and mandated work.[16][10][4]
· Enhanced restoration and/or trench restoration fees if cuts are allowed within the moratorium period.[16][4]
· Fee or in‑kind requirements that effectively make full‑width overlay the norm when cutting newer pavement (e.g., Saratoga’s payment per square yard for full‑width micro‑surface or overlay). [5]
Sample policy language (conceptual)
· “No excavation shall be permitted in any street resurfaced, reconstructed, or overlaid within the preceding five years, except in emergency conditions or where required by law. Any permitted excavation shall require full‑width overlay of the affected block and payment of a trench restoration fee.” (modeled on Fairfax, Davis, and San Francisco concepts)[10][4][16]

4.3 Utility coordination and notice beyond 811
Given FHWA recommendations and the need to avoid multiple cuts, a local code or policy could build in:
· A requirement that for any capital project (e.g., full overlay or reconstruction) the agency:
o Provide at least 12–18 months’ notice to all utilities and pipeline agencies of planned work, o Convene at least one utility coordination meeting, and o Publish a public “pavement work program” map each year.[15] · A requirement that any applicant for a long longitudinal trench (e.g., > 300 linear feet) provide evidence of:
o A DigAlert/USA ticket (state law requirement), and
o Written notice to other franchised utilities in the corridor, inviting participation in a joint trench where feasible.[13][12][15]
Sample policy language (conceptual)
· “For planned overlays or reconstructions exceeding 500 linear feet, the Director shall provide notice and preliminary plans to all utilities and pipeline agencies with facilities in the corridor at least twelve months before construction and shall convene at least one utility coordination meeting.” (based on FHWA utility coordination guidance)[15] · “For private or utility projects involving new or replacement longitudinal mains exceeding 300 linear feet in public streets, the permittee shall: (a) obtain an Underground Service Alert ticket; and (b) provide written notice to all franchised utilities with facilities listed for that street segment at least 30 days before construction, describing the proposed work and offering the opportunity to participate in joint trenching where practicable.”[13][15]

4.4 Application to the Bolinas Road / Fairfax context
For the Bolinas Road MMWD project, core best practices that Fairfax could implement or emphasize include:
· Conditioning the encroachment permit on:
o At least full‑lane restoration over the length of the trench, and o Full‑width restoration where centerline alignment or total trench length meets the Millbrae‑style thresholds.[2]
· Structuring the timing so that Fairfax’s overlay follows shortly after MMWD’s trench backfill compaction period, thus eliminating the need for separate later cuts (which the moratorium would otherwise restrict).[10][11]
· Formalizing a utility coordination step (e.g., inviting PG&E, communications utilities, and any sewer agency) prior to MMWD construction, to determine whether joint trenching or concurrent work could avoid future cuts into the newly overlaid street.[11][15]

5. Selected comparison of local requirements
Street Cut Restoration and Coordination Features (Selected Agencies) Agency Restoration extent rule
(examples)
Moratorium / “no‑cut”
feature
Utility notice /
coordination feature
Saratoga For streets with PCI ≥ 51,
applicant must micro‑surface
the full width of the road for
the full length of the work area
or pay per‑SY fee; moratorium
streets require 2‑inch overlay
of full width for emergency
work over full work length.
[5]
Streets under moratorium:
only emergency repair
permitted; emergency
trench requires full‑width
2‑inch overlay or
equivalent fee. [5]
Encroachment permit
requires plans and
insurance; coordination
with Public Works staff;
no explicit “notify other
utilities” rule beyond
811, but general 811
law applies. [5][13]
Rohnert
Park
Construction specifications
require trench bedding,
backfill, and surfacing per
City Standard Trench Detail
215, which governs how far
restoration extends (typically
at least to lane line in
Caltrans‑style details). [7]
Uses standard practice via
Caltrans‑based specs;
moratorium language not
visible in excerpt, likely
handled by policy or other
chapters. [7][1]
Manual incorporates
Caltrans specs;
contractors must
comply with state dig
laws including 811
notification. [7][13]
Tiburon Trench Restoration Standards
require that for trench repairs
in vehicle travel lanes,
restoration “shall be extended
to the lane line or center of
lane whichever is
[applicable].” [9]
Uses Caltrans standards
with added lane‑based
restoration; any “no‑cut”
policy is likely in separate
pavement management
documents, not in this
excerpt. [9]
Relies on Caltrans
standards and state law;
811 notification is
required by state law.
[9][13]
Millbrae Standard plan R‑10.2: where
centerline trenches exceed
50% of block length,
“minimum restoration – width
of full street for entire block”;
lateral trenches meeting
criteria require “minimum
restoration – one full lane for
entire length of block.” [2]
Implied pavement
protection by making long
centerline trenches
extremely expensive
(full‑width restoration).
[2]
Standard plans assume
compliance with
USA/811; no separate
cross‑utility notification
requirement in the
detail itself. [2][13]
Pinole Pavement Restoration
Guidelines: “All patches that
exceed fifty percent of the
transverse pavement width
shall be full lane width”; “All
repairs should be full lane
width.” [3]
For trenches in recently
paved prohibition streets,
entire lane must be
key‑cut and repaved with
AC unless engineer
authorizes slurry seal. [3]
Code focuses on
pavement restoration;
utility coordination
handled via standard
permit process and 811
law.
[3][13]
Davis Moratorium restoration
guidelines cross‑referenced;
extent may be increased as
determined by city engineer
for cuts during moratorium.
[4]
Formal “street cut
moratorium”: no
excavation on newly
constructed,
reconstructed, overlaid, or
slurry/cape sealed streets
within defined period;
trench restoration fee
required within 5 years/2
years windows. [4]
Standard permit
conditions and 811 law
apply; no explicit local
requirement to notify
other utilities beyond
the state one‑call
system. [4][13]
Fairfax Fairfax code section reviewed
defines moratorium but does
not itself codify restoration
width; restoration is handled
through public works
standards and project‑specific
conditions. [10]
§ 12.24.100: no
excavation normally
allowed on “moratorium
streets” for five years after
renovation; streets defined
in “Town Road List.” [10]
Marin Water’s Bolinas
Road pipeline project is
scheduled to be
coordinated with
Fairfax’s upcoming
overlay to avoid
post‑overlay cuts; state
811 law applies. [11]
[13]
Index (selected terms and agencies)
· 811 / DigAlert – state one‑call law requiring notice before excavation.[12][13] · Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement – Marin Water project coordinated with Fairfax overlay. [11]
· Centerline trench – Millbrae standard plan restoration rules.[2] · Davis – Street cut moratorium and trench restoration fee.[4] · Fairfax – Moratorium streets definition (§ 12.24.100).[10] · Full‑lane restoration – Pinole, Tiburon, Millbrae, Rohnert Park standard practice.[7][9][3][2] · Full‑width restoration – Saratoga fees/requirements, Millbrae centerline trench rules.[5][2] · Millbrae – R‑10.2 trench restoration standard.[2]
· Moratorium streets – Fairfax, Davis.[4][10]
· Pinole – Pavement Restoration Guidelines § 12.04.090.[3] · Rohnert Park – Manual of Standards, Standard Trench Detail 215.[8][7] · Saratoga – Encroachment permits, standard details, full‑width overlay or micro‑surface requirements.[6][5]
· Tiburon – Trench restoration standards requiring restoration to lane line or center of lane.[9] · Utility Coordinating Committee – FHWA recommended best practice.[15] Bibliography (inline hyperlink style)
· City of Saratoga, Encroachment Permits and Fee Schedule, including trenching and full‑width micro‑surface/overlay requirements. https://www.saratoga.ca.us/202/Encroachment-Permits[5] · City of Saratoga, Standard Details 401–405 (Roadwork and utility excavation restoration). https://www.saratoga.ca.us/422/Standard-Details[6]
· City of Rohnert Park, Manual of Standards, Details and Specifications, Volume 3 – Construction Specifications. https://rpcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/373/Volume-3---ConstructionSpecifications-PDF[7] · Town of Tiburon, Trench Restoration Standards (Caltrans‑based). https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1480/Trench-Restoration-Standards[9] · City of Millbrae, Standard Plan R‑10.1/R‑10.2 – Trench Restoration. https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1702/R-101-107-Trench-Restoration[2] · City of Pinole, Municipal Code § 12.04.090 Pavement Restoration Guidelines. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-4471[3] · Town of Fairfax, Municipal Code § 12.24.100 Permit for Moratorium Streets Required. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/fairfax/latest/fairfax_ca/0-0-0-4247[10] · City of Davis, Street Cut Moratorium ordinance and trench restoration fee cross‑references. https://ecode360.com/44648096[4]
· San Francisco Public Works, Regulations for Excavating and Restoring Streets (Excavation Code, moratorium provisions). https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005- Signed.pdf[16]
· FHWA Utility Program, “Controlling Pavement Cuts by Implementing Policy,” Chapter 3 – Types of Policies and Utility Coordination.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/utilitycuts/man03.cfm[15] · DigAlert / California Law – Call before you dig requirements (811). https://digalert.org/calaw[13]
· Util‑Locate overview of California dig law and compliance tips. https://www.utillocate.com/california-dig-law-how-to-stay-compliant/[12] · Marin Water, Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement Project. https://marinwater.org/yourwater/construction-and-infrastructure/capital-projects/bolinas-roadpipeline-replacement-project/[11] ⁂

1. https://cityofukiah.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Ukiah-Trench-Cut-Study-FINALREPORT.pdf

2. https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1702/R-101-107-TrenchRestoration

3. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-4471

4. https://ecode360.com/44648096

5. https://www.saratoga.ca.us/202/Encroachment-Permits

6. https://www.saratoga.ca.us/422/Standard-Details

7. https://rpcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/373/Volume-3---Construction-SpecificationsPDF

8. https://rpcity.org/239/Manual-of-Standards

9. https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1480/Trench-RestorationStandards

10. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/fairfax/latest/fairfax_ca/0-0-0-4247

11. https://marinwater.org/yourwater/construction-and-infrastructure/capital-projects/bolinas-roadpipeline-replacement-project/

12. https://www.util-locate.com/california-dig-law-how-to-stay-compliant/

13. https://digalert.org/calaw

14. https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation requirements.pdf

15. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/utilitycuts/man03.cfm

16. https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf

17. https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1215/Trench-Excavation-Backfill-andResurfacing-PDF

18. https://eweb.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/web_july_UtilitySecret.pdf

19. https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/sanramon-ca/doclibrary.aspx?id=484d478a-a968-4ed7- 9564-b2d812573a38

20. https://vulcanhammer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trenchingandshoring.pdf

21. https://lci.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf

22. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/planning/community/profiles/southeasternsd/pdf /streetscapedesignguidelinesforthemarketstreetcorridor.pdf

23. https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/sharedassets/public/public-works/key-documents/alameda-giplan-with-all-appendicies_-electronic-version_12-3-19.pdf

24. https://weblink.losgatosca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=563254&dbid=0&repo=LFTOWN

25. https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/771/31-23-33-Trenching-and-Backfilling-PDF

26. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/GI_Plan_Hayward_Final_July_8_2019_with B6.pdf

27. https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH14SU_ART14- 10DE_14-10.020ADAG

28. https://publicworks.marincounty.gov/fairfax-bolinas-road-slide-repair-at-milepost-5-73/

29. https://publicworks.marincounty.org/fairfax-bolinas-road-repair/

30. http://www.californiacity-ca.gov/CC/images/stories/Standard-details-002.pdf This email message is intended only for the named recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. Taking notice of this message by third parties is not permitted. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from any computer, cloud storage, or other method of receipt or storage. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this information is strictly prohibited.

Virus-free.www.avg.com
Potential Improvements to Fairfax’s Street Repair
Regulations
I asked “Perplexity”to:
“Provide examples of CA Cities, Towns, and County
Municipal code sections or other rules which require
contractors doing street repairs to pave out to at least the middle of the street, when doing street repairs.

Include discussion of Saratoga's and Rohnert Park's,
along with any others.

Provide a comparison table of differences amongst those codes,
Including notice requirements to other utilities for cost savings prior to major work being done such as the
upcoming MMWD pipeline project along Bolinas Rd, in
Fairfax, and "no cut" regulations.

Discuss "Best Practices" and provide samples of
suggested best implementation policies and codes.

Provide in line hyperlinks for all relevant citations, code sections, standards, and other relevant materials..

Produce a thorough report, including a Title, Table of
Contents, Index, and Bibliography”
Below is the resulting 17 page report:

Street Cut Restoration, No‑Cut Policies, and
Utility Coordination in California Local
Agencies
Permission to cut local streets in California is typically governed by a combination of municipal code, public works “excavation” or “encroachment” ordinances, and standard detail sheets or construction specifications that control how far a contractor must restore pavement (often to a lane line, center of lane, or full width of the street).[1][2] Table of Contents

1. Overview of “Pave to Centerline” / Full‑Lane Requirements

2. Examples from California Cities and Towns

2.1 Saratoga

2.2 Rohnert Park

2.3 Tiburon

2.4 Millbrae

2.5 Pinole

2.6 Fairfax (context for moratorium streets)

3. Notice and Utility Coordination Requirements (incl. 811)

4. Best Practices and Model Policy/Code Elements

5. Comparison Table

1. Overview of restoration and “no‑cut” concepts
Many California agencies have moved away from narrow “sawcut just outside the trench” restoration and instead require:
 Full lane restoration, or
 Restoration to the center of the lane or to the centerline of the street, or  Full‑width restoration for long trenches or work that affects a large share of a block.

For example, Millbrae’s standard plan R‑10.2 states that centerline trenches with combined length greater than 50% of a block require “minimum restoration – width of full street for entire block,” while even shorter centerline trenches require full‑lane restoration for the length of the block. Pinole’s pavement restoration guidelines similarly require that patches exceeding 50% of the pavement width be full lane width, and state that “all repairs should be full lane width.”[2][3]
“No‑cut” or “moratorium” provisions typically:
 Prohibit excavation in streets resurfaced or reconstructed within a defined period (often 3–5 years),
 Allow limited emergency or mandated work, and
 Impose enhanced restoration (full lane or full width) and/or fees if cuts are allowed during the moratorium.

Davis adopts a formal “street cut moratorium” with a defined moratorium period and special restoration rules; a trench restoration fee is required for excavations within 5 years of reconstruction or 2 years of slurry/cape seal streets.[4]

2. Examples from California cities and towns

2.1 Saratoga
Saratoga governs work in the right‑of‑way primarily through its encroachment permit system and public works standard details:
 The City’s encroachment permit page states that all work in the right‑of‑way requires a permit and that applicants must comply with the City’s Standard Details and Specifications.[5][6]
 Standard detail 401 (“Asphalt Overlay and Rehabilitation Street Cross‑Section”) and 402 (“Road Repair Typical Cross Section”) set cross‑sections for overlays and repairs, and detail 405 (“Restoration of Utility Excavations in A.C. Pavement”) governs utility trench restoration.[6]
 The encroachment permit page specifically requires, for streets not under moratorium with Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ≥ 51, that the applicant “micro‑surface the full width of the road for the full length of the work area or pay the City $4.50/SY for the same.” For streets under moratorium, emergency work must provide a 2‑inch overlay of the full width of the road for the full length of the work area or payment at $25/SY for that overlay.[5]
Functionally, for significant trenching on streets that are not under moratorium, Saratoga pushes the contractor toward full‑width restoration of the entire cross‑section over the work length, which is stricter than a simple “to the middle of the street” rule.[6][5]

2.2 Rohnert Park
Rohnert Park uses a Manual of Standards, Details, and Specifications (Volume 3 – Construction Specifications) that incorporates Caltrans Standard Specifications with city‑specific trench details.[7][8]
 Section 19 (Earthwork) states that “Specifications for pipe bedding, trench backfill and surfacing shall be as shown on City Std. 215, ‘Standard Trench Detail.’”[7]  Standard Trench Detail 215 (referenced in the manual) is the city’s control for how pavement is restored across and along lanes; in practice, these details commonly require restoration at least to the adjacent lane line, and in many agencies functioning as Rohnert Park’s peer group, centerline or full lane width is the minimum for trenches in travel lanes.[1][7]
The Rohnert Park manual does not spell out the “middle of the street” phrase in the narrative sections that are publicly visible in the PDF excerpt, but the standard trench detail referenced is where lane‑width or centerline restoration requirements are normally enforced.[7]

2.3 Tiburon
Tiburon’s “Trench Restoration Standards” explicitly adopt Caltrans standards and then add a lane‑based restoration requirement:
 The document states that for trench repairs in vehicle travel lanes, “the restoration shall be extended to the lane line or center of lane whichever is [applicable].”[9] For work near lane centers, this effectively requires restoration at least from the trench to the center of the lane (i.e., half‑lane or full‑lane width, depending on the trench location).[9]

2.4 Millbrae
Millbrae’s standard plan R‑10.1/R‑10.2 is a clear example of centerline and full‑width restoration requirements:
 For lateral trenches that collectively exceed 50% of block length or involve eight or more laterals, Millbrae imposes “minimum restoration – one full lane for entire length of block.”[2]
 For centerline trenches with total length less than half the block length, the standard shows restoration to at least one full lane over the trench length; where centerline trench length exceeds 50% of the block, “minimum restoration – width of full street for entire block” is required.[2]
Where a trench runs along or near the centerline, the requirement to restore the full street width for the block effectively forces the contractor to pave from curb to curb, going well beyond just “middle of the street.”[2]

2.5 Pinole
Pinole’s Municipal Code 12.04.090 (“Pavement Restoration Guidelines”) is unusually explicit:
 “All patches that exceed fifty percent of the transverse pavement width shall be full lane width and the non‑patched areas shall be milled and resurfaced.”[3]  “All repairs should be full lane width.”[3]
 For trenches extending from curb into parking lane, a complete 2‑inch grind and overlay of the parking lane for 25 feet each direction is required, and trenches that extend transversely into the traveled lane require cold milling up to the nearest lane line and two‑inch overlay for 24 feet each direction.[3]  For trenches in recently paved “prohibition streets,” the entire lane must be key‑cut two inches deep and repaved with asphalt concrete, unless the engineer authorizes slurry seal instead.[3]
Together, these rules create a strong presumption of at least full‑lane restoration and, for large cuts or moratorium streets, de‑facto full‑width restoration in many circumstances.[3]

2.6 Fairfax (moratorium context)
Fairfax’s code does not, in the section reviewed, set a specific “to centerline” restoration formula, but it does impose a moratorium regime that directly affects the MMWD Bolinas Road pipeline project timing and cost:
 Fairfax Municipal Code § 12.24.100 defines a “moratorium street” as a street that has been repaved with at least 1 inch of asphalt concrete or is listed on the annually updated “Town Road List,” and states that permission to excavate such streets “will not normally be granted for five years after completion of the street renovation.”[10] Separately, Marin Water’s project description for the Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement notes that pipeline work is “planned to be completed in coordination with Fairfax’s upcoming street overlay work,” implying an intentional effort to avoid later cuts in newly overlaid streets and thus preserve moratorium compliance.[11]

3. Notice and utility coordination requirements

3.1 One‑call (811) / USA requirements
State law overlays local codes with mandatory “call before you dig” obligations:
 California’s “DigAlert” / USA system requires that an excavator notify the one‑call center (811) at least two working days before planned excavation, after which affected utilities mark underground facilities at the site.[12][13]  Websites summarizing California dig law emphasize that notification must include accurate site information, and utilities must respond by marking lines before excavation starts.[13][12]
 If a subsurface installation is damaged, the excavator must immediately notify the facility owner and, if required, emergency services.[12][13] Local excavation permit conditions (e.g., San Francisco Public Works’ excavation requirements) routinely echo these obligations by requiring contact with Underground Service Alert before trenching in the right‑of‑way.[14]

3.2 Local utility coordination / “joint trench” and cost‑saving coordination Most California municipal codes do not explicitly require notification of other utilities by a private contractor before every street cut. Instead, coordination is handled at the agency side:
 FHWA’s Utility Program guidance recommends establishing Utility Coordinating Committees and formal processes for joint trenching and schedule coordination, including:
o Routing highway/road project plans to utilities during the design phase, o Convening meetings of highway and utility personnel prior to major project phases, and
o Publishing maps and project schedules so utilities can plan participation in joint trenches.[15]
The guidance also suggests that utilities reciprocate by providing updated system plans, capital improvement programs, and a single point of contact to coordinate with agencies.[15] For the Bolinas Road pipeline project, Marin Water explicitly notes that pipeline work will be “completed in coordination with Fairfax’s upcoming street overlay work,” indicating an agency‑to‑agency coordination mechanism aimed at avoiding subsequent cuts into fresh overlays.[11]

4. Best practices and suggested model code elements
Drawing from the California examples and federal/state guidance, several best practices emerge for pavement protection and utility coordination:

4.1 Restoration extent (lane and full‑width standards)
From Millbrae, Pinole, Tiburon, and Saratoga, useful restoration practices include:
 Requiring at least full‑lane restoration for any trench that:
o Crosses a travel lane, or
o Affects more than a defined width (e.g., > 50% of pavement width).[9][2][3]  Requiring full‑width (curb‑to‑curb) overlays for:
o Centerline or longitudinal trenches exceeding a specified fraction of the block (e.g., 50%), or
o Work on designated major arterials or moratorium streets.[5][2]  Using moratorium‑specific restoration standards (e.g., key‑cut entire lane and repave, not just a narrow patch).[4][3]
Sample policy language (conceptual)
 “Any trench in a vehicle travel lane shall be restored from the edge of the trench to the nearest lane line or center of lane, whichever results in the greater restoration width.” (modeled on Tiburon)[9]
 “If the cumulative width of pavement removed in a transverse direction exceeds fifty percent of the pavement width, the entire lane shall be milled and resurfaced for a minimum distance of X feet beyond each edge of excavation.” (modeled on Pinole)[3]  “Longitudinal centerline trenches whose total length exceeds one‑half of the block length shall trigger full‑width restoration for the entire block.” (modeled on Millbrae)[2]

4.2 Street cut moratoria and overlays
Fairfax, Davis, San Francisco, and other agencies use moratoria to protect new pavement:
 A 5‑year moratorium on newly reconstructed or overlaid streets, with limited exceptions for emergencies and mandated work.[16][10][4]  Enhanced restoration and/or trench restoration fees if cuts are allowed within the moratorium period.[16][4]
 Fee or in‑kind requirements that effectively make full‑width overlay the norm when cutting newer pavement (e.g., Saratoga’s payment per square yard for full‑width micro‑surface or overlay).[5]
Sample policy language (conceptual)
 “No excavation shall be permitted in any street resurfaced, reconstructed, or overlaid within the preceding five years, except in emergency conditions or where required by law. Any permitted excavation shall require full‑width overlay of the affected block and payment of a trench restoration fee.” (modeled on Fairfax, Davis, and San Francisco concepts)[10][4][16]

4.3 Utility coordination and notice beyond 811
Given FHWA recommendations and the need to avoid multiple cuts, a local code or policy could build in:
 A requirement that for any capital project (e.g., full overlay or reconstruction) the agency:
o Provide at least 12–18 months’ notice to all utilities and pipeline agencies of planned work,
o Convene at least one utility coordination meeting, and o Publish a public “pavement work program” map each year.[15]  A requirement that any applicant for a long longitudinal trench (e.g., > 300 linear feet) provide evidence of:
o A DigAlert/USA ticket (state law requirement), and
o Written notice to other franchised utilities in the corridor, inviting participation in a joint trench where feasible.[13][12][15]
Sample policy language (conceptual)
 “For planned overlays or reconstructions exceeding 500 linear feet, the Director shall provide notice and preliminary plans to all utilities and pipeline agencies with facilities in the corridor at least twelve months before construction and shall convene at least one utility coordination meeting.” (based on FHWA utility coordination guidance)[15]  “For private or utility projects involving new or replacement longitudinal mains exceeding 300 linear feet in public streets, the permittee shall: (a) obtain an Underground Service Alert ticket; and (b) provide written notice to all franchised utilities with facilities listed for that street segment at least 30 days before construction, describing the proposed work and offering the opportunity to participate in joint trenching where practicable.”[13][15]

4.4 Application to the Bolinas Road / Fairfax context
For the Bolinas Road MMWD project, core best practices that Fairfax could implement or emphasize include:
 Conditioning the encroachment permit on:
o At least full‑lane restoration over the length of the trench, and o Full‑width restoration where centerline alignment or total trench length meets the Millbrae‑style thresholds.[2]
 Structuring the timing so that Fairfax’s overlay follows shortly after MMWD’s trench backfill compaction period, thus eliminating the need for separate later cuts (which the moratorium would otherwise restrict).[10][11]
 Formalizing a utility coordination step (e.g., inviting PG&E, communications utilities, and any sewer agency) prior to MMWD construction, to determine whether joint trenching or concurrent work could avoid future cuts into the newly overlaid street.[11][15]

5. Selected comparison of local requirements
Street Cut Restoration and Coordination Features (Selected Agencies) Agency Restoration extent rule
(examples)
Moratorium / “no‑cut”
feature
Utility notice /
coordination feature
Saratoga For streets with PCI ≥ 51,
applicant must
micro‑surface the full
width of the road for the
full length of the work
area or pay per‑SY fee;
moratorium streets
require 2‑inch overlay of
full width for emergency
work over full work
length. [5]
Streets under
moratorium: only
emergency repair
permitted; emergency
trench requires
full‑width 2‑inch
overlay or equivalent
fee. [5]
Encroachment
permit requires
plans and insurance;
coordination with
Public Works staff;
no explicit “notify
other utilities” rule
beyond 811, but
general 811 law
applies. [5][13]
Rohnert
Park
Construction
specifications require
trench bedding, backfill,
and surfacing per City
Standard Trench Detail
215, which governs how
far restoration extends
(typically at least to lane
line in Caltrans‑style
details). [7]
Uses standard practice
via Caltrans‑based
specs; moratorium
language not visible in
excerpt, likely handled
by policy or other
chapters. [7][1]
Manual incorporates
Caltrans specs;
contractors must
comply with state
dig laws including
811 notification.
[7][13]
Tiburon Trench Restoration
Standards require that for
trench repairs in vehicle
travel lanes, restoration
“shall be extended to the
lane line or center of lane
whichever is [applicable].”
[9]
Uses Caltrans
standards with added
lane‑based
restoration; any
“no‑cut” policy is
likely in separate
pavement
management
documents, not in this
excerpt. [9]
Relies on Caltrans
standards and state
law; 811 notification
is required by state
law. [9][13]
Millbrae Standard plan R‑10.2:
where centerline trenches
exceed 50% of block
length, “minimum
restoration – width of full
street for entire block”;
lateral trenches meeting
criteria require “minimum
restoration – one full lane
for entire length of block.”
[2]
Implied pavement
protection by making
long centerline
trenches extremely
expensive (full‑width
restoration). [2]
Standard plans
assume compliance
with USA/811; no
separate
cross‑utility
notification
requirement in the
detail itself. [2][13]
Pinole Pavement Restoration
Guidelines: “All patches
that exceed fifty percent
of the transverse
pavement width shall be
full lane width”; “All
repairs should be full lane
width.” [3]
For trenches in
recently paved
prohibition streets,
entire lane must be
key‑cut and repaved
with AC unless
engineer authorizes
slurry seal. [3]
Code focuses on
pavement
restoration; utility
coordination
handled via
standard permit
process and 811
law. [3][13]
Davis Moratorium restoration
guidelines
cross‑referenced; extent
may be increased as
determined by city
engineer for cuts during
moratorium. [4]
Formal “street cut
moratorium”: no
excavation on newly
constructed,
reconstructed,
overlaid, or
slurry/cape sealed
streets within defined
period; trench
restoration fee
required within 5
years/2 years
windows. [4]
Standard permit
conditions and 811
law apply; no
explicit local
requirement to
notify other utilities
beyond the state
one‑call system.
[4][13]
Fairfax Fairfax code section
reviewed defines
moratorium but does not
itself codify restoration
width; restoration is
handled through public
works standards and
project‑specific
conditions. [10]
§ 12.24.100: no
excavation normally
allowed on
“moratorium streets”
for five years after
renovation; streets
defined in “Town Road
List.” [10]
Marin Water’s
Bolinas Road
pipeline project is
scheduled to be
coordinated with
Fairfax’s upcoming
overlay to avoid
post‑overlay cuts;
state 811 law
applies. [11][13]
Index (selected terms and agencies)
 811 / DigAlert – state one‑call law requiring notice before excavation.[12][13]  Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement – Marin Water project coordinated with Fairfax overlay.[11]
 Centerline trench – Millbrae standard plan restoration rules.[2]  Davis – Street cut moratorium and trench restoration fee.[4]  Fairfax – Moratorium streets definition (§ 12.24.100).[10]  Full‑lane restoration – Pinole, Tiburon, Millbrae, Rohnert Park standard practice.[7][9][3][2]
 Full‑width restoration – Saratoga fees/requirements, Millbrae centerline trench rules.[5][2]
 Millbrae – R‑10.2 trench restoration standard.[2]
 Moratorium streets – Fairfax, Davis.[4][10]
 Pinole – Pavement Restoration Guidelines § 12.04.090.[3]  Rohnert Park – Manual of Standards, Standard Trench Detail 215.[8][7]  Saratoga – Encroachment permits, standard details, full‑width overlay or micro‑surface requirements.[6][5]
 Tiburon – Trench restoration standards requiring restoration to lane line or center of lane.[9]
 Utility Coordinating Committee – FHWA recommended best practice.[15] Bibliography (inline hyperlink style)
 City of Saratoga, Encroachment Permits and Fee Schedule, including trenching and full‑width micro‑surface/overlay requirements.
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/202/Encroachment-Permits[5]
 City of Saratoga, Standard Details 401–405 (Roadwork and utility excavation restoration). https://www.saratoga.ca.us/422/Standard-Details[6]  City of Rohnert Park, Manual of Standards, Details and Specifications, Volume 3 – Construction Specifications. https://rpcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/373/Volume-3- --Construction-Specifications-PDF[7]
 Town of Tiburon, Trench Restoration Standards (Caltrans‑based). https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1480/Trench-RestorationStandards[9]  City of Millbrae, Standard Plan R‑10.1/R‑10.2 – Trench Restoration. https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1702/R-101-107-TrenchRestoration[2]  City of Pinole, Municipal Code § 12.04.090 Pavement Restoration Guidelines. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-4471[3]  Town of Fairfax, Municipal Code § 12.24.100 Permit for Moratorium Streets Required. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/fairfax/latest/fairfax_ca/0-0-0-4247[10]  City of Davis, Street Cut Moratorium ordinance and trench restoration fee cross‑references. https://ecode360.com/44648096[4]
 San Francisco Public Works, Regulations for Excavating and Restoring Streets (Excavation Code, moratorium provisions).
https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf[16]  FHWA Utility Program, “Controlling Pavement Cuts by Implementing Policy,” Chapter 3 – Types of Policies and Utility Coordination.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/utilitycuts/man03.cfm[15]  DigAlert / California Law – Call before you dig requirements (811). https://digalert.org/calaw[13]
 Util‑Locate overview of California dig law and compliance tips. https://www.utillocate.com/california-dig-law-how-to-stay-compliant/[12]  Marin Water, Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement Project. https://marinwater.org/yourwater/construction-and-infrastructure/capitalprojects/bolinas-road-pipeline-replacement-project/[11] ⁂

1. https://cityofukiah.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Ukiah-Trench-Cut-StudyFINAL-REPORT.pdf

2. https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1702/R-101-107-TrenchRestoration

3. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-4471

4. https://ecode360.com/44648096

5. https://www.saratoga.ca.us/202/Encroachment-Permits

6. https://www.saratoga.ca.us/422/Standard-Details

7. https://rpcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/373/Volume-3---ConstructionSpecifications-PDF

8. https://rpcity.org/239/Manual-of-Standards

9. https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1480/Trench-RestorationStandards

10. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/fairfax/latest/fairfax_ca/0-0-0-4247

11. https://marinwater.org/yourwater/construction-and-infrastructure/capitalprojects/bolinas-road-pipeline-replacement-project/

12. https://www.util-locate.com/california-dig-law-how-to-stay-compliant/

13. https://digalert.org/calaw

14. https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation requirements.pdf

15. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/utilitycuts/man03.cfm

16. https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf

17. https://www.losaltosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1215/Trench-ExcavationBackfill-and-Resurfacing-PDF

18. https://eweb.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/web_july_UtilitySecret.pdf

19. https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/sanramon-ca/doclibrary.aspx?id=484d478aa968-4ed7-9564-b2d812573a38

20.https://vulcanhammer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trenchingandshoring.pdf

21. https://lci.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf

22.https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/planning/community/profiles/s outheasternsd/pdf/streetscapedesignguidelinesforthemarketstreetcorridor.pdf

23.https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/sharedassets/public/public-works/keydocuments/alameda-gi-plan-with-all-appendicies_-electronic-version_12-3-19.pdf

24.https://weblink.losgatosca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=563254&dbid=0&repo=LF TOWN

25. https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/771/31-23-33-Trenching-andBackfilling-PDF

26.https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/GI_Plan_Hayward_Final_July_8_2019_with B-6.pdf

27. https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH14S U_ART14-10DE_14-10.020ADAG

28.https://publicworks.marincounty.gov/fairfax-bolinas-road-slide-repair-at-milepost-5- 73/

29.https://publicworks.marincounty.org/fairfax-bolinas-road-repair/

30. http://www.californiacity-ca.gov/CC/images/stories/Standard-details-002.pdf Formal Demand to Cure and Correct – Gov. Code § 54960.1 To: Town of Fairfax Mayor Stephanie Hellman, Town Council Members, Town Clerks, Linda Kenton, Christine Foster, Janabai Owens, and Town Manager Heather Abrams From: Todd Greenberg
Date: March 1, 2026
Submitted via: Email [March 2, 2026 – Hand-Delivered]
Re: Alleged Violations of the Brown Act at the February 13, 2026 Special Meeting

NOTICE OF IMMEDIATE NEED FOR ACTION
Because the next regular meeting on April 15, 2026 falls outside the mandatory 30-day cure and correct window for agenda-related violations, the Town of Fairfax Town Council is hereby notified of the immediate need to agendize and resolve this matter at the March 4, 2026 regular meeting pursuant to the urgency provisions of Gov. Code § 54954.2(b)(2).

The Alleged Violations

1. Failure to provide adequate description – Gov. Code § 54956 The public was provided only 24 hours notice of the agenda for the February 13, 2026 special meeting (Exhibit 1). The title "Annual Goal Setting Retreat" failed to provide a brief general description of multiple specific fiscal and tax-related items and other items that were actually discussed and decided upon by the Fairfax Town Council without proper notice or opportunity for the public to comment.

2. Consideration of unannounced business – Gov. Code § 54956 The Council took actions and reached collective commitments on items not specified in the 24-hour special-meeting notice. Under Gov. Code § 54956 and the Brown Act, no other business shall be considered at a special meeting beyond what is explicitly described in the notice.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 1

3. Denial of public comment rights – Gov. Code § 54954.3(a) Because the actual business being transacted, including tax-related actions and direction, was not described in the special-meeting notice, the public was effectively denied its statutory right to provide testimony on those specific items before decisions were made, contrary to Gov. Code § 54954.3(a).

4. Unauthorized action taken – Gov. Code § 54952.6
The Council reached collective decisions, directions, or promises to make decisions on non-agendized items, constituting an illegal "action taken" outside of a properly noticed public meeting. "Action taken" is defined in Gov. Code § 54952.6 as "a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority... to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote."
Evidence of Prior Notice and Willful Intent
This demand is informed by the fact that Mayor Stephanie Hellman in her capacity as MCCMC President and the members of the MCCMC were recently served with a ceaseand-desist notice on or around January 5, 2026, for similar Brown Act violations involving the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members (Exhibits 3 and (#exhibit4)). Despite this official warning regarding transparency and open-meeting requirements received by Stephanie Hellman as President of the MCCMC, she appears to have proceeded to engage in further non-agendized deliberation and de facto voting on February 13, 2026 while she was acting as Mayor at the Fairfax Town Council Special Meeting. This pattern supports an inference of a willful deprivation of information under Gov. Code § 54959.

Demand to Cure and Correct
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54960.1, this letter constitutes a written demand that the Fairfax Town Council cure and correct the above-described Brown Act violations.

Specifically, the undersigned demands that the Council take the following actions:

1. Immediate agendization and invalidation
Place this cure-and-correct demand on the March 4, 2026 regular meeting agenda (Exhibit 2) and declare all actions, directions, or commitments regarding tax-related Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 2 measures from the February 13 special meeting null and void under Gov. Code § 54960.1(a), both because those matters were not properly described in the specialmeeting notice and because the public was not afforded an opportunity to comment on them.

2. De novo deliberation in open session
Conduct a new, properly noticed deliberation and any associated actions regarding these matters in open session at a future regular or special meeting, with clear agenda descriptions and full public comment rights as required by Gov. Code §§ 54950, 54954.2, and 54954.3.

3. Prospective rulemaking to ensure compliance
Publicly commit, via resolution and/or ordinance at or before the April 15, 2026 regular Town Council meeting, to provide the public with a separate opportunity to speak on each individual agenda item before any action is taken, consistent with – and, if desired, exceeding – the minimum public-access standards authorized by Gov. Code § 54933 and the public-comment requirements of Gov. Code § 54954.3(a).

4. Warning of Penalties for Non-Compliance:

Continued violations risk personal misdemeanor liability under Gov. Code § 54959 (up to 6 months jail/$1,000 fine per member for willful deprivation of public information), plus civil remedies including voided actions, injunctions (§ 54960), and prevailing party attorney fees (§ 54960.5). Prior notices to recipients heighten this exposure
Please treat this correspondence as a formal cure and correct demand under Gov. Code § 54960.1(c)(1). The Council is required to inform the undersigned in writing of its decision to cure or correct the challenged action, or to decline to do so, within 30 days of receipt of this demand.

Failure to timely and adequately cure and correct the above-described violations will leave the undersigned no alternative but to pursue all available judicial and Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 3 administrative remedies, including an action to have the February 13, 2026 actions declared null and void under Gov. Code § 54960.1.

Respectfully,
Todd Greenberg
Citations
Govern
ment
Code
Relevan
t
Excerpt
Full URL
§ 54933 Authoriz
es local
agencie
s to
adopt
rules
exceedi
ng
minimu
m
public
access
standar
ds for
meeting
s.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54933.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 4 § 54950 Defines
"legislati
ve
body"
broadly
for
Brown
Act
applica
bility.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54950.
§
54952.6
"Action
taken"
means
a
collectiv
e
decision
...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54952.6.
§
54954.2
Require
s 72-
hour
agenda
posting
with
brief
descript
ions...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54954.2.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 5 §
54954.2
(b)(2)
Allows
brief
agenda
descript
ion
updates
...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54954.2.
§
54954.3
Require
s
reasona
ble
public
comme
nt
opportu
nity...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54954.3.
§
54954.3
(a)
"Every
agenda
for
regular
meeting
s shall
provide.
.."
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54954.3.
§ 54956 Special
meeting
s
require
24-hour
notice...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54956.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 6 § 54959 Address
es
willful
deprivat
ion of
public
records.
..
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54959.
§
54960.1
Allows
written
demand
to
cure/cor
rect
violation
s...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54960.1.
§
54960.1
(a)
Specifie
s
remedie
s like
declarin
g
actions
null...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54960.1.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 7 §
54960.1
(c)(1)
Require
s
written
respons
e to
cure
demand
...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xh tml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=54960.1.

Exhibits
• Exhibit 1 – Evidence of limited Agenda that did not include adequate Public notice of Taxes and other topics that were discussed and voted on without the opportunity for Public Comment by Fairfax Town Council at the February 13, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Special Meeting Agenda
Full URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/e9f4b15d02-13-26-tc-agenda-council-retreat.pdf • Exhibit 2 – Evidence of limited but insufficient cure and correct actions: March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Packet Full URL: https://townoffairfaxca.gov/meetings/town-council-meeting-march-4- 2026/#/tab-agenda-packet
• Exhibit 3 – Prior Notice and Knowledge of Brown Act Requirements: MCCMC January 28, 2026 Agenda Packet
Full URL: https://www.mccmc.org/wp-content/uploads/MCCMC-Agenda-Pkt1.28.26-via-zoom.pdf • Exhibit 4 – Prior Notice and Knowledge of Brown Act Requirements: Cease and Desist Letter Received: January 5, 2026 from Annie Cappetta of Ferguson Law on behalf of Brooke Gans
Full URL: https://www.mccmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026-1-5-MCCMCCease-Desist-with-Ex.-1-compressed-1.pdf Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 8 • Exhibit 5 – Prior Notice and Knowledge of Brown Act Requirements: Cease and Desist Notice Received December 5, 2023 from Mark Bell (see attached) • Exhibit 6 – Press Coverage: Marin Independent Journal o "Feb. 8, 2026 Marin government social group pressured for transparency"
Full URL: https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/08/marin-government-socialgroup-pressured-for-transparency/ • Exhibit 7---Press Coverage: Marin Independent Journal o "Feb. 12, 2026 Editorial Marin elected officials group needs to adhere to Brown Act"
Full URL: https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/12/editorial-marin-electedofficials-group-needs-to-adhere-to-brown-act/ Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 9 Town of Fairfax
Town Council Retreat
Friday, February 13, 2026 | 9:30AM
Fairfax Women’s Club, 46 Park Road, Fairfax CA
(In-person only)
9:30 AM – CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL – APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment will be received on the Retreat topics.

ANNUAL GOAL SETTING RETREAT
(Topics not in order of discussion)
• Team Building Exercise
• Review/discuss Town accomplishments of 2025
• Discuss Council Member goals for 2026
• Review/discuss Town-staff goals for 2026
• Review and set priorities for 2026
• Review/discuss Budget process

ADJOURNMENT
If you need an accommodation or modification to participate in this meeting due to disability, please contact the Deputy Town Clerk prior to the meeting: (415) 453-1584 or [email protected].

This meeting notice was posted in accordance with Gov. Code section 54954.2(a)(1) on or before February 12, 2026.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 10 Apply for or renew your business license for the 2026 year! (https://townoffairfaxca.gov/departments/business-tax-licenses/) Town Council Meeting: March 4, 2026
Mar
4 2026
6:30 pm  Fairfax Women’s Club
Fairfax Women's Club - 46 Park Road, Fairfax 94930
 Share
 Directions (https://maps.google.com?daddr=Fairfax+Women%27s+Club+-+46+Park+Road%2C+Fairfax+94930) Agenda Agenda Packet
Agenda
Wednesday, March 4, 2026 | 6:30 p.m.

Fairfax Women’s Club, 46 Park Road, Fairfax CA
and  Zoom Webinar ID 831 0518 0735 (https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83105180735? _ics=1730947129568&irclickid=~d9b6962YOU1VWMOHFGMSJABvqyxyqwrlrilef784ZVULCzsrha90&_ga=2.67522642.2116026065.1730943679- 653259617.1715892035&_gl=1*s2tz1f*_gcl_au*Mjk4NTMxNjQwLjE3MjU0OTcyNTA.*_ga*NjUzMjU5NjE3LjE3MTU4OTIwMzU.*_ga_L8TBF28DDX*

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOTICE
This meeting will be held in person and virtually on Zoom. It will also be broadcast on Channels 27 and 99 and livestreamed on https://www.townoffairfax.org/watch-live-2/ (https://www.townoffairfax.org/watch-live-2/) and https://www.cmcm.tv/27 (https://www.cmcm.tv/27). Unless a member of the City Council is attending the meeting via teleconference pursuant to the provisions of AB 2449 (2022), if a technical error or outage occurs on the Zoom feed, the Town Council will continue the meeting in public at the Fairfax Women’s Club.

In-person and remote participation:

Women’s Club at 46 Park Road, Fairfax
Join the Zoom webinar https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83105180735 (https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83105180735) Dial in to Zoom’s telephone number +1(669) 900-9128 or +1(346) 248-7799 and press *9 to provide verbal public comment. Zoom Webinar ID 880 3100 1183.

Public Comment:

Email written comments to the Town Council (mailto:[email protected]) before 3:00 p.m. to be posted online.

Emails received after the cutoff time will be made part of the record the next business day.

You may also provide comments in-person and over Zoom during the meeting. For Zoom, use the ‘raise hand’ feature to provide verbal public comment.

Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes.

Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Hybrid meeting at the Fairfax Women’s Club and via Zoom (https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88031001183) 6:30 PM – CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Fairfax Town Council acknowledges that we are located on the un-ceded ancestral lands of the Coast Miwok people of present-day Marin County. We honor with gratitude the land itself, and all of its ancestors: past, present, and emerging.

MEETING PROTOCOL
Add to Calendar
3/1/26, 8:59 PM Town Council Meeting: March 4, 2026 - Town of Fairfax https://townoffairfaxca.gov/meetings/town-council-meeting-march-4-2026/#/tab-agenda-packet 1/4 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 11 The Mayor or presiding officer shall maintain order at all Town Council meetings. Council Members share responsibility for modeling respectful, professional conduct to effectively facilitate the meeting and encourage meaningful civic participation.

All participants – including Council Members, staff, members of the public, and remote attendees are expected to engage respectfully. Profane language, personal attacks, ridicule of character or motives, and discriminatory or harassing conduct are not permitted. These standards apply equally to all viewpoints and forms of participation.

To ensure all voices can be heard, disruptive behavior including shouting, repeated interruptions, clapping, booing, stomping, use of soundmaking devices, or other actions that interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting is not permitted during public comment or Council deliberations. Applause is appropriate for ceremonial or celebratory items (such as proclamations, recognitions, or welcoming remarks).

Participants are asked to silence electronic devices.

The Mayor or presiding officer may issue a reminder or warning to address disruptions. Disruptive behavior will result in a pause in the meeting. Continued disruptive behave behavior will result in removal from the meeting, consistent with applicable law and in a viewpointneutral manner.

Meetings will adjourn no later than 11pm. At approximately 9:30 p.m., the Council will review the agenda to determine which remaining items may be continued.

ANNOUNCEMENTS (5 Minutes)
TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT (2 Minutes)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (5 Minutes)

PRESENTATION

1. Maria Baird Proclamation (~10 minutes)
Present a Proclamation to Maria Baird Recognizing Her 20 Years of Service

2. Marin Water Project Presentation (~20 minutes)
Receive a Presentation from Marin Water on the Upcoming Bolinas Road Pipeline Replacement Project.

3. Independent Financial Audit (~15 minutes)
Receive a Presentation from Maze & Associates on the Independent Audit for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/3fd0ff16-presentation-3-fy24-25-financial-audit.pdf)

4. Mid-Year Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (~20 minutes) Receive a Presentation on the 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget Review Report Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/d1f6e93f-presentation-4-mid-year-budget-review-fy25-26.pdf) OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION This is the time for the public to address the Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to two (2) minutes. The Council cannot take action or discuss items not on the agenda, as restricted by state law (Gov. Code §54954.2). If there are more speakers after 30 minutes, Open Time will continue at the end of the agenda.

REGULAR AGENDA

1. Adopt Three (3) Resolutions Calling for a Special Election to Extend the Term of and Increase of the Measure C Sales Tax (~30 minutes)
Adopt Resolution 2026-03 submitting to the qualified voters of the Town of Fairfax a General Tax Measure increasing the rate of the Town’s Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax from three-quarters percent (0.75%) to one percent (1%) and extending the term of the tax by removing its sunset, at a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026; Adopt Resolution 2026-04 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin to consolidate a special municipal election to be held on June 2, 2026 with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on that date pursuant to elections code section 10403; Adopt Resolution 2026-05 providing for the filing of direct and rebuttal arguments and setting rules for the filing of written arguments regarding a Town measure to be submitted at the June 2, 2026 Special Municipal Election.

Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/c9f015c0-item-1.-calling-for-a-special-election-for-measurec.pdf)

2. Adopt a Resolution Placing an Advisory Measure on the June 2, 2026 Statewide Primary Ballot Regarding Spending Priorities for the General Transactions & Use (Sales) Tax (~10 minutes) Adopt Resolution 2026-06 submitting to the qualified voters of the Town of Fairfax an Advisory Measure seeking voter direction regarding spending priorities for revenues from the Town’s General Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax, at a Special Municipal Election to 3/1/26, 8:59 PM Town Council Meeting: March 4, 2026 - Town of Fairfax https://townoffairfaxca.gov/meetings/town-council-meeting-march-4-2026/#/tab-agenda-packet 2/4 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 12 be consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election to be held June 2, 2026, and setting rules for arguments and rebuttals for and against said advisory measure.

Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/9b86f061-item-2.-advisory-measure-for-measure-c.pdf)

3. Fire Station 21 Construction Project (~20 minutes)
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between the Town and Fairchild Broms Design to Add Construction Management Services for the Fire Station 21 Remodel Project for $80,200; this resolution is not expanding the total project cost, which remains estimated at $1.6 million.

Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/a7ef4322-item-3.-fire-station-21-amendment-with-fairchildbroms.pdf)

4. Agreement between Town of Fairfax and the Fairfax Festival Committee (~20 minutes) Adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to finalize and execute an agreement with the Fairfax Festival Committee for the Town to provide Limited Fiscal Agent services and other described services to the 2026 Fairfax Festival Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/348ff49c-item-4.-limited-fiscal-agent-agreement-withfairfax-festival.pdf)

5. Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Formula Businesses (~20 minutes) Adopt with a 4/5 vote of the Town Council, an interim urgency ordinance pursuant to Govt Code section 65858, to place a forty-five (45) day moratorium on the issuance of entitlements for new formula businesses, as defined in the ordinance.

Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/dfad8d32-item-5.-urgency-ordinance-placing-moratoriumon-formula-businesses.pdf)

6. CONSENT CALENDAR The Council can approve all items on the Consent Calendar in one action. Alternatively, any Council or staff member can remove items for separate discussion and voting. Public comments for Consent Calendar items are taken collectively, not item by item.

During this period, speakers may address any item on the Consent Calendar, with each speaker allotted up to two minutes and limited to one comment session. (~10 Minutes)
a) Financial Statement and Disbursement Reports
Receive Financial Statement and Disbursement Reports for January 2026 Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/b7cb3045-item-6.a-january-2026-financials.pdf) b) Councilmember Reports
Receive report on Councilmembers’ assignments, committees, and activities in February 2026 Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/5e81a7d0-item-6.b-councilmember-reports-january2026.pdf) c) Minutes
Town Council Meeting: February 4, 2026 (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/b9d6be37-item-6.c-draftminutes-for-the-february-4-town-council-meeting.pdf) d) Repeal of Fairfax Town Code Section 5.56.170 and Section 17.110.050 Second reading by Title Only and Adoption of Ordinance 905 Repealing Fairfax Town Code Sections 5.56.170 and 17.110.050 and Revising Section 17.110.040(A) to Remove Provisions Related to the Proposed Relocation of Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM) to 1591–1593 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/d0947fd8-item-6.d-ordinance-905-second-readingreapealing-and-revising-cannabis-code.pdf) e) Fairfax Annual Housing Progress Report
Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Town of Fairfax Annual Progress Report on the General Plan and Housing Element for the Calendar Year 2025
Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/b4fafcd2-item-6.e-annual-housing-progress-report.pdf) f) Chamber of Commerce Annual Street Closure Request
Adopt a Resolution Approving Street Closures for 2026 Events Hosted by the Chamber of Commerce Staff Report (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/9cf5b995-item-6.f-2026-chamber-of-commerce-roadclosures.pdf) g) Women’s History Month
Adopt a Proclamation Honoring Women’s History Month (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/2026/02/472e7625- item-6.g-womes-history-month-proclamation.pdf)

COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS
(Brief announcements and reports on Councilmember assignments, committees, and activities, including reports from meetings attended at Town expense.)
3/1/26, 8:59 PM Town Council Meeting: March 4, 2026 - Town of Fairfax https://townoffairfaxca.gov/meetings/town-council-meeting-march-4-2026/#/tab-agenda-packet 3/4 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 13

ADJOURNMENT
In memory of Dora Hayes, Carol Nielsen, Jesse Jackson
If any of the matters described above is challenged in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at any public hearing described on this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, this Council meeting.

If you need an accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting due to disability, please contact the Deputy Town Clerk prior to the meeting: (415) 453-1584 or [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]).

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection www.townoffairfaxca.gov (http://www.townoffairfax.org/). Meetings are broadcast, recorded, and uploaded to the Town’s website.

This meeting notice was posted in accordance with Government Code section 54954.2(a)(1) on or before March 1, 2026.  Helpful
 Share
 Size
Contact
Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Rd., Fairfax, CA 94930
Phone: 415-453-1584
Fax: 415-453-1618
Directory (/contact) Feedback (/feedback)
Accessibility (/accessibility-statement) Sitemap (/sitemap) Hours
8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. & 1:00-5:00 p.m.

Mondays through Thursdays
Subscribe
Subscribe to Town news and updates. (/subscribe)
Powered by (https://proudcity.com)
3/1/26, 8:59 PM Town Council Meeting: March 4, 2026 - Town of Fairfax https://townoffairfaxca.gov/meetings/town-council-meeting-march-4-2026/#/tab-agenda-packet 4/4 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 14

MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2026
6:00 PM

VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE ONLY
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MCCMC MEETING VIA ZOOM WEBINAR:

Join the Zoom Webinar to participate LIVE:

The Zoom webinar ID is: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87389138251 If you are joining via dial-in instead of computer/tablet/smartphone, you may dial in to listen to the meeting using: +1 (669) 900-9128 or iPhone one-tap : +16699009128,,87389138251# The Zoom webinar ID is: 873 8913 8251
Download Zoom Webinar here: https://zoom.us/download
To provide written public comment prior to or during the meeting, please send email to [email protected] (if intended to be read aloud as public comment, please state Public Comment in subject line) To provide verbal public comment during the meeting, click the “Raise Hand” icon during the item for which you wish to provide comment, and staff will unmute and prompt you to talk at the designated time.

Full Agenda Packet available here: http://www.mccmc.org 6:00 PM Welcome and Introductions

1. Call to Order: MCCMC President Stephanie Hellman

2. Public Comment (Limit 3 minutes per person)

3. Welcome, Introduction of Guests: President Stephanie Hellman

4. Business Meeting:

4.a. Consider Approval of Unconditional Commitment to Brown Act for MCCMC Standing Committees; 2) Discuss current review underway of MCCMC Governance, Operations and Bylaws
Attachment 4a: Memo to MCCMC

4.b. Consider Approval of Request to Sunset MCCMC Homeless Subcommittee Attachment 4b: Memo to MCCMC

4.c. Review Of Draft Agenda For The February 25, 2026 MCCMC Meeting Via Zoom Attachment 4c: Draft agenda for February 25, 2026 meeting

4.d. Informational Item: Review of Draft Minutes of the City Selection Committee Meeting Held on October 22, 2025 (Informational item only, the draft minutes will be formally reviewed and approved by City Selection Committee at its next available meeting) Attachment 4d: Draft City Selection Committee minutes for October 22, 2025 meeting * Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 15

4.e. Consideration and Possible Action to Approve the Draft Minutes of the October 22, 2025, MCCMC Regular Meeting
Attachment 4e: Draft minutes for the October 22, 2025 meeting *

5. Committee Reports (written reports only – to be published in agenda packet and posted on website, http://www.mccmc.org/)

5.a. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
5a. Written report provided by Pat Eklund, Novato

5.b. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 5b. Written report provided by Pat Eklund, Novato

5.c. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District * 5c. Written report provided by Holli Thier, Tiburon

5.d. Transportation Authority of Marin
5d. Written report provided by Alice Fredericks, Tiburon * = Indicates report not available at time of agenda publication.

The packet will be updated online and redistributed once these items are available.

6. Presentations

1. Update From Steven Torrence, Marin County Director Of Emergency Management, On The County’s Flood Response And Disaster Proclamation

2. Presentation From Isaac Landman, Placemate Associate Market Director, Regarding Placemate’s “Lease To Locals” Program And Its Success As An Affordable Housing Solution.

7. ADJOURN: to the February 25, 2026 meeting, via Zoom Webinar Deadline for Agenda Items – February 18, 2026. Please send to: [email protected] Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 16 Business Item 4.a
1 4A

MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS

STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: January 22, 2026
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Members Of The Marin County Council Of Mayors And Councilmembers FROM: Rebecca Vaughn, MCCMC Clerk/Treasurer
THROUGH: Stephanie Hellman, MCCMC President
SUBJECT: 1) Consider Approval Of Unconditional Commitment To Brown Act For MCCMC Standing Committees; 2) Discuss Current Review Underway Of MCCMC Governance, Operations And Bylaws
       
PURPOSE:

MCCMC, its standing committees and governance: Recommendation for Brown Act Compliance and overall review for future proposal(s) and action
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Time-sensitive compliance action (tonight): On January 5, 2026, all MCCMC member jurisdictions received a cease-and-desist letter alleging Brown Act violations of the MCCMC Legislative Committee. The letter (see Exhibit 1) expresses multiple concerns related to right to public attendance, public comment, and public access to meeting materials. The letter requests that MCCMC approve an “unconditional commitment” in open session that MCCMC and all standing committees will conduct future meetings consistent with Brown Act open-meeting requirements. The letter requests that action be taken no later than 30 days after receipt of the letter.

Staff recommends:
(1) MCCMC adopts commitment, as requested, for immediate implementation. MCCMC should take an affirmative vote to adopt the prospective “unconditional commitment” to Ralph M. Brown Act open meeting requirements for MCCMC and standing committee meetings are consistently open and accessible to the public going forward, with specific requirements provided below.

This requires action by the membership, a quorum is important to ensure MCCMC can take the requested action at this meeting.

Brown Act open-meeting requirements:

A. Meetings open and accessible: MCCMC and all standing committee meetings will be open to the public except as allowed by law.

B. Agenda posting and attendance instructions: Agendas will be publicly posted in advance and will include clear instructions for how the public may attend and provide comment.

C. Public comment: Meetings will provide an opportunity for public comment consistent with Brown Act open-meeting requirements.

D. No identification requirement: No identification, sign-in, or other conditions will be required for public attendance.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 17 Business Item 4.a
2 4A
E. Recording permitted: Recording (including automated recording and automated transcription/note-taking) will be allowed as provided by law.

F. Meeting materials / packets: Meeting materials distributed to committee members during open session will be handled consistently and made available as feasible, recognizing the letter’s emphasis on access to informational items distributed to the committee. (2) Provide direction to return with proposed bylaw amendments related to item #1 above.

MCCMC Bylaw amendments require a multi-meeting process
A. Bylaws modernization / updates:

Replace “spirit of the Brown Act” language with clear, affirmative compliance language and add committee-specific procedures.

BACKGROUND:

Current bylaws language is not explicit
The MCCMC bylaws (most recently amended in 2018; Exhibit 2) state: “All meetings shall be open to the public and comply with the spirit of the Ralph M. Brown Act.” The current MCCMC website “About” page states that meetings “comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act.” This agenda item is intended to remove ambiguity through (1) an affirmative commitment adopted by MCCMC, and (2) follow-up bylaw updates
A review of current MCCMC Governance is underway that looks at neighboring associations for best practices, including operational sustainability.

Discovery and exploration is inclusive of
• Potential future bylaws,
• Examination of rules of procedure,
• Voting process refinements (including City Selection Committee matters) • Long-term organizational oversight/staffing options and potential financial commitments (such as staff support, legal counsel)
• Bylaws amendments and committee rules of procedure
• Voting process refinements (including City Selection Committee matters) • Long-term organizational oversight/staffing options and potential financial commitments (such as staff support, legal counsel)
Under the bylaws, amendments must be introduced at a regular meeting (not enacted the same night), then noticed/mailed at least 10 days prior to the meeting at which adoption is requested, and require approval by 2/3 of member cities/towns.

Accordingly, it is recommended that on January 28, 2026, MCCMC (1) adopt the immediate Brown Act unconditional commitment, and (b) introduce or direct future bylaw amendments for adoption at a later meeting.

ACTIONS TO CONSIDER:

1. Discuss and approve Unconditional Commitment to Adherence to Provisions of Ralph M.

Brown Act For MCCMC and Its Standing Committees, and provide other direction to staff, including direction to return with next steps as recommended in report.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 18 Business Item 4.a
3 4A

2. Take no action and provide other direction to staff. Note: this may result in legal action being taken against MCCMC, its staff and its member cities and towns.

Attachments:

1. Cease and Desist Letter and Exhibits, Dated January 5, 2026.

2. MCCMC Bylaws, Amended 2018
Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 19 Business Item 4.a
4 4A
Exhibit 1
Cease and Desist Letter, Dated January 5, 2026
Note: Pages 1-7 of the Cease and Desist Letter are included below.

The full packet, including all exhibits, can be viewed here:
https://www.mccmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026-1-5-MCCMC-Cease-Desist-with-Ex.-1- compressed-1.pdf
Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 20

4.c.

MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS

DRAFT AGENDA
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Via Zoom Webinar
Guest Speakers:
• Legislative Update from Assemblymember Damon Connolly • Omar Carrera – Update from Canal Alliance
Tentative Committee Reports
Association of Bay Area Governments / Bay Conservation and Development Commission Homeless Committee
Marin County Disaster Council Citizen Corps
Marin Transit
Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Commission
Golden Gate Bridge & Highway Transportation District
Transportation Authority of Marin
MCCMC Legislative Committee
Local Agency Formation Commission
Business Meeting
Tentative Continued Discussion Regarding Updates to MCCMC Bylaws and Other Organizational Restructuring (pending direction from MCCMC at Janaury 28, 2026 meeting)
Review Of Draft Agenda For The March 25, 2026 MCCMC Meeting Via Zoom Consideration and Possible Approval of the Draft Minutes of the January 28, 2026 MCCMC Meeting
8:00 PM ADJOURN: to the March 25, 2026 meeting – to be held via Zoom Deadline for consideration of potential agenda items – March 18, 2026 Please send to: [email protected]
Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 21 Ferguson law
Annie Cappetta
1816 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA • (510) 548-9005 • [email protected] January 5, 2025
Sent Via U.S. Postal Mail and E-Mail:

Rebecca Vaughn, Secretary of Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers & Assistant Town Manager of Corte Madera
[email protected]
P.O. Box 159
Corte Madera, CA 94976
Honorable MCCMC Legislative Committee Members
c/o Alice Fredericks, MCCMC Legislative Committee President & Tiburon Councilmember [email protected]
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Cease and Desist Brown Act Violations of Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers and Its Standing Committees
Dear Secretary Rebecca Vaughn and Honorable Members of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers:

I write on behalf of Ms. Brooke Schreier Ganz, a concerned Marin County resident and taxpayer, to demand that Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (“MCCMC”) cease and desist its practice of conducting its standing committee meetings in secret, in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov’t Code § 54950,1 et seq.

On three separate occasions in late 2025, the Chair of the MCCMC’s Legislative Committee, Alice Fredericks, obstructed Ms. Ganz from attending the regularly scheduled committee meetings, which are held on the fourth Mondays of each month. Ms. Fredericks has taken the erroneous position that this Legislative Committee, and MCCMC as a body, are private political groups or social groups not subject to the Brown Act and thus closed to public access.

As explained further below, the facts of the MCCMC’s formation, membership, and actions conclusively establish that the MCCMC and its standing committees are “legislative bodies” bound by the Brown Act. § 54952. The MCCMC has 30 days from receiving this letter to provide the unconditional commitment to cease and desist its Brown Act violations. If it fails or refuses to do so, we may file an action pursuant to section 54960.2, in which case, we will seek an award of court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 54960.5. 1 All further statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise specified.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 22 1/5/26

MCCMC Secretary Vaughn; Legislative Committee Members
Removing, Protesting, or Barring Ms. Ganz from Legislative Committee Meetings On the morning of August 25, 2025, Ms. Ganz clicked on a Zoom link from the top of the MCCMC’s Legislative Committee’s meeting agenda packet, which is publicly posted on its website,2 and attempted to attend the meeting as a member of the public. The MCCMC’s own website states: “All meetings are open to the public and comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act.”3 Ms. Ganz was admitted to the Zoom meeting and observed for several minutes until Committee members noted her presence. The Chair of the Legislative Committee, Alice Fredericks, demanded that Ms. Ganz identify herself, how she had gotten the Zoom information, and why she was present in the meeting room. While Ms. Ganz’s Zoom presence listed her full name and the Brown Act proscribes requiring identification as a condition of public attendance, she unmuted herself and provided the information. Ms. Fredericks and Committee member Barbara Coler then told Ms. Ganz that the meeting was “not open to the public” because the Legislative Committee was not subject to the Brown Act and directed Ms. Ganz to leave.

On the date of the next Legislative Committee meeting, September 22, 2025, Ms. Ganz once again clicked on the publicly available link in the posted meeting agenda and joined the Zoom meeting. Ms. Fredericks once again demanded Ms. Ganz leave the meeting, stating again that the meeting was not open under the Brown Act. Ms. Ganz then unmuted her audio and explained her rights under the Brown Act. Ms. Fredericks seemed to relent and allowed Ms.

Ganz to stay in the Zoom room to listen to the audio of the rest of this September meeting.

Then, on the morning of October 27, 2025, Ms. Ganz once again clicked on the publicly available Zoom meeting link for the regular Legislative Committee meeting. This time, Ms.

Ganz was not admitted into the meeting. She attempted entry into the Zoom room several times.

In a conversation with Ms. Ganz the next day, MCCMC Secretary Rebecca Vaughn confirmed that there were not technical difficulties with the Legislative Committee’s Zoom meeting and that Ms. Fredericks intentionally blocked Ms. Ganz from attending.

In the days after this meeting, Ms. Ganz notified Ms. Vaughn and MCCMC President Stephanie Hellman that she may pursue legal action under the Brown Act if the MCCMC did not take corrective action. Since then, no one from MCCMC has reached out to Ms. Ganz with any updates. Moreover, the MCCMC suddenly stopped posting agendas for the Legislative Committee meetings on its website, cutting off public access about what was discussed in these now closed-door meetings.
2 MCCMC Legislative Committee Meeting August 26, 2025 Agenda, MCCMC https://www.mccmc.org/wpcontent/uploads/MCCMC-Leg-Com-Agenda-2025-25-8.pdf (last accessed Jan. 2, 2026). 3 About, MCCMC, https://www.mccmc.org/about/ (last accessed Jan. 2, 2026); see also Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, By Laws, art. VII, § 3 (as amended and approved on March 28, 2018), on file at:
https://www.mccmc.org/wp-content/uploads/MCCMC-By-Laws-Amended-2018.pdf [hereinafter “Bylaws”].

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 23 1/5/26

MCCMC Secretary Vaughn; Legislative Committee Members
The Brown Act & MCCMC’s Violations
The California constitution enshrines the right to open government. “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” Cal. Const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).

To that end, the Brown Act declares, “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” § 54950.

The Brown Act is “broadly construed” to further “the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” Cal. Const. art. I, § 3(b)(2); see also, e.g., Julian Volunteer Fire Co. Assn. v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection Dist., 62 Cal. App. 5th 583, 601 (2021) (noting Brown Act’s provisions must be “construed liberally in favor of openness in conducting public business”).

The Act mandates: “All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency,” except for limited provisions authorizing closed sessions. § 54953(a). The Act also requires that all meetings conducted by legislative bodies must — absent an emergency — be publicized in advance, follow a noticed agenda, be accessible, and provide an opportunity for the public to comment. Id. §§ 54954–54954.3, 54954.5–54956.5, 54956.7–54957.10, 54962.

Despite MCCMC’s apparent position that it is not subject to the Brown Act — which is not controlling — the facts of the MCCMC’s formation, membership, and actions conclusively establish that the MCCMC and its standing committees are “legislative bodies” bound by the Brown Act, id. § 54952.

The law defines a “legislative body” to include the following types of bodies:
1) A “commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decisionmaking or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body,” id. § 54952(b), such as the committees and other bodies that city councils form; and 2) Any “entity that … [r]eceives funds from a local agency and the membership includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.” Id. § 54952(c)(1)(B).

First, the MCCMC is a legislative body under the definition in subsection (b) of section 54952. Any “commission, committee, board, or other body … created by … formal action” of any city council is a “legislative body” subject to the Brown Act under § 54952(b) — except for a narrow carveout not applicable here for certain ad hoc advisory committees. E.g., Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 24 1/5/26

MCCMC Secretary Vaughn; Legislative Committee Members
McKee v. L.A. Interagency Metro. Police Apprehension Crime Task Force, 134 Cal. App. 4th 354, 357, 362 (2005) (holding interagency task force was subject to the Brown Act where “numerous city councils approved it” because “[o]nce at least two city councils agreed to create [it] as a separate entity, … it became a local public agency whose legislative body is subject to the Brown Act”); Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. L.A. Exp. Terminal, Inc., 69 Cal. App. 4th 287, 294, 304 (1999) (holding a private corporation in which the City of Los Angeles is a shareholder “is a legislative body within the meaning of the Brown Act” because “the City Council was involved in bringing [it] into existence”); Joiner v. City of Sebastopol, 125 Cal. App. 3d 799, 801 (1981) (holding group who met to recommend how to fill a vacancy on a city planning commission “was ‘created by … formal action’ of the city council … when it designated two of its members to meet with two planning commission members”); Epstein v.

Hollywood Ent. Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862, 870 (2001) (holding that a nonprofit corporation that “administers the funds City raises” was required to comply with the Brown Act because the city council “played a role in bringing” the nonprofit “into existence”).

As evidenced in the first line of its bylaws, the MCCMC was formed jointly by “the incorporated cities and towns of Marin County,”4 which is more than sufficient to establish that they “played a role in” creating it, and in doing so the cities established the MCCMC as another legislative body bound by the Brown Act under section 54952(b). See McKee, 134 Cal. App. 4th at 357; Int’l Longshoremen’s, 69 Cal. App. 4th at 304; Epstein, 87 Cal. App. 4th at 870.

Second, the MCCMC also qualifies as a legislative body under the definition in subsection (c)(1) of section 54952. The MCCMC is also separately a “legislative body” because it is an “entity that … [r]eceives funds from a local agency and the membership includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency,” § 54952(c)(1), i.e., the councilmembers whose cities appointed them as MCCMC members and standing committee members.5
Third, because the MCCMC is a legislative body in its own right, the standing committees that it has formally created are also legislative bodies bound by the Brown Act.

See id. § 54952(b) (“standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter”).

Even though the MCCMC’s own website states that it complies with the Brown Act, public records obtained by Ms. Ganz reflect that in 2022, emails between MCCMC members about responding to a public records request for recordings of its meetings referred to the MCCMC as a “social group” and “not a Brown Act body,”6 as if it were a purely private group 4 Bylaws art. I, § 1. 5 Id.; id. art. II, § 1; id. art. V, § 1.a (“The Legislative Committee shall consist of a Councilmember from each of the member cities, chosen by their respective City Councils …”). 6 Ex. 1 at 2.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 25 1/5/26

MCCMC Secretary Vaughn; Legislative Committee Members
like the Lions Club or Girl Scouts, independent from public business, in which public officials happen to participate. Public records referenced herein are attached as Exhibit 1.

To the contrary, the MCCMC and its standing committees perform core government functions, including appointing “representatives to various statutory bodies or advisory groups” and engaging “active legislative efforts.”7 As public records reflect, through “the Legislative Committee of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC), the eleven cities and towns in Marin County have contracted for legislative advocacy services with Emanuels Jones & Associates (Emanuels Jones) since at least 1998.”8 Invoice history shows that Emanuels Jones has billed the MCCMC more than $3,000 nearly every month since at least 2020.9 Both these lobbying costs and membership dues are paid through public funds by the cities. Unlike a private social club, these “funds do not belong to the individual council members, they belong to the public, and the public has a right to participate in any decisions about how public funds should be expended.” Epstein, 87 Cal. App. 4th at 875.

Under any construction of the Brown Act, broad or otherwise, the facts show that the MCCMC and its standing committees are legislative bodies. Given the “purposes and requirements” of the Brown Act, courts “must follow function over form in carrying out the Legislature’s purposes” to guarantee open government and accountability and prevent evasive tactics. 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 69, 73 (1996). Any disclaimer that the MCCMC or any of its standing committees is a “social group” or “not a Brown Act body” is not “determinative” of whether they are subject to the Brown Act. See id. On the facts admitted in the bylaws and memorialized in public records, the MCCMC and its standing committees are legislative bodies bound by the Brown Act’s core requirements of open public meetings with notice, agenda, and opportunity for public comment.

Cease and Desist Demand
To address and remedy the concerns expressed in this letter, we demand that the MCCMC and its standing committees cease and desist from conducting their deliberations in secret and in violation of the Brown Act. The MCCMC must acknowledge the Brown Act violations set forth in this letter by making an unconditional commitment to refrain from keeping its meetings and the meetings of its standing committees closed to the public and to conduct all future meetings in accordance with the Act’s requirements set for legislative bodies, including publicly posting agendas; allowing public access to meetings; allowing the recording (including automated recording and automated transcription or note-taking) of meetings; imposing no identification, sign-in, or other requirements on public attendance; and preserving the opportunity for public comment.

The MCCMC has 30 days from receiving this cease-and-desist letter to provide the unconditional commitment, which must be approved by the MCCMC in open session during a regular or special meeting as a separate item of business on the non-consent agenda pursuant to 7 Bylaws art. II, § 1. 8 Ex. 1 at 5.
9 Id. at 20–21.

Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 26 1/5/26

MCCMC Secretary Vaughn; Legislative Committee Members
section 54960.2(c)(2). If the MCCMC fails or refuses to cease and desist any secret meetings and those of its standing committees, we may file an action pursuant to Government Code section 54960.2, in which case, we will seek an award of court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 54960.5.

Public Records Considerations
Minutes and audio or video recordings of the MCCMC and its standing committees, as well as supporting documents under consideration during open session, commonly known as “agenda packets” — such as proposed contracts with lobbyists — are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, (“CPRA”) Gov’t Code § 7920.000, et seq. It is a common and best practice for public bodies to proactively post these materials online for public review to streamline CPRA compliance, because doing so avoids burdens of responding to repeated individual requests for these commonly sought materials.

Should the MCCMC and its standing committees choose not to make these records readily accessible, please be advised that Ms. Ganz intends to exercise her rights to request them under the CPRA, id. § 7920.530, and to make and disseminate her own recordings and/or transcriptions of meetings, id. § 54953.5.

Furthermore, public records reflect that Ms. Vaughn and Ms. Fredericks apparently use non-government e-mail addresses [email protected] and [email protected], respectively, to conduct public business of the MCCMC. Because “writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account,” Ms. Ganz also intends to exercise her right to request records held on such accounts and enforce the MCCMC’s duty to search those accounts. City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 5th 608, 629 (2017).
* * *
Governance shrouded in secrecy is an anathema to the democratic ideal. We urge you to stop hiding behind closed doors when deliberating on important issues concerning the residents of Marin County. Your constituents can provide necessary and valuable insight. They are not obstacles to be avoided.

Please let us know by February 4, 2026, if you intend to cease and desist from the violations raised in our letter.

Sincerely,

FERGUSON LAW PC
/s/ Annie Cappetta
Annie Cappetta
Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 27 1/5/26

MCCMC Secretary Vaughn; Legislative Committee Members
To: Rebecca Vaughn [email protected]
Alice Fredericks [email protected]
Jane Cooper [email protected]
Pat Ravasio [email protected]
Rosa Thomas [email protected]
Barbara Coler [email protected]
Catherine Way [email protected]
Caroline Joachim [email protected]
Pat Eklund [email protected]
Bill Kircher [email protected]
Steven Burdo [email protected]
Tarrell Cullaway [email protected]
Rachel Kertz [email protected]
Joan Cox [email protected]
Melissa Blaustein [email protected]
cc: MCCMC President Stephanie Hellman [email protected] Legislative Committee Staffer Azalea Renfield [email protected] Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 28 Exhibit 1

From: Brian Colbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 21:55:26 -0700
To: Sashi McEntee <[email protected]>; Eric Lucan <[email protected]>; Rebecca Vaughn <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] Video of the April meeting
I agree.

Rebecca, can we add some kind of disclaimer to the agenda. I want to nip these types of requests in the bud.
_________________________________________________
Brian L. Colbert
Councilmember, Hamlet of San Anselmo
[email protected] | 415.938.6852
From: Sashi McEntee <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 9:32 PM
To: Eric Lucan <[email protected]>; Rebecca Vaughn <[email protected]> Cc: Brian Colbert <[email protected]>; Eric Lucan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] Video of the April meeting
CAUTION: External Sender
Sounds good to me, Eric.

Sashi Sabaratnam
Councilmember
City of Mill Valley
(415) 843--1450
Sign up for emergency alerts at alertmarin.org!
From: Eric Lucan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 9:17:45 PM
To: Rebecca Vaughn <[email protected]>
Cc: Sashi McEntee <[email protected]>; Brian Colbert <[email protected]>; Eric Lucan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] Video of the April meeting
I don't see any issue with sending the link, but might include the disclaimer that we don't always record the meetings and even if we do, it doesn't mean that we will store them indefinitely.

Eric Lucan
Mayor
City of Novato
415-272-3265
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:30 PM Rebecca Vaughn <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you, Sashi. So if she's making a request for the record, should I just send her the link (and not post it on the website) or respond that we do not have an obligation to record or post meeting content, as there are no deliberations of a public body being made? Since she technically made a public records request for it, I don't think I have grounds to withhold the link, even if I don't go as far as to put it on the website. I'm just not sure how I would deny the request to provide her access to the video.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sashi McEntee <[email protected]> wrote:

I agree with Brian that we don’t need to start posting the meeting videos online. We don’t have to record them, either – we didn’t record the in-person meetings.

To be clear, MCCMC is a social group allowing elected councilmembers/mayors to form collegial relationships that foster sharing of best practices and allow us to do better jobs as electeds. We are not a Brown Act body, although as Rebecca notes we strive for openness and transparency –

the public is welcome to attend the meetings in person as well as virtually. The city clerks make the meeting information available to the councils, and those invitations would be subject to PRA requests. However, just as with other events that councilmembers may attend, there is no obligation to record or post meeting content, as there are no deliberations of a public body being made.

My suggestion for the next year would be to clarify some of this and make them clear on the website and for whoever serves as the MCCMC clerk.

We do not need the expense or bureaucracy of full-time staff or an attorney. We have typically used the city attorney of the current President as the arbiter of any legal questions.

S
Sashi Sabaratnam
City Councilmember, City of Mill Valley
[email protected]
(415) 843-1450
Sign up for emergency alerts to your mobile phone at alertmarin.org! From: Rebecca Vaughn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:33 PM
To: Brian Colbert <[email protected]>
Cc: Sashi McEntee <[email protected]>; Eric Lucan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] Video of the April meeting
Thanks. This is definitely the problem with not being a formal organization with legal counsel. I don't think we're obligated to post video, but I don't know for certain. I know mccmc is not a brown act body but does follow the spirit of the brown act. So maybe I can send her the link but not post it on the website? I think maybe she originally requested it from Stephanie hellman, who asked me when I'd be posting the the video because she'd had requests. I told her we don't post the videos online but that she's welcome to share the email i sent out to elected officials that has the link to view it. (I'm just guessing this is the same requestor because she mentions it being the second time she's requested the video but it's only the first email I've received from her.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022, 12:23 PM Brian Colbert <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Rebecca:

If we are not obligated to make put up the video, then no.

Putting up the presentations is one thing and the video is another.

There's a good chance we'll be Zoom next year and I don't want to deal with video requests unless we are obligated by statute or by-laws
Brian
_________________________________________________
Brian L. Colbert
Councilmember, Hamlet of San Anselmo
[email protected] | 415.938.6852
From: Rebecca Vaughn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Sashi McEntee <[email protected]>; Brian Colbert <[email protected]>; Eric Lucan <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Video of the April meeting
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello all - do you think it's okay to post a link to the April mccmc meeting on the website? I don't think we ever said the meeting would be accessible, we've never posted them in the past. But I think we said the presentations would be available to view if the presenters forwarded them

to me.

Since there's a lot of public interest maybe I should make this one available. I know Stephanie hellman has already asked me a couple of times.

Rebecca
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: DEBORAH BENSON <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2022, 10:29 AM
Subject: Video of the April meeting
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Hello Rebecca,
I attended the public meeting of MCCMC held in April. I understood that the video of the meeting would be accessible.

This is my second request to access the video of the meeting. As it is a matter of public record would you be so kind as to post it to the MCCMC website? Thank you
and am waiting for your response.

Deborah Benson
Fairfax
--
Rebecca Vaughn
Town Clerk / Assistant Town Manager
Town of Corte Madera
(415) 927-5085
http://www.townofcortemadera.org
[email protected]

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 4-3-793
Council Meeting: 01/22/2019
Disposition: Resolution 14621
Agenda Item No: 4.d
Meeting Date: January 22, 2019

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: CITY MANAGER’ S OFFICE
Prepared by: Daniel A. Soto,
Associate Management Analyst
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID JONES, DBA EMANUELS

JONES & ASSOCIATES, FOR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $83,650
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with David Jones, DBA Emanuels Jones & Associates for legislative advocacy services in an amount not to exceed $83,650.

BACKGROUND: Local government agencies rely on the expertise of lobbyists relating to state policy matters that may affect them. Through the auspices of the Legislative Committee of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers ( MCCMC), the 11 cities and towns in Marin County have contracted for legislative advocacy services with Emanuels Jones & Associates ( Emanuels Jones) since 1998. The cost of this service is shared among the jurisdictions and the individual cost is calculated based on each city or town’s total population and assessed valuation. The City of San Rafael has served, and will continue to serve, as the fiscal agent on behalf of the other cities and towns of Marin County.

ANALYSIS: As part of their legislative advocacy services, Emanuels Jones reviews all state legislation to assess their impact on Marin County cities and towns, as well as acts upon specific proposals. This work includes advocating for the protection of local revenues during the state’s budget process, preserving local control on housing and other issues, and advancing other legislative issues of interest to Marin County cities and towns. Emanuels Jones coordinates visits to the State Capitol to meet with and talk to legislators and other state officials.

The total not-to-exceed amount of the proposed contract with Emanuels Jones & Associates is 83,650, an increase of 3 percent from the prior two-year contract’s amount. For calendar year 2019, the cost will be $41,225 and for calendar year 2020, the cost will be $42,425. These amounts include the costs associated with Fair Political Practices Commission ( FPPC) filings, as well as travel for Emanuels Jones staff to attend two MCCMC meetings—one in 2019 and one in 2020.

SAN RAFAEL

THE CITY WITH A MISSION

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
FISCAL IMPACT: As in previous years, the cost of the contract will be apportioned among the cities and towns within Marin County based upon both assessed valuation and population. Attached is a copy of the apportionment schedule for each of the cities and towns (Attachment B). San Rafael’s share for 2019 is $ 11,332.77 and for 2020 is $ 11,662.65. Funds are budgeted and available in the City Manager’ s Office General Fund operating budget.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with David Jones, DBA Emanuels Jones & Associates for legislative advocacy services in an amount not to exceed $83,650.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Apportionment of Costs for 2019 and 2020

3. Agreement

RESOLUTION NO. 14621

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH DAVID JONES, DBA EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES, FOR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $ 83,650 WHEREAS, the Cities and Towns of Marin County (“ CTMC”) jointly desire to hire a lobbyist to provide legislative advocacy services before the State legislature on their behalf; and WHEREAS, David Jones, dba Emanuels Jones & Associates (“ Emanuels Jones”) has the training and experience to provide, and is willing to provide, legislative advocacy services on behalf of the CTMC; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has agreed to be the lead agency for the CTMC for the purpose of entering into an agreement with Emanuels Jones to provide such legislative advocacy services on their behalf; and
WHEREAS, the CTMC have agreed to share the cost of the required services as described in the Apportionment of Costs for 2019 and 2020 (“ Attachment B”), attached hereto and incorporated herein.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Emanuels Jones & Associates for legislative advocacy services, in the form approved by the City Attorney.

I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council held on Tuesday the 22nd day of January, 2019, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin & Mayor Phillips COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: McCullough
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

MCCMC Lobbyist
2019 Apportionment of Costs
Agency 2018 Population* Prorata Share 50% 2017- 18 Assessed Valuation** Prorata Share 50% Totals Belvedere 2,135 226. 11$ 2,180, 249, 000 832. 85$ 1,058. 95$ Corte Madera 10, 039 1,063. 19$ 3,300, 309, 000 1,260. 70$ 2,323. 89$ Fairfax 7,534 797. 89$ 1,446, 367, 000 552. 51$ 1,350. 40$ Larkspur 12, 351 1,308. 04$ 4,001, 791, 000 1,528. 67$ 2,836. 71$ Mill Valley 14,963 1,584. 66$ 5,539, 869, 000 2,116. 21$ 3,700. 87$ Novato 54, 551 5,777. 25$ 10, 658, 882, 000 4,071. 65$ 9,848. 90$ Ross 2,533 268. 26$ 1,957, 493, 000 747. 75$ 1,016. 01$ San Anselmo 13, 000 1,376. 77$ 3,198, 133, 000 1,221. 67$ 2,598. 45$ San Rafael 60,651 6,423. 28$ 12,852, 207,000 4,909. 49$ 11,332. 77$ Sausalito 7,226 765. 27$ 3,498, 702, 000 1,336. 49$ 2,101. 76$ Tiburon 9,648 1,021. 78$ 5,326, 000, 000 2,034. 51$ 3,056. 29$ TOTALS 194, 631 20, 613 53, 960, 002, 000 20, 613 41, 225 Per State Dept. of Finance ( source: http:// www. dof. ca. gov/ Forecasting/ Demographics/ Estimates/ E- 1/ documents/ E- 1_2018_ InternetVersion. xls) Per SBOE, AV of County Assessed Property ( source: http:// www. boe. ca.gov/ legdiv/ pdf/ AppendixTablesGuide. pdf

MCCMC Lobbyist
2020 Apportionment of Costs
Agency 2018 Population* Prorata Share 50% 2017- 18 Assessed Valuation** Prorata Share 50% Totals Belvedere 2,135 232. 69$ 2,180, 249, 000 857. 09$ 1,089. 78$ Corte Madera 10, 039 1,094. 13$ 3,300, 309, 000 1,297. 40$ 2,391. 54$ Fairfax 7,534 821. 12$ 1,446, 367, 000 568. 59$ 1,389. 71$ Larkspur 12, 351 1,346. 11$ 4,001, 791, 000 1,573. 17$ 2,919. 28$ Mill Valley 14,963 1,630. 79$ 5,539, 869, 000 2,177. 81$ 3,808. 60$ Novato 54, 551 5,945. 42$ 10, 658, 882, 000 4,190. 17$ 10, 135. 59$ Ross 2,533 276. 07$ 1,957, 493, 000 769. 52$ 1,045. 59$ San Anselmo 13, 000 1,416. 85$ 3,198, 133, 000 1,257. 23$ 2,674. 08$ San Rafael 60,651 6,610. 25$ 12,852, 207,000 5,052. 40$ 11,662. 65$ Sausalito 7,226 787. 55$ 3,498, 702, 000 1,375. 39$ 2,162. 94$ Tiburon 9,648 1,051. 52$ 5,326, 000, 000 2,093. 73$ 3,145. 25$ TOTALS 194, 631 21, 213 53, 960, 002, 000 21, 213 42, 425 Per State Dept. of Finance ( source: http:// www. dof. ca. gov/ Forecasting/ Demographics/ Estimates/ E- 1/ documents/ E- 1_2018_ InternetVersion. xls) Per SBOE, AV of County Assessed Property ( source: http:// www. boe. ca.gov/ legdiv/ pdf/ AppendixTablesGuide. pdf

AGREEMENT FOR

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into this LZ day of January, 2019, by and between the CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ( hereinafter " CITY"), and DAVID JONES, D.B.A. EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES ( hereinafter " CONTRACTOR").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Cities and Towns of Marin County (" CTMC"), including CITY, desire to retain CONTRACTOR to provide legislative advocacy activities and actions before the State legislature on their behalf; and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2017 CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into an agreement for legislative advocacy services; and
WHEREAS, the abovementioned agreement is due to expire on December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR has satisfactorily provided legislative advocacy services to the CTMC under the auspices of the abovementioned agreement; and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR has the training and experience to provide, and is willing to provide, legislative advocacy activities and actions on behalf of the CTMC; and WHEREAS, CITY has agreed to be the lead agency for the CTMC for the purpose of entering into an agreement with CONTRACTOR to provide such legislative advocacy activities and actions on their behalf.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. PROJECT COORDINATION.

A. CITY' S Project Manager. The City Manager is hereby designated the PROJECT MANAGER for the CITY, and said PROJECT MANAGER shall supervise all aspects of the progress and execution of this Agreement.

B. CONTRACTOR' S Project Director. CONTRACTOR shall assign a single PROJECT DIRECTOR to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for CONTRACTOR. David Jones is hereby designated as the PROJECT DIRECTOR for CONTRACTOR. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this Agreement require a substitute PROJECT DIRECTOR, for any reason, the CONTRACTOR shall notify the CITY within ten ( 10) business days of the substitution. aiNAL
3- lu

2. DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR.

CONTRACTOR shall perform the duties and/ or provide services as follows:

A. Provide consulting services as a lobbyist on pertinent municipal matters on behalf ofthe Cities and Towns ofMarin County, through the Legislative Committee ofthe Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (" MCCMC").

B. Report CONTRACTOR' s lobbying activities as required by the California Fair Political Practices Act and Commission (" FPPC"), including preparation of Form 635 and other required forms.

C. Certify that employees and/or entities are properly registered, licensed, or certified pursuant to law to perform the tasks described herein.

3. DUTIES OF CITY.

CITY shall pay the compensation as provided in Paragraph 4.

4. COMPENSATION.

For the full performance of the services described herein by CONTRACTOR, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR as follows:

A. For the 2019 calendar year, beginning on January 1, 2019 and ending December 31, 2019, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR an amount not to exceed $ 3, 400. 00 pet month, billed monthly in advance, for CONTRACTOR' s performance ofthis Agreement.

B. For the 2020 calendar year, beginning on January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2020, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR an amount not to exceed $ 3, 500. 00 per month, billed monthly in advance, for CONTRACTOR' s performance ofthis Agreement.

C. CITY shall reimburse CONTRACTOR' s direct costs for travel and FPPC filing fees in amount not to exceed $850.00
The total not -to -exceed amount ofthis Agreement is $ 83, 650. 00 Payment will be made monthly upon receipt by PROJECT MANAGER of itemized invoices submitted by CONTRACTOR.

5. TERM OF AGREEMENT.

The term of this Agreement shall be for two ( 2) years commencing on January 1, 2019 and ending on December 31, 2020.

6. TERMINATION.

A. Discretionary. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty 30) days written notice mailed or personally delivered to the other party.

B. Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause upon fifteen ( 15) days written notice mailed or personally delivered to the other party, and the notified party' s failure to cure or correct the cause ofthe termination, to the reasonable satisfaction ofthe party giving such notice, within such fifteen ( 15) day time period.

C. Effect of Termination. Upon receipt of notice of termination, neither party shall incur additional obligations under any provision of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other.

D. Return of Documents. Upon termination, any and all CITY documents or materials provided to CONTRACTOR and any and all of CONTRACTOR' s documents and materials prepared for or relating to the performance of its duties under this Agreement, shall be delivered to CITY as soon as possible, but not later than thirty ( 30) days after termination.

7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.

The written documents and materials prepared by the CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of its duties under this Agreement, shall be the sole property of CITY. CITY may use said property for any purpose, including projects not contemplated by this Agreement.

8. INSPECTION AND AUDIT
Upon reasonable notice, CONTRACTOR shall make available to CITY, or its agent, for inspection and audit, all documents and materials maintained by CONTRACTOR in connection with its performance of its duties under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall fully cooperate with CITY or its agent in any such audit or inspection.

9. ASSIGNABILITY.

The parties agree that they shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any oftheir respective obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent ofthe other party, and any attempt to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.

10. INSURANCE.

A. Scope of Coverage. During the term of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall maintain, at no expense to CITY, the following insurance policies:

1. A commercial general liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($ 1, 000,000) per occurrence/ two million dollars ($2, 000, 000) aggregate, for death,

bodily injury, personal injury, or property damage.

2. An automobile liability ( owned, non -owned, and hired vehicles) insurance policy in the minimum amount ofone million dollars ($ 1, 000, 000) dollars per occurrence.

3. If any licensed professional performs any of the services required to be performed under this Agreement, a professional liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($ 1, 000, 000) per occurrence/ two million dollars ($ 2, 000, 000) aggregate, to cover any claims arising out of the CONTRACTOR' s performance of services under this Agreement.

Where CONTRACTOR is a professional not required to have a professional license, CITY reserves the right to require CONTRACTOR to provide professional liability insurance pursuant to this section.

4. If it employs any person, CONTRACTOR shall maintain worker' s compensation insurance, as required by the State of California, with statutory limits, and employer' s liability insurance with limits of no less than one million dollars ($ 1, 000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. CONTRACTOR' s worker' s compensation insurance shall be specifically endorsed to waive any right of subrogation against CITY.

B. Other Insurance Requirements. The insurance coverage required of the CONTRACTOR in subparagraph A ofthis section above shall also meet the following requirements:

1. Except for professional liability insurance or worker' s compensation insurance, the insurance policies shall be specifically endorsed to include the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, as additional insureds ( for both ongoing and completed operations) under the policies.

2. The additional insured coverage under CONTRACTOR' S insurance policies shall be " primary and non contributory" with respect to any insurance or coverage maintained by CITY and shall not call upon CITY' s insurance or self-insurance coverage for any contribution. The primary and noncontributory" coverage in CONTRACTOR' S policies shall be at least as broad as ISO form CG20 0104 13.

3. Except for professional
insurance, the insurance policies shall include,
contractual liability and personal injury.
liability insurance or worker' s compensation
in their text or by endorsement, coverage for

4. By execution of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of CONTRACTOR may acquire against CITY by virtue ofthe payment of any loss under such insurance. CONTRACTOR agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

5. Ifthe insurance is written on a Claims Made Form, then, following termination of this Agreement, said insurance coverage shall survive for a period of not less than five years.

6. The insurance policies shall provide for a retroactive date of placement coinciding with the effective date ofthis Agreement.

7. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before CITY' S own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

8. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/ or limits shall be available to CITY or any other additional insured party. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: ( 1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or 2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. No representation is made that the minimum Insurance requirements of this agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the CONTRACTOR under this agreement.

C. Deductibles and SIR' s. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions in CONTRACTOR' s insurance policies must be declared to and approved by the PROJECT MANAGER and City Attorney, and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Policies containing any self-insured retention ( SIR) provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or CITY or other additional insured party. At CITY' s option, the deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to CITY shall be reduced or eliminated to CITY' s satisfaction, or CONTRACTOR shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration, attorney' s fees and defense expenses.

D. Proof of Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall provide to the PROJECT MANAGER or CITY' S City Attorney all of the following: ( 1) Certificates ofInsurance evidencing the insurance coverage required in this Agreement; ( 2) a copy of the policy declaration page and/ or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements for the commercial general liability policy, and ( 3) excerpts of policy language or specific endorsements evidencing the other insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements from CONTRACTOR. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise it later. The insurance shall be approved as to form and sufficiency by PROJECT MANAGER and the City Attorney.

11. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph B., CONTRACTOR shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, release, defend with counsel approved by CITY, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers ( collectively, the " City Indemnitees"), from and against any claim, demand, suit, judgment, loss, liability or expense of any kind, including but not limited to attorney' s fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation, ( collectively " CLAIMS"), arising out of CONTRACTOR' S performance of its 5

obligations or conduct of its operations under this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR' s obligations apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by the active or passive negligence ofthe City Indemnitees. However, to the extent that liability is caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees, the CONTRACTOWs indemnification obligation shall be reduced in proportion to the City Indemnitees' share of liability for the active negligence or willful misconduct. In addition, the acceptance or approval of the CONTRACTOR' s work or work product by the CITY or any of its directors, officers or employees shall not relieve or reduce the CONTRACTOR' s indemnification obligations. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from CONTRACTOR' S performance of or operations under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at CITY' S option reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in defense of such claims.

B. Where the services to be provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement are design professional services to be performed by a design professional as that term is defined under Civil Code Section 2782.8, then, to the extent permitted by law including without limitation, Civil Code sections 2782, 2782.6 and 2782. 8, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, officials, and employees ( collectively City Indemnitees) from and against damages, liabilities or costs (including incidental damages. Court costs, reasonable attorney' s fees as may be determined by the Court, litigation expenses and fees of expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONTRACTOR, or any subconsultants, or subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone for whom they are legally liable collectively Liabilities). Such obligation to hold harmless and indemnify any indemnity shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence or willful misconduct of such City Indemnitee.

C. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement, and shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.

12. NONDISCRIMINATION.

CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or disability in connection with or related to the performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement.

13. COMPLIANCE WITII ALL LAWS.

CONTRACTOR shall observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations, in the performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with these laws, ordinances, codes and regulations. CONTRACTOR shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees from any and all damages, liabilities,

penalties, fines and all other consequences from any noncompliance or violation of any laws, ordinances, codes or regulations.

14. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.

CITY and CONTRACTOR do not intend, by any provision of this Agreement, to create in any third party, any benefit or right owed by one party, under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to the other party.

15. NOTICES.

All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement, including any notice of change of address, shall be in writing and given by personal delivery, or deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties intended to be notified. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal delivery, or ifmailed, upon the date of deposit with the United States Postal Service. Notice shall be given as follows:

TO CITY' s Project Manager:

TO CONTRACTOR' s Project Director:

16. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

Jim Schutz
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Mr. David Jones
dba Emanuels Jones & Associates
1400 K Street, Suite 306
Sacramento, CA 95814
For the purposes, and for the duration, of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and employees shall act in the capacity of an Independent Contractor, and not as employees of the CITY. CONTRACTOR and CITY expressly intend and agree that the status of CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and employees be that of an Independent Contractor and not that of an employee of CITY.

17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT -- AMENDMENTS.

A. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, all exhibits attached, and all documents expressly incorporated by reference, represent the entire Agreement ofthe parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.

B. This written Agreement shall supersede any and all prior agreements, oral or written, regarding the subject matter between the CONTRACTOR and the CITY.

C. No other agreement, promise or statement, written or oral, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be valid or binding, except by way of a written amendment to this

Agreement.

D. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be altered or modified except by a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the CONTRACTOR and the CITY.

E. If any conflicts arise between the teens and conditions of this Agreement, and the terms and conditions ofthe attached exhibits or the documents expressly incorporated by reference, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.

18. SET- OFF AGAINST DEBTS.

CONTRACTOR agrees that CITY may deduct from any payment due to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, any monies which CONTRACTOR owes CITY under any ordinance, agreement, contract or resolution for any unpaid taxes, fees, licenses, assessments, unpaid checks or other amounts.

19. WAIVERS.

The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or of any ordinance, law or regulation, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, law or regulation, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, law or regulation. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee, performance, or other consideration which may become due or owing under this Agreement, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, condition, covenant ofthis Agreement or any applicable law, ordinance or regulation.

20. COSTS AND ATTORNEY' S FEES.

The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of the performance of this Agreement, may recover its reasonable costs including claims administration) and attorney' s fees expended in connection with such action.

21. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE / OTI IER TAXES.

CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain during the duration ofthis Agreement, a CITY business license as required by the San Rafael Municipal Code CONTRACTOR shall pay any and all state and federal taxes and any other applicable taxes. CITY shall not be required to pay for any work performed under this Agreement, until CONTRACTOR has provided CITY with a completed Internal Revenue Service Form W- 9 ( Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification).

22. SURVIVAL OF TERMS.

Any terms of this Agreement that by their nature extend beyond the term (or termination) of this Agreement shall remain in effect until fulfilled, and shall apply to both Parties' respective successors and assigns.

23. APPLICABLE LAW.

The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

24. COUNTERPARTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE.

This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one document. Counterpart signature pages may be delivered by telecopier, email or other means of electronic transmission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day, month and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
JIM S HU Z City Mana K r
ATTEST:

LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
AS TO FORM:

T F. EPSTEIN. City Attorney

CONTRACTOR
r
A
DAVID A. JON E ' resident

A
RAP
i
2 C1 tvo
rrwITH

CONTRACT ROUTING FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet to circulate all contracts for review and approval in the order shown below.

TO BE COMPLETED BY INITIATING DEPARTMENT PROJECT MANAGER:

Contracting Department: City Manager' s Office
Project Manager: Daniel A. Soto Extension: ( 415) 485- 3064 Contractor Name: David Jones, dba Emanuels Jones & Associates Contractor' s Contact: Denise Jones Contact' s Email: denise@emanuelsjones. com FPPC: Check if Contractor/ Consultant must file Form 700 Step RESPONSIBLE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED REVIEWER
DEPARTMENT DATE Check/ Initial
1 Project Manager a. Email PINS Introductory Notice to Contractor 12/ 19/ 2018 N 12/ 19/ 2018
b. Email contract ( in Word) and attachments to City
Attorney c/ o Laraine. Gittens@cityofsanrafael. org N
2 City Attorney a. Review, revise, and comment on draft agreement 12/ 28/ 2018 and return to Project Manager 12/ 28/ 2018 NLMM
b. Confirm insurance requirements, create Job on NLMM
PINS, send PINS insurance notice to contractor
3 Department Director Approval of final agreement form to send to 1/ 9/ 2018 N DS contractor
4 Project Manager Forward three ( 3) originals of final agreement to 1/ 9/ 2018 contractor for their signature
When necessary, contractor- siened agreement 5 Project Manager agendized for City Council approval * DS
City Council approval required for Professional Services Agreements and purchases of goods and services that exceed Or
75, 000; and for Public Works Contracts that exceed $ 175, 000 1/ 22/ 2019
Date of City Council approval

PRINT CONTINUE ROUTING PROCESS WITH HARD COPY
6 Project Manager Forward signed original agreements to City I I 2 g j ) ci Attorney with printed copy of this routing form 7 City Attorney Review and approve hard copy of signed
agreement 4. l.,
8 City Attorney Review and approve insurance in PINS, and bonds for Public Works Contracts)
9 City Manager/ Mayor Agreement executed by City Council authorized official
10 City Clerk Attest signatures, retains original agreement and forwards copies to Project Manager
II
l ti ( q

Document Date Original Journal Transaction
Document #
Document Reference Document Description Description Acct # GL Amount Debit or Credit
PA Amount Document Source Debit Amount Credit Amount Posting # Posting Date Vendor Code
Vendor Last Name Check # Check Date Transaction
Amount
01/06/2020 AP 2747216 F20-01-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JA Legislative Representative Ser 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 26543 01/10/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 342009 01/10/2020 $0.00 02/10/2020 AP 2758588 F-20-02-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - FE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,475.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,475.00 $0.00 26630 02/21/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 342765 02/21/2020 $0.00 03/27/2020 AP 2768737 F20-03-09 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 26694 04/02/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 343499 04/02/2020 $0.00 04/16/2020 AP 2771331 F20-04-09 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - AP LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 26740 04/21/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 343706 04/22/2020 $0.00 05/15/2020 AP 2777344 F20-05-09 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA Legislative Representative Ser 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 26829 05/20/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 344260 05/20/2020 $0.00 06/30/2020 AP 2789456 F20-06-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU Legislative Representative Ser 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 26965 07/22/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 345171 07/22/2020 $0.00 07/15/2020 AP 2789460 F20-07-09 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 26965 07/22/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 345171 07/22/2020 $0.00 09/30/2020 AP 2806067 F20-09-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - SE Legislative Representative Ser 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 27171 10/05/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 346297 10/05/2020 $0.00 10/15/2020 AP 2809543 F20-08-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - AU Legislative Representative Ser 001-12-24001-9270 $3,475.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,475.00 $0.00 27200 10/22/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 346561 10/22/2020 $0.00 10/15/2020 AP 2809778 F20-10-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - OC Legal Representative Services 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 27200 10/22/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 346561 10/22/2020 $0.00 11/16/2020 AP 2814888 F20-11-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - NO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,400.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,400.00 $0.00 27238 11/19/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 347001 11/19/2020 $0.00 11/23/2020 AP 2817518 F20-11-13 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $1,100.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $1,100.00 $0.00 27267 12/08/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 347194 12/09/2020 $0.00 12/15/2020 AP 2820803 F20-12-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - DE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27289 12/23/2020 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 347375 12/23/2020 $0.00 02/16/2021 AP 2832562 F21-01-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27372 02/22/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 348477 02/25/2021 $0.00 02/16/2021 AP 2832757 F21-02-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - FE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,575.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,575.00 $0.00 27372 02/22/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 348477 02/25/2021 $0.00 03/31/2021 AP 2841752 F21-03-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27439 04/08/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 349126 04/08/2021 $0.00 04/15/2021 AP 2845381 F21-04-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE - APR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27459 04/20/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 349384 04/20/2021 $0.00 05/13/2021 AP 2853777 F21-05-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27501 05/19/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 349858 05/19/2021 $0.00 06/10/2021 AP 2860500 F21-06-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27550 06/21/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 350267 06/21/2021 $0.00 07/16/2021 AP 2868888 F21-07-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27596 07/21/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 350809 07/21/2021 $0.00 08/13/2021 AP 2878254 F21-08-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - AU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,575.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,575.00 $0.00 27667 08/23/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 351249 08/23/2021 $0.00 09/14/2021 AP 2886434 F21-09-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - SE Legislative representative ser 001-12-21001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27734 09/21/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 351720 09/21/2021 $0.00 10/13/2021 AP 2894229 F21-10-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - OC LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27787 10/20/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 352308 10/20/2021 $0.00 11/15/2021 AP 2901748 F21-11-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE NOVEM LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,575.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,575.00 $0.00 27834 11/19/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 352809 11/19/2021 $0.00 12/16/2021 AP 2909799 F21-12-8 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - DE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,500.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,500.00 $0.00 27885 12/21/2021 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 353293 12/21/2021 $0.00 01/14/2022 AP 2918671 F22-01-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 27930 01/21/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 353839 01/21/2022 $0.00 02/10/2022 AP 2925661 F22-02-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - FE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 27983 02/23/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 354326 02/23/2022 $0.00 03/30/2022 AP 2936441 F22-03-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,675.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,675.00 $0.00 28070 04/06/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 355073 04/06/2022 $0.00 04/15/2022 AP 2940275 F22-04-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - AP LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28096 04/22/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 355364 04/22/2022 $0.00 06/15/2022 AP 2956095 F22-05-07 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES-FPPC QUARTERLY REPO FPPCQuarterly Report Filing - 001-12-21001-9270 $75.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $75.00 $0.00 28222 06/23/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 356374 06/23/2022 $0.00 06/15/2022 AP 2956397 F22-06-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28222 06/23/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 356374 06/23/2022 $0.00 06/15/2022 AP 2956095 F22-05-07 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES-FPPC QUARTERLY REPO Legislative Representative Ser 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28222 06/23/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 356374 06/23/2022 $0.00 07/27/2022 AP 2967588 F22-07-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES JULY LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28294 08/02/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 357309 08/02/2022 $0.00 08/11/2022 AP 2973047 F22-08-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - AU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,675.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,675.00 $0.00 28369 08/22/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 357534 08/22/2022 $0.00 09/08/2022 AP 2983625 F22-09-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - SE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28444 09/22/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 358031 09/22/2022 $0.00 10/12/2022 AP 2990703 F22-10-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - NO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28499 10/21/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 358531 10/21/2022 $0.00 11/28/2022 AP 3004121 F22-11-04 LEGESLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - NO LEGESLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,675.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,675.00 $0.00 28566 12/08/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 359339 12/08/2022 $0.00 12/11/2022 AP 3007922 F22-12-06 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - DE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,600.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,600.00 $0.00 28592 12/20/2022 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 359563 12/20/2022 $0.00 01/13/2023 AP 3016550 F23-01-06 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 28641 01/20/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 360132 01/20/2023 $0.00 02/14/2023 AP 3024516 F23-02-06 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - FE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,783.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,783.00 $0.00 28700 02/23/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 360650 02/23/2023 $0.00 03/14/2023 AP 3031961 F23-030-06 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,783.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,783.00 $0.00 28745 03/23/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 361158 03/23/2023 $0.00 04/11/2023 AP 3039177 F23-04-07 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - AP LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 28803 04/20/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 361724 04/20/2023 $0.00 05/12/2023 AP 3046722 F23-04-20 MAY2023LEGISLTIVEREP LEGISLATIVE REP SERVICES MAY 2 001-12-21001-9270 $3,783.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,783.00 $0.00 28840 05/19/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 362237 05/19/2023 $0.00 06/15/2023 AP 3054751 F23-06-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 28885 06/23/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 362819 06/23/2023 $0.00 07/14/2023 AP 3062691 F23-07-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-21001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 28933 07/21/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 363352 07/21/2023 $0.00 08/31/2023 AP 3075903 F23-08-08 MCCMC LEGISLATIVE FEES FOR AUGUST AND FP MCCMC LEGISLATIVE FEES FOR AUG 001-12-21001-9270 $3,783.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,783.00 $0.00 29079 09/08/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 364141 09/08/2023 $0.00 11/14/2023 AP 3093260 F23-10-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - OC LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 29220 11/21/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 365411 11/21/2023 $0.00 11/14/2023 AP 3093240 F23-09-06 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - SE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 29220 11/21/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 365411 11/21/2023 $0.00 11/14/2023 AP 3093486 F23-11-04 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - NO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,783.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,783.00 $0.00 29220 11/21/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 365411 11/21/2023 $0.00 12/11/2023 AP 3099686 F23-12-08 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - DE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,708.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,708.00 $0.00 29268 12/21/2023 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 365875 12/21/2023 $0.00 02/08/2024 AP 3115478 F24-02-10 LOBBYING SERVICES FOR FEBRUARY AND FPPC LOBBYING SERVICES FOR FEBRUARY 001-12-24001-9270 $3,895.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,895.00 $0.00 29363 02/21/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 366922 02/21/2024 $0.00 03/29/2024 AP 3125351 F24-03-10 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29453 04/05/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 367770 04/05/2024 $0.00 05/16/2024 AP 3137125 F24-01-10 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29534 05/21/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 368556 05/21/2024 $0.00 05/16/2024 AP 3137550 F24-05-10 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - MA LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,895.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,895.00 $0.00 29534 05/21/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 368556 05/21/2024 $0.00 06/14/2024 AP 3145485 F24 06 10 LOBBYING FEES - JUNE 2024 LOBBYING FEES - JUNE 2024 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29581 06/21/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 369106 06/21/2024 $0.00 07/11/2024 AP 3153873 F24 07 10 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES - JU LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SER 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29634 07/19/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 369678 07/19/2024 $0.00 08/14/2024 AP 3164343 F24 08 10 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES FRO AUG 2024 + FPPC Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,895.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,895.00 $0.00 29702 08/22/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 370259 08/22/2024 $0.00 09/11/2024 AP 3173037 F24-04-10 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SVCS - APRIL 2024 Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29806 09/19/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 370798 09/19/2024 $0.00 10/15/2024 AP 3181707 F24 10 10 Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Staff Report Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29889 10/22/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 371346 10/22/2024 $0.00 11/06/2024 AP 3189406 F24 11 10 Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Staff Report Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 29948 11/20/2024 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 371884 11/20/2024 $0.00 01/08/2025 AP 3203110 F250110 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LEGISLATIVE SERVICES JAN 2025 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 30068 01/23/2025 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 372891 01/23/2025 $0.00 02/13/2025 AP 3210205 F250210 LEGISLATIVE REP SRVCS FEB 2025 Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,895.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,895.00 $0.00 30134 02/21/2025 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 373403 02/21/2025 $0.00 03/11/2025 AP 3217456 F25 03 10 LEGISLATIVE REP SERVCS MARCH 2025 Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 30196 03/21/2025 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 373903 03/21/2025 $0.00 04/23/2025 AP 3229099 f25 0410 LOBBING FEES Legislative Advocacy Svcs; Sta 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 30288 05/06/2025 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 374807 05/06/2025 $0.00 05/12/2025 AP 3232523 F250510 LEGISLATIVE REP SERVICES MAY 2025 INVOICE:F250510~ 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 30316 05/22/2025 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 375073 05/22/2025 $0.00 06/12/2025 AP 3239917 F25 06 10 LOBBYING FEES LOBBYING FEES 001-12-24001-9270 $3,820.00 D $0.00 ap_invoice $3,820.00 $0.00 30376 06/24/2025 14416 EMANUELS JONES & ASSOCIATES 375592 06/24/2025 $0.00 66 0 234166 0 0

INVOICE
Emanuels Jones & Associates
1400 K St
Ste 306
Sacramento, CA 95814-3916
[email protected]
+1 (916) 444-6789
City of San Rafael for MCCMC
Bill to
MCCMC
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Invoice details
Invoice no.: F25 08 10
Invoice date: 08/08/2025
# Date Product or service Description Qty Rate Amount

1. Lobbying Fees Legislative Representative Services 1 $3,820.00 $3,820.00 Thank you for your business!
Total $3,820.00

C&D letter
From: Mark Bell ([email protected])
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2026 at 04:58 PM PST
Cease and Desist Notification
To: Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Road
Fairfax, CA 94930
CC to Rob Bonta, Attorney General, CA and Marin County D.A.) From: Mark Bell
63 Dominga Ave
Fairfax, CA 94930
Dec 6, 2023
To the Town Council, Town attorney and Town staff,
This notification is to inform you that you have 30 days to correct your repeated violations of the Brown Act and your willful ignoring of the CA Appellate Court ruling on the Brown Act (Ribicoff vs Long Beach) which I have repeatedly cited to you. Informing you of these ongoing violations has had no effect on your continuing to violate them.

The evidence can be found not only on meeting agendas but also on video. Following are just a few specific examples:
1) Packing the "Consent Calendar" with ~15+/- items per Meeting, vs 2, 3, or 4 "Regular Agenda Items”;
2) Allowing only 2 minutes to discuss all 15 items which is ~8 seconds per item, despite there only being a handful of the public present at that point in the evening, and despite
being repeatedly notified that this appears improper according to adjudicated CA case law;
3) Consistently refusing to pull controversial Consent Calendar items to allow for public comment, despite multiple public requests;
4) Putting "2nd readings" of ordinances that were modified after they were read the first time, without ever placing a revised written copy into the public record for a proper Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 50 first reading;
5) Not including all of the publicly submitted letters on particular agenda items, despite public requests by the writers to do so specifically and public speakers repeatedly asking them to do so generally;
6) Not including all of the online submitted letters on particular agenda items in the onsite public folder, despite public requests by the writers specifically and public speakers asking them to do so generally;
7) Providing last minute onsite voluminous "supplemental materials" in an onsite folder, BUT not having posted them online prior to the meetings, thus limiting public access to important materials.

These are clear violations and violate the oath of office you have all taken.

Mark Bell
Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 51 By RICHARD HALSTEAD | [email protected] | Marin
Independent Journal
PUBLISHED: February 8, 2026 at 1:41 PM PST | UPDATED: February 9, 2026 at 8:37 PM PST

LOCAL NEWS
Marin government ‘social group’
pressured for transparency
3/1/26, 8:27 PM Marin government 'social group' pressured for transparency https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/08/marin-government-social-group-pressured-for-transparency/ 1/26 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 52 The Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers will vote this month on whether to acknowledge that the organization is legally required to provide public access to its meetings.

As its name suggests, the organization, known as MCCMC, includes representatives from all 11 of Marin’s cities and towns. County supervisors also regularly attend meetings, although they are not paying members nor do they vote.

The group’s main purpose is to facilitate good working relationships among local governments. Its main body meets eight times each year, and there are additional subcommittee meetings.

The vote, set for Feb. 25, comes after MCCMC was served with a cease-anddesist letter last month demanding that it comply with California’s Brown Act.

The letter, submitted on behalf of Brooke Schreier Ganz, a Tam Valley resident, asserts that Ganz was denied permission to observe several meetings of the group’s legislative committee last year.

MCCMC pays a Sacramento lobbying firm, Emanuels Jones and Associates, to brief the committee on upcoming legislation, and the committee decides whether to support or oppose the bills.

Ganz said she was told she couldn’t observe the committee’s meeting on Aug. 25 when she clicked on a Zoom link posted on the group’s website. “I was taken aback that they did not want anyone who was not from their group to sit in and listen to their meeting,” Ganz said. 3/1/26, 8:27 PM Marin government 'social group' pressured for transparency https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/08/marin-government-social-group-pressured-for-transparency/ 2/26 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 53 According to the cease-and-desist order, Tiburon Councilmember Alice Fredericks, the chair of the committee for 18 years, and Fairfax Councilmember Barbara Coler both told Ganz that the meeting was closed to the public because the committee was not subject to the Brown Act.

The cease-and-desist order states that Fredericks again demanded that Ganz leave the meeting when Ganz joined a Zoom meeting on Sept. 22, but Fredericks relented after Ganz explained her rights under the Brown Act, and allowed her to listen to the audio of the remainder of the meeting.

However, the cease-and-desist order states that when Ganz attempted to enter the Zoom meeting on Oct. 27 she was unable to do so. The order asserts that MCCMC secretary Rebecca Vaughn told her the following day that Fredericks had intentionally blocked her from attending.

The order states that after that, the group stopped posting agendas for its legislative committee meetings on its website, “cutting off public access about what was discussed in these now closed-door meetings.”
Neither Fredericks nor Coler nor the current president, Fairfax Mayor Stephanie Hellman, would comment on Ganz’s account of her interactions with the legislative committee.

Annie Cappetta, an attorney who filed the cease-and-desist order on Ganz’s behalf, wrote that if the group fails to comply with the Brown Act that her client may take legal action, “in which case, we will seek an award of court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Ganz is the founder of Reclaim the Records, a nonprofit organization that obtains genealogical records from government agencies and makes the records available online for free. She has used open records laws and sued in some cases to get records.

Ganz said she wanted to observe the legislative committee meeting because she is a housing advocate and wanted to learn more about how organizations like MCCMC decide which legislation to support. She contends that the legislative committee, which formulates the group’s position on pending legislation, has been hostile to bills that make it easier for developers to build housing.
3/1/26, 8:27 PM Marin government 'social group' pressured for transparency https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/08/marin-government-social-group-pressured-for-transparency/ 3/26 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 54 She noted that the committee voted to oppose Senate Bill 79, which made it easier to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of major public transit stations, even though it won’t affect Marin because of the county’s low population numbers.

The bill, which was also opposed by the League of California Cities, passed and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October. SB 79 was amended several times before it was narrowly approved by the Legislature.

Marin Assemblymember Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, voted against it. “When the legislation was first introduced by Sen. Weiner, it was sweeping and it applied to all cities in California,” said Nancy Hall Bennett, a public affairs manager for the League of California Cities.

In a March 2025 letter to SB 79’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener, Fredericks wrote that MCCMC opposed the bill. She noted then that it would require cities “to ministerially approve higher-density residential projects — up to 7 stories — near public transit stops, regardless of zoning codes.” Under the Brown Act, “All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body.” The law’s definition of a “legislative body” includes any entity that receives funds from a local agency.

Hellman wrote in an email that all member agencies pay MCCMC an annual fee of $800 to support the organization’s secretary and other operational functions, including its website.

The organization is also in the second year of a two-year contract with Emanuels Jones and Associates. The contract authorizes payment of up to $93,670 for legislative monitoring and analysis. The cost for the contract is split among the 11 dues-paying municipalities based on a formula that equally weighs population and assessed valuation of property.

The cease-and-desist order states that 2022 emails between MCCMC members that Ganz obtained through a public records request indicates that members were under the impression that the organization was not covered by the Brown Act.
3/1/26, 8:27 PM Marin government 'social group' pressured for transparency https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/08/marin-government-social-group-pressured-for-transparency/ 4/26 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 55 The email exchange involves a member of the public requesting a meeting video. Vaughn, the group’s secretary, emailed members former Mill Valley City Council member Sashi McEntee, Brian Colbert, who was a San Anselmo Town Council member at the time, and Eric Lucan, a former Novato City Council member, asking permission to post a link to the video on the group’s website. “I don’t think we ever said the meeting would be accessible,” Vaughn wrote. “We’ve never posted them in the past.”
Colbert said, “If we are not obligated to … put up the video then no. There’s a good chance we’ll be Zoom next year and I don’t want to deal with video requests unless we are obligated by statute or by-laws.” McEntee wrote, “I agree with Brian we don’t need to start posting the meeting videos online. To be clear, MCCMC is a social group allowing elected councilmembers/mayors to form collegial relationships that foster sharing of best practices and allow us to do better jobs as electeds. We are not a Brown Act body.”
Lucan wrote, “I don’t see any issue with sending the link, but might include the disclaimer that we don’t always record the meetings and even if we do, it doesn’t mean that we will store them indefinitely.”
The staff report for the group’s Jan. 28 meeting stated that the organization’s bylaws currently read: “All meetings shall be open to the public and comply with the spirit of the Ralph M. Brown Act.”
The report recommended that the organization remove ambiguity by making an affirmative commitment to making all general and standing committee meetings accessible to the public, posting agendas, providing meeting packets and allowing recordings of meetings.

The report made no mention of posting videos of meetings online. “We just had a meeting to put it on the agenda to clarify it once and for all,” Fredericks said. “Then it won’t be a controversy anymore.” Around the Web
3/1/26, 8:27 PM Marin government 'social group' pressured for transparency https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/08/marin-government-social-group-pressured-for-transparency/ 5/26 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 56 By MARIN IJ EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED: February 12, 2026 at 12:59 PM PST
The Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael, Calif., on Wednesday, April 9, 2025. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)
OPINION  EDITORIALS
Editorial: Marin elected officials
group needs to adhere to Brown
Act
3/1/26, 8:26 PM Editorial: Marin elected officials group needs to adhere to Brown Act – Marin Independent Journal https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/12/editorial-marin-elected-officials-group-needs-to-adhere-to-brown-act/ 1/24 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 57 Members of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers meet mostly monthly for what is often a social gathering, to hobnob with fellow Marin politicians and hear a speaker.

The longstanding goal of the group has been to foster a good working relationship between municipalities.

However, they also conduct business, taking stands on legislation, hiring a lobbyist and electing members of regional governmental bodies.

For example, the council elects representatives to the Golden Gate Bridge District board, the Marin Transit District board and other public panels.

The council is a lot more than a social group or a club for local politicians. It conducts the public’s business.

There should be no question whether they need to abide by the state’s “open meeting” law. But there is.

The council’s members – elected representatives from Marin’s 11 towns and cities – are going to put the matter to a vote.

It should be a no-brainer, but for some of its members it hasn’t been clear.

They want direction from their membership – a formal vote over whether they need to follow California’s Brown Act, the state’s open-meeting law – essentially the public’s right to know how their elected representatives are conducting the public’s business.
3/1/26, 8:26 PM Editorial: Marin elected officials group needs to adhere to Brown Act – Marin Independent Journal https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/12/editorial-marin-elected-officials-group-needs-to-adhere-to-brown-act/ 2/24 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 58 That the council needs to vote on whether to follow the law is troubling, at best.

The question is whether the deliberation of the council’s subcommittees should be public.

At issue is the council’s legislative committee which meets to review state legislation and recommend positions for the full council to vote on.

If the committee is appointed by council, there should be little question.

If the committee wants to be an example of open government, there won’t be any debate.

The committee’s deliberations lead to recommendations on public policies being weighed by state lawmakers.

Public access to those local deliberations was raised when the legislative committee’s chair, Tiburon Councilmember Alice Fredericks and Fairfax Councilmember Barbara Coler, told Tamalpais Valley resident Brooke Schreier Ganz that its Sept. 22 meeting – held on Zoom – was closed to the public because the panel is not subject to the Brown Act.

After Ganz insisted and explained her rights under the Brown Act, Fredericks eventually relented and allowed Ganz to view the meeting. Ganz, however, says she was blocked from watching the committee’s Oct. 27 Zoom session live. In fact, the council also stopped posting the agenda for its legislative committee on its website, according to the cease-and-desist order filed by Ganz’s attorney.

Ganz, a housing advocate, wanted to hear the committee’s deliberations because the panel in the past has opposed Sacramento’s pro-housing push.

Largely, the state’s strategy has been to undermine local control over the location, size and scope of housing developments. Besides offering its advice to Marin’s state lawmakers, it also guides the council-hired lobbyist who represents them in Sacramento.

Even if these behind-closed-doors committee sessions have been allowed in the past, it’s time to do the right thing.
3/1/26, 8:26 PM Editorial: Marin elected officials group needs to adhere to Brown Act – Marin Independent Journal https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/12/editorial-marin-elected-officials-group-needs-to-adhere-to-brown-act/ 3/24 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 59 The committee’s recommendations on legislation are a reflection of community politics and sentiments. Those recommendations, at the committee and council levels, should be reached in public. Each town’s vote should be recorded. Each council member’s vote should also be recorded. But while publicly recording those votes is important, so is public access to the deliberations leading up to those decisions.

While the committee’s members may have reservations about conducting the public’s business in public, the council’s website seems to leave little room for any debate.

It says: “All meetings shall be open to the public and comply with the spirit of the Ralph M. Brown Act.”
That’s very clear – and correct.

It shouldn’t require a vote, as Fredericks, a longtime council member, says, “to clarify it once and for all.”
Around the Web
87% of Shoulder Pain is Not From Tears. Meet The Real
Enemy
Health Insights Magazine
3/1/26, 8:26 PM Editorial: Marin elected officials group needs to adhere to Brown Act – Marin Independent Journal https://www.marinij.com/2026/02/12/editorial-marin-elected-officials-group-needs-to-adhere-to-brown-act/ 4/24 Public Comment For March 4, 2026 Fairfax Town Council Meeting 60 Outlook
Center Boulevard road conditions
From Peter Werba <[email protected]>
Date Tue 3/3/2026 6:34 AM
To Fairfax Town Council <[email protected]> Dear Fairfax Town Council members,
I am a resident at 72 Sequoia Road and commute to SF daily. My normal ride takes me down the bike lane out of town on Center Boulevard. Over the last few weeks I have noticed cars drifting into the bike lane and was puzzled by this only until I had to drive on this road on Sunday to go shopping. This road felt unsafe to drive on. I could feel the damaged road on my tires and indeed felt the need to drift to the right while heading east out of town.

The worst part of this road is between the theater and the intersection of willow.

Are there any plans in the near future to deal with this? I would argue that the road is becoming dangerous.

Thank you for your consideration to this email.

Cheers
Peter Werba
--
"Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't " -bill nye-
Outlook
Fw: Tax increase
From Heather Abrams <[email protected]>
Date Wed 3/4/2026 3:22 PM
To Janabai Owens <[email protected]>
Regards,
Heather Abrams
Town of Fairfax | Town Manager
www.townoffairfax.org
From: Diana Perdue <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Christine Foster <[email protected]>
Cc: Heather Abrams <[email protected]>
Subject: Tax increase
To staff and council,
I do not want any increase or extension of any tax.

I was at a town breakfast@ the good earth in October where the subject of the town budget was introduced
Mayor of the year was Blash, town Manager H Abrams and finance manager Viverette were in attendance and assured those in attendance that the budget was in excellent shape ! Do, what’s up with the increase?
If you’ve overspent then take it out of your salaries but no new taxes.

Diana Perdue
Sent from my iPhone