San Anselmo City Council
October 24, 2023

Tuesday, October 24, 2023 6:30 PM
In the Council Chambers at 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Town Council
Agenda
Meeting held In-Person and via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81324116671
Or Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 | Webinar ID: 813 2411 6671 How to Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit email correspondence to [email protected] before the meeting begins.

How to Participate During the Meeting: Members of the public will have the option to speak during the meeting through the Zoom application by using their phone or an electronic device.

For PC, Mac, or smart phone, Use Raise hand function when public comment for an item is requested. It is a button that is located at the top or bottom of your screen, based on your computer For landline phones, raise hand to be recognized with *9 Please be advised those participating in the meeting remotely via Zoom do so at their own risk. The Town Council regular meeting will not be cancelled if any technical problems occur during the meeting.

A. Call to Order in the Council Chambers at Town Hall- 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo CA 94960- 6:30 PM
B. Mayor Burdo announces that item B.1 will be discussed in Closed Session.

B.1. Closed session pursuant to California Government Code § 54956.8 - Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: APN 005-011-60 Agency negotiator: Town Manager David Donery Negotiating parties: Marin Open Space Trust; Mary Conversano Under negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
C. PUBLIC COMMENT on Closed Session Items.

D. Council Adjourns to Closed Session.

Town Council Agenda October 24, 2023
1 1. Consent Agenda:

1.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Regular Town Council Meeting of October 10, 2023.

1.2 Consideration of Special Event Application – Community Hanukkah Celebration and Menorah Lighting Ceremony 2023

1.3 Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, September, 2023

1.4 Receive Climate Action Quarterly Update

1.5 Revenue and Expenditure Reports, September 2023
Council Reconvenes in the Council Chambers. Optional Pledge of Allegiance: The Mayor or a designated Council member will recite the Pledge of Allegiance for members of the Council and the public who wish to join in the recitation. 7:00 PM
Open time for public expression.

The public is welcome to address the Council at this time on matters not on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Council. Please be advised that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, Council is not permitted to discuss or take action on any matter not on the agenda unless it determines that an emergency exists, or that there is a need to take immediate action which arose following posting of the agenda. Comments may be no longer than three minutes and should be respectful to the community.

Written Public Comment
Council requests for future agenda items.

Council committee liaison reports, questions and comments to staff; staff miscellaneous items.

Special Presentation.
- Mayor's Proclamation Recognizing Cedars for their Excellent work on Supporting Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
The opportunity for public comment on consent agenda items will occur prior to Council discussion of the consent agenda. The Council may approve the entire consent agenda with one action. In the alternative, items on the consent agenda may be removed by any Council or staff member, for separate discussion and vote.

Staff Report (DOC)
Attachment 1- Draft Minutes of the October 10, 2023 (DOC) Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Event Application
Staff Report (DOCX)
Attachment 1 Quarterly Investment Report 9.30.23 (PDF)
Staff Report (DOC)
Staff Report (DOCX)
Town Council Agenda October 24, 2023
2 2. Council Business Items:

2.1 Receive report and provide direction to staff whether to consider a rent stabilization ordinance and eviction protection ordinance beyond the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482).

Conducting a discussion regarding residential rental regulations is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

Attachment 1 Budget Comparison Report Subcategory September 2023 (XLS) Attachment 2 Budget Comparison Report Department September 2023 (XLS) In general, the following procedural order applies to items of business:
•Presentation
•Town Council questions
•PUBLIC COMMENT – limited to 3 minutes/person
•Town Council discussion/action
Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment 1 - San Anselmo Residential Rental Policies Presentation (PDF) Attachment 2 - Summary of Community Engagement (PDF)
Attachment 3 - Parcels with 3 Units and Up - Sorted by Number of Units (PDF) Attachment 4 Links to State Law and local ordinances (DOC) Attachment 5 - Community Discussion #1 and 2 – In-Person and Zoom Public Comments (PDF)
Attachment 6 - Public Comments (PDF)
Public Comment- Gott.pdf
Public Comment- Gray.pdf
Public Comment- Johnson.pdf
Public Comment- Knell.pdf
Public Comment- Najafi.pdf
Public Comment- Sexton.pdf
Public Comment- Timms.pdf
Public Comment- Turkan.pdf
Public Comment- Wong.pdf
Public Comment- Ahern.pdf
Public Comment- Berg.pdf
Public Comment- Carlston.pdf
Public Comment- Clapp.pdf
Public Comment- Coito.pdf
Public Comment- Engert.pdf
Public Comment- Fariwar.pdf
Public Comment- Goldin.pdf
Public Comment- Hogan.pdf
Public Comment- Smith.pdf
Public Comment- Armitage.pdf
Town Council Agenda October 24, 2023
3 2.2 Receive Staff Report Presented to Ross Valley Fire Board and Consider Recommendation from Fire Board’s Labor Management Subcommittee Relating to Increased Staffing per the "2022 Staffing/Deployment" Side Letter and Provide Direction to the Town’s Fire Board Representatives. Providing direction to the Town’s Fire Board representatives on this matter is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

2.3 Resolution Adopting Required Findings Pursuant to Government Code Section 4217 Approving Sole Source Energy Services Contract with EcoGreen Solutions LLC for Energy Efficient Lighting Improvements for Town Owned Facilities and Authorizing Town Manager to Execute Associated PG&E On-Bill Loan Financing. The project and associated on-bill financing are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061 “common sense exemption” because it can be seen with certainty that they will not cause a significant effect on the environment.

Staff Report (DOC)
Attachment 1 - Third Amendment to RVFD JPA (PDF)
Attachment 2 - RVFD Board 10.11.23 Staff Report on 3 Person Engine Companies_Labor_Managment Subcommittee Recomendation (PDF) Attachment 3 - 2020 Side Letter between Ross Valley Fire Department and Ross Valley Professional Firefighters’ Association Local 1775 (PDF) Attachment 4 - 2022 Side Letter Staffing/Deployment Agreement between Ross Valley Fire Department and Ross Valley Professional Firefighters’ Association Local 1775 (PDF) Attachment 5 - Citygate Associates Standards of Coverage Assessment 2019 (PDF) Attachment 6 - NIST Report Fireground Field Experiments (PDF) Attachment 7 - NIST Report on EMS Field Experiments (PDF) Public Hearing:

In general, the following procedural order applies to public hearing items:
•Presentation
•Town Council questions
•PUBLIC COMMENT – limited to 3 minutes/person
•Town Council discussion/action
Staff Report (DOC)
Attachment 1 - Copy of Public Notice (PDF)
Attachment 2 - Proposed Resolution (DOC)
Adjourn
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Town Staff at email [email protected]. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable accommodation to help insure accessibility to this meeting.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Town Council regarding any item on this agenda after the distribution of the original packet will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at Town Hall Town Council Agenda October 24, 2023
4 located at 525 San Anselmo Avenue.

Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.

If any of these matters above are 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. Judicial review of an administrative decision of the Town Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date of the Council’s decision (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Any item not under discussion before 10:00 p.m. may be continued to the next regular meeting. Next regular meeting is November 14, 2023.

Administration Department
Town Hall, main floor
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-4691
Town Council
Steve Burdo, Mayor
Eileen Burke, Vice Mayor
Brian Colbert, Councilmember
Alexis Fineman, Councilmember
Tarrell Kullaway, Councilmember
Staff
David Donery, Town Manager
Linda Kenton, Assistant Town Manager / Town Librarian
Jeff Zuba, Finance and Admin Services Director
Megan Holt Acevedo, Town Attorney
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
Sean Condry, Public Works Director
Dannielle Mauk, Community Services Director
Mike Norton, Chief of Police
Dan Mahoney, Interim Fire Chief

DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the Town of San Anselmo website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Town Council Agenda October 24, 2023
5 Item #: 1.1

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 1.1
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Regular Town Council Meeting of October 10, 2023
FROM: Serge Avila, Town Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: For Council to consider the approval of the Draft Minutes of the Regular Town Council meeting of October 10, 2023.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment 1- October 10, 2023 Draft Minutes
6 1
San Anselmo Council Draft Minutes
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers and via teleconference
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
Call to Order 6:30 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Burdo, Mayor
Eileen Burke, Vice Mayor
Brian Colbert
Alexis Fineman
Tarrell Kullaway
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave Donery, Town Manager
Megan Acevedo, Town Attorney
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
Sean Condry, Public Works Director
Scott Schneider, Assistant Public Works Director

A. Call to Order
B. Mayor Burdo announced that item B.1 will be discussed in Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators
Government Code Section 54956.8 Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: APN 005-011-60 Agency Negotiator: Town Manager David Donery Negotiating Parties: Marin Open Space Trust; Mary Conversano Under negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
C. Public Comment on Closed Session Items
The Chair of the Open Space Trust, Mr. Ralph Mayhem, Mr. John Guzman, Mr. Jack Judkins, Mr. Staley Radke, Ms. Sharon Batel, Mr. Ron Ecker, and Mr. Marty Simms supported the acquisition of the Hawthorne Canyon property.

D. Council Adjourned to Closed Session
Council reconvened to Open Session in the Council Chambers at 7:17 PM Optional Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
Open Time for Public Expression
Michele discussed the need for more teen activities.

An individual discussed her non-profit theater organization.

Council requests for future agenda items; Committee liaison reports; questions and comments to staff; miscellaneous items
Mayor Burdo reported on the passing of former Councilmember Kay Coleman and noted they 7 2
would be honoring her at the November 14th meeting.

Vice Mayor Burke reported she attended the Dog Park Committee meeting; the last weekend of “Live on the Avenue”; watched the October 5th rental discussion; the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC) meeting in Fairfax; tomorrow is her father’s 90th Birthday!
Councilmember Fineman reported she attended the MCE Board retreat and Technical Committee meeting; witnessed a bicycle accident on Greenfield Avenue and stated she would like the Council to talk about safety improvements along that corridor Councilmember Colbert reported the County opened up the Karma Club for teens/tweens in the Northgate Mall; he attended a Policy Committee meeting regarding State Route 37; the Marin Music Gala; encouraged parents who are having problems with the Yellow Bus school service or the relocation of bus stops to contact Marin Transit; participated in the International “Walk and Roll”; he has been asked to join the Cedars Board.

Councilmember Kullaway had no reports.

Mayor Burdo reported he attended a meeting of the Ross Valley Fire Board Labor Management Subcommittee; and discussed the school bus service and the new vendors; the next JEPA meeting will be on November 7th; took a tour of Cedars and noted they have a lot of amazing activities going on; watched the rental discussion; attended the Spirit of Marin Awards Ceremony; asked to move Agenda Item #2.2 to the end of the agenda.

M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to move Agenda Item #2.2 to the end of the agenda.

AYES: Burke, Colbert, Fineman, Kullaway, Mayor Burdo
Town Manager Donery reported the Town has been contacted by a representative of Shabbat of West Marin about an event, an Evening of Solidarity, to be held tomorrow night at the Town Hall Plaza.

Special Presentation
There were no Special Presentations.

1. Consent Agenda

1.1 Approve the Draft Minutes of the Town Council Meeting- September 26, 2023

1.2 Report of Checks Issued, September 2023

1.3 Approve the Second Reading and Adoption of Murals Ordinance No. 1182

1.4 Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony 2023- Event Application

1.5 Consider to Approve the Hub Beautification Public Arts Project

1.6 Adopt a Proclamation to Welcome and Recognize Youth Commissioners for the Current Fiscal Year 2023/24
Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments.

There were no comments.
8 3
Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments.

Councilmember Fineman asked to pull item #1.4 from the Consent Calendar.

Councilmember Colbert asked to pull item #1.1 from the Consent Calendar.

M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to approve Consent Calendar items #1.2, #1.3, #1.5, and #1.6.

AYES: Burke, Colbert, Fineman, Kullaway, Mayor Burdo

1.1 Approve the Draft Minutes of the Town Council Meeting- September 26, 2023 Councilmember Colbert corrected the spelling of an individual’s name.

1.4 Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony 2023- Event Application Councilmember Fineman thanked staff and the community for coming up with ways to make these events more inclusive.

M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to approve Consent Calendar items #1.1 and #1.4 AYES: Burke, Colbert, Fineman, Kullaway, Mayor Burdo

2. Council Business Items

2.1 Council Discussion of Title 14, Chapter 13, Private Tree Ordinance.

Public Works Director Condry presented the staff report. Staff answered a question from the Council regarding the definition of an undeveloped parcel given SB 9.

Councilmember Fineman reported the subcommittee formed in 2019 and reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions. Some of the new ordinances are more sophisticated in evaluating the structure of trees, how to deal with riparian corridors, ecological and hydrological situations, replacement policies, etc.

Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments.

Abby stated the Tree Ordinance needs to be completely replaced in phases. There should be higher fines for removing trees, removing crowns, and not having an Encroachment Permit.

They should be saving as many trees as possible.

Mr. Renee Voss stated the title of the ordinance is a misnomer since it also covers public trees.

The terms “protected” trees and “hazardous” trees should be defined.

Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments.

Vice Mayor Burke stated there are presently more trees in San Anselmo than one hundred years ago- they are not losing trees at a fast pace. They will lose the Heritage Oaks over time unless they are planted on public property. She does not think it is a loophole to allow clear cutting of non-heritage trees on a developed parcel. People should be allowed to have a garden, pool, shed, etc. The undeveloped parcel definition needs to be revised. She did not want to over-regulate this if it is something residents do not want it. She would like to more feedback from residents.
9 4
Councilmember Fineman pushed back on the idea of twenty-two inches in diameter being sufficient. She liked the table used in the County’s Tree Ordinance that shows different thresholds for protection of trees. It is more species specific. She supported the staff recommendations plus using the County’s table, additional protections in riparian areas, making fines more of a deterrent, strengthen the replacement requirements, and updating the Nuisance Tree Resolution.

Councilmember Colbert stated he supported Councilmember Fineman’s approach based on the work she has done. He would like an enforcement mechanism that has some “teeth” and would serve as a deterrent. He would like to see the revisions come back to the Council.

Mayor Burdo stated enforcement is problematic and noted some jurisdictions use a real time app to create a record. He supported an increase in penalties and the subcommittee’s recommendations. He wants to move this forward.

Public Works Director Condry stated he could schedule a Community Meeting in the near future.

The Council took a 5-minute break at 8:36 p.m.

The Council reconvened in the Council Chambers at 8:41 p.m.

2.3 Consideration of Consultant Contract for the Downtown San Anselmo Active Transportation Safety Study
Councilmembers Fineman and Kullaway recused themselves from this item due to a potential conflict of interest.

Assistant Public Works Director Schneider presented the staff report. Staff answered questions from the Council regarding the timeline; the costs for improvements such as a bulb-out, adding sharrows, and bike lanes; the scope with respect to Greenfield Avenue; parallel projects; if the study includes vehicle accidents or just bikes and pedestrians; if they would be in a better position to receive grant funding by having this type of study.

Mayor Burdo opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Matthew Hartzell, Director of Planning at WPB Tam, urged unanimous approval of this study. San Anselmo Avenue is a regionally important route and he asked the Council to consider converting it to one-way traffic.

Ms. Lori Bulger, Tiburon, stated she owns a business across from Town Hall and there are problems with bicyclists causing safety problems to pedestrians. She urged the Council to approve the study. Converting San Anselmo Avenue to one-way would be bad for business.

Mayor Burdo closed the Public Hearing.

Councilmember Colbert stated this is long overdue. He looks forward to the study and seeing what the options may be.

Vice Mayor Burke stated she does not support this proposal. The staff report is clear about what needs to be done and what is doable. They should implement measures they already know are effective. She did not want to spend the money for a study that would result in nothing tangible.
10 5
Mayor Burdo stated he tends to support these types of studies since they can help with grant opportunities and potential liabilities. He is not sure they know everything that needs to be done and supports this study. The funding amount ($80,000) is in line and should come from the Active Transportation Fund.

M/s, Colbert/Burdo, Motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Parasi Parametrics to start the study.

AYES: Colbert, Mayor Burdo
NOES: Burke
RECUSED: Fineman, Kullaway
The Council took a 5-minute break.

2.4 Adopt a Resolution Establishing Rules of Decorum for Town Public Meetings Town Attorney Acevedo presented the staff report. Staff answered questions from the Council regarding Attachment #1, and the somewhat vague and subjective language; if they want to disallow applause from the public; if staff considered other options; if they can target racism and whether this would be considered unconstitutional.

Mayor Burdo opened the Public Hearing.

There were no comments.

Mayor Burdo closed the Public Hearing.

Mayor Burdo stated he asked for this item to be placed on the agenda. Rules of decorum provide more tools in the tool kit- it will not stop the problem. He noted the policies were not limited to the Town Council but apply to all Town body. He would like to beef up the rules.

Councilmember Fineman stated she struggles with these types of guidelines since they are discretionary. She supported these rules if it is something the presiding Mayor feels he or she would use.

Vice Mayor Burke stated everyone would like to see general decorum and it was a good idea to have a general civility policy. She did not see the need to change anything. The issues they are really trying to address should be discussed in Closed Session. She is not comfortable letting the Mayor take care of it and the Council, as a group, should decide how to handle something that has crossed the line.

Councilmember Colbert stated this is not going away and they might not be adequately prepared. It will be the Mayor’s responsibility to deal with it and he will not second guess the decision.

M/s, Burke/Kullaway, Motion to adopt Resolution No. the Rules of Decorum for Town Public Meetings with the removal of A5, B2, B4, and the word “applause” in D1.

AYES: Burke, Colbert, Fineman, Kullaway, Mayor Burdo

2.2 Presentation of the Downtown Parking Study and Consideration of Recommendations Councilmember Colbert stated he would recuse himself from this item since he lives in the area of several of the proposed parking changes.
11 6
Vice Mayor Burke stated she lives within 500 feet of several of the proposals and believes any changes would not have any material impact on the value of her property.

Assistant Public Works Director Schneider presented the staff report. Staff answered questions from the Council regarding the amount of revenue that could be generated; if more bike parking will be added; if they would be paying extra for enforcement services to the Central Marin Police Authority (CMPA); if staff considered all day parking passes for residents in regulated areas who have night time passes; what metering south of Ross would look like; if the Town Hall parking lot is optimized; accessible ADA spaces.

Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments.

Mr. Robert DeFrieze, Magnolia Avenue, supported some sort of accommodation for residents as suggested by Vice Mayor Burke. The report is from the viewpoint of commercial and not residential. Parklets have reduced the number of parking spaces in the downtown.

David asked about the number of parking spaces for Police vehicles.

Erin stated the 10-minute parking zones have helped out businesses. She supported parking meters on the avenue.

Ms. Kathleen Guthrie, member of the Climate Action Commission, supported the staff recommendation for paid parking along San Anselmo Avenue.

Lori, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce Board, invited the Council to attend a meeting to hear from the merchants. The Chamber supports metered parking and it should be optimized for the peak hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. with a maximum of one hour. The Chamber opposed reducing merchant parking and the reduction in the number of 4-hour parking spaces.

Belinda stated she has two stores on the avenue and is opposed to the proposed changes.

Short-term meters would be bad for business. Parklets take up a lot of parking spaces and should be scaled back.

Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments.

Vice Mayor Burke stated residents who live in neighborhoods with regulated parking and overnight stickers should get all day parking. The goal of a Parking Program is to help merchants. They also need to accommodate cars. She supports 2-hour parking meters on all of San Anselmo Avenue and on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard from Madcap to the Hub (on both sides of the street). She referred to the staff report and stated she did not support G1. She supported G2, CP1, CP2, SA 1, SA2, and stated G4 should be increased to $1.00 an hour. She would leave the pay station issue to staff.

Councilmember Kullaway stated the number one way to affect behavior change is to not have free parking. Free parking means more miles driven. She agreed with Vice Mayor Burke’s comments.

Councilmember Fineman supported the expanded list of recommendations. It is reasonable to ask employees to park and walk. She is interested in the daytime/overnight hardship permit and would like to revisit the process.

Mayor Burdo stated he is supportive of the expanded recommendations and the revenue going to climate action activities. He would like to do more outreach to the merchants. 12 7
It was the consensus of the Council to discuss the issue of designation of the revenue and the daytime parking permit in the future.

Councilmember Fineman made a motion to direct staff to move forward with the full suite of recommendations listed in Table G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, CP1, CP2, SA1, SA2, along San Anselmo Avenue down to Bolinas Avenue. The next staff report should include explicit reference to a parking benefit district that would include the Climate Action Fund.

Vice Mayor Burke asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to exclude G1. This died for lack of a second.

M/s Fineman/Kullaway, made a motion to direct staff to move forward with the full suite of recommendations listed in Table G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, CP1, CP2, SA1, SA2, along San Anselmo Avenue down to Bolinas Avenue. The next staff report should include explicit reference to a parking benefit district that would include the Climate Action Fund.

AYES: Fineman, Kullaway, Mayor Burdo
NOES: Vice Mayor Burke
ABSENT: Colbert
M/s, Fineman/Burke, Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. in memory of former Town Councilmember Kay Coleman.

AYES: Fineman, Kullaway, Vice Mayor Burke, Mayor Burdo
ABSENT: Colbert
Respectfully submitted,
Toni DeFrancis,
Recording Secretary
13 Item #: 1.2

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 1.2
MEETING DATE: 10/24/23
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of Special Event Application – Community Hanukkah Celebration and Menorah
Lighting Ceremony 2023
FROM: Mattie O’Grady – Recreation Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the San Anselmo Chamber of Commerce’s application for the Community Hanukah Celebration and Menorah Lighting Ceremony event scheduled for Sunday, December 10th, 2023, from 4:00 – 6:00 pm.

That Council approve closing San Anselmo Avenue between Tunstead Avenue and Magnolia on Sunday, December 10th, 2023, beginning with closing the street to incoming traffic at 3:30pm and closing San Anselmo to all vehicles from 4:00pm6:30pm.

That Council approve installing a large Menorah in front of Town Hall from Wednesday, December 6th until Friday, December 15th when it is disassembled.

BACKGROUND
This family-oriented event is sponsored by the San Anselmo Chamber of Commerce in partnership with Chabad of West Marin.

This is a two-part event that includes both a multi-day Menorah lighting and one-day celebration filled with crafts, food, games, and a photobooth. The Chamber is expecting between 100-200 people in attendance.

The Chamber is proposing that the Menorah be assembled on Wednesday, December 6th so that it will be ready to be lit on Thursday, December 7th in conjunction with the start of Hanukkah. One additional light will be lit the following seven evenings until the eighth and final evening of December 14th. On the fourth evening of December 10th, the celebratory event and ceremonial lighting of the 4th light will take place from 4:00- 6:00pm. At the event there will be activities, food, and a ceremony for lighting the Menorah. The Chamber is requesting the closure of San Anselmo Avenue on 14 Item #: 1.2
December 10th from Tunstead to Tamalpais Magnolia from 4:00-6:30pm (with a soft closure beginning at 3:30pm).

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Menorah measures 9’ tall by 7.5’ wide and will be secured by 2-4 sandbags which total will be between 100-200 lbs. Assembly will be completed by Chabad of West Marin with oversight from town staff and will be located on the decomposed granite area in front of Town Hall (due to proximity to electrical). The Menorah is equipped with a dual fire/incandescent system which means it can accommodate both fire and lightbulbs. The lighting of the fire will only occur in a supervised and ceremonial manner on both the first night of Hanukkah on December 7th and then again on December 10th. After the flames are lit they will be turned off and replaced with incandescent lightbulbs.

Central Marin Police Department will provide a Community Services Officer (CSO) to clear cars off the street and remain at the event on December 10th until 5:45pm. The Chamber may elect to hire additional security should they feel a need to do so.

The town will provide event infrastructure such as tables, chairs, barricades and road closure signage. Town staff will also coordinate janitorial services and street closure attendants with Good & Clean.

In the event of inclement weather, the Chamber may move the celebration to an alternate date which has been identified as Monday, December 11th or provide outdoor tents for coverage.

The attached application provides details of the event with comments and conditions from Town staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the town for providing street closure attendants and a janitorial team is $200.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under the “common sense” exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061).

Attachment 1 – Event Application
15 Item 1.2 - Attachment 1
Item 1.2 - Attachment 1 Page 1
16 Item 1.2 - Attachment 1
Item 1.2 - Attachment 1 Page 2
17 Item 1.2 - Attachment 1
Item 1.2 - Attachment 1 Page 3
18 NAME OF EVENT: DATE OF EVENT:

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS APPROVED BY
POLICE Will provide CSO to clear cars from the Avenue and will also stay at the event until 5:45pm.

M. Norton
FIRE D. Mahoney
RECREATION Applicant must deliver notices to merchants affected by the street closure.

Applicant must abide by Ordinance 1136 stating that all food vendors must provide items in reusable foodware or compostable disposable foodware.

D. Mauk & M.

O’Grady
PUBLIC WORKS Requires compliance with all ADA regulations, including providing ADA-approved cord covers on all cords located on public right of way.

S. Condry & J.

Healy
ADMINISTRATION D. Donery

TOWN COUNCIL
Menorah Lighting December 10, 2023
Item 1.2 - Attachment 1
Item 1.2 - Attachment 1 Page 4 19
Item #: 1.3

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.3
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, September, 2023
FROM: Jeff Zuba, Finance & Admin Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council consider approving the Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2023.

SUMMARY
The Treasurer’s Investment Report is a quarterly itemization of the market value of Town investments. The purpose of this report is to present financial information for review and discussion.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The attached report itemizes the Town’s investments and states the market value of each investment as of September 30, 2023 The Wells Fargo bank account is the Town’s primary checking account used for the deposit and expenditure of operating funds. The Bank of America checking account is a controlled account used for payroll processing only.

The Town holds three investment accounts; one with Moreton Capital with funds held at U.S. Bank, one with Wells Fargo Securities with funds held at Wells Fargo, and one with RBC Capital Markets held at RBC. The investments held are allowable by the Town’s investment policy.

The Town maintains two Local Agency Investment Fund accounts (LAIF) for the purpose of maximizing interest income on funds not needed for immediate expenditure.

One LAIF account is for the investment of general operating funds. The other is for the remaining series 2003 Measure G bond proceeds, required by law to be maintained in a segregated account.
20 Item #: 1.3
The Town’s cash balances as of September 30, 2023, are $12,237,456 which is $280,163 more than the balances at this time last year. This increase is driven by the timing of cash flow between money received versus money to be paid out the following period.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion and approval of this report is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, September 30, 2023 21 ITEM 1.3 - ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 1.3 - ATTACHMENT 1
22 Item #: 1.4

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 1.4
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Receive Climate Action Quarterly Update
FROM: Sean Youra, Climate Action Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Climate Action Update report.

BACKGROUND
The quarterly Climate Action Update report details progress made by staff in implementing the Town’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

DISCUSSION
This report details progress made in implementing the CAP since the last report provided to Council on July 25, 2023. The table on the next page details actions taken by staff during the past quarter to implement the CAP and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The applicable measures from the CAP along with the estimated GHG emissions reduction that would result from achieving the targets for each of the applicable measures are provided for reference for each action taken. 23 Item #: 1.4
Action CAP
Measure
Estimated GHG
Emissions
Reduction in
2030 (in MTCO2e)
Continued to implement the landscape
equipment ordinance and promote the rebate
program through the Town’s Landscape
Equipment webpage, newsletters, and flyers.

Public Works staff have continued to process
and approve rebate applications with 48 total
applications approved thus far. Approximately
$3,900 in rebate funds still remain.

T-10: Electric
Landscape
Equipment
24 Note: The
estimated
emissions
reduction in the
CAP for this
measure is based
on achieving a
target of 100% of
leaf blowers in the
Town being
electric by 2030. If
all landscape
equipment used in
the Town are
electric by 2030,
the estimated
emissions
reduction would be
516 MTCO2e.

Submitted a combined MCE and TAM rebate
reservation form for installing EV chargers in the
Creek Park, Memorial Park, and Pine St. parking
lots for public and staff use. A total of $39,000 in
rebates for each project site has been reserved
that will be issued to the Town upon completion
of each project.

T-1: Zero
Emission
Vehicles
5,242
I-3: Identify
and Secure
Funding
Sources
N/A
Continued to meet with Sage Energy consultants
to work on the San Anselmo Resilience Hub
project. The consultants prepared an RFP for the
project covering the design, build,
commissioning, and ongoing maintenance of the
proposed solar PV carport, battery energy
storage system (BESS), and microgrid, which
staff reviewed and provided feedback. It is
expected that the RFP will be published on
November 1, 2023 and the deadline for
submitting proposals will be January 12, 2024.

Staff continued to research additional funding
opportunities for this project as well.

R-4:

Innovative
Technologies
N/A
R-5: Solar
Energy
Systems for
Municipal
Buildings
N/A
A-1:

Preparation
and
Response
N/A
24 Item #: 1.4
Action CAP
Measure
Estimated GHG
Emissions
Reduction in
2030 (in MTCO2e)
Researched various e-bike rebate programs
currently offered by local governments/agencies
along with the e-bike incentive program funded
by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
that will be available to California residents. This
research will be compiled and analyzed to
support the development of an e-bike rebate
program that could be administered by Town
staff and initial funding for this type of program
has already been allocated in the FY 2023-24
Climate Action Fund budget.

T-2: Bicycling 211
Developed a draft work plan in collaboration with
Public Works to prioritize selected strategies for
implementation from the Marin Countywide EV
Acceleration Strategy. Developed a draft Fleet
Zero-Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) policy in
collaboration with Public Works that is compliant
with the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation
adopted by the CARB and aligned with the
recommended strategies in the Marin EV
Acceleration Strategy and the Town’s Climate
Action Plan. Updated the Town’s fleet vehicle
inventory spreadsheet to include fields that will
be required to report to CARB starting in April
2024 and determine how many fleet vehicles will
be subject to the Advanced Clean Fleets
regulation.

T-1: Zero
Emission
Vehicles
5,242
T-2: Bicycling 211
T-11: Zero
and Low
Emission
Town
Vehicles
13 T-12: Low
Carbon Fuels
1 Continued to serve on the Marin Countywide
Building Electrification Plan Steering Committee
to develop a building electrification plan/roadmap
in collaboration with community stakeholders.

Helped facilitate two stakeholder workshops
organized by County staff that had over 45
attendees at each one representing contractors,
utilities, government staff, realtors, environmental
advocates, affordable housing developers, etc.
from across the County. Valuable feedback was
received during these workshops that will be
incorporated into the building electrification plan.

Reviewed the residential and commercial
building inventories for San Anselmo that were
developed by Christine O’Rourke, which include
R-3: Building
and
Appliance
Electrification
46 O-2:

Community
Engagement
N/A
25 Item #: 1.4
Action CAP
Measure
Estimated GHG
Emissions
Reduction in
2030 (in MTCO2e)
insightful information on gas use in buildings,
estimated age of the buildings, the estimated
number of different appliances that will need to
be electrified broken out by housing type, and
other factors that will be incorporated into the
building electrification plan.

Prepared the staff report and ordinance in
collaboration with Public Works, Building, and
Legal staff for adoption of the new green building
requirements modeled off of the County’s reach
codes. Presented the green building ordinance to
the Council, which was subsequently adopted.

E-4: Green
Building
Reach Code
27 R-3: Building
and
Appliance
Electrification
46 Continued to work with ReadySetReplace (RSR)
to promote the Water Heating Electrification
Campaign Program to help residents in both
Fairfax and San Anselmo get electric-ready and
install heat pump water heaters (HPWH).

Promoted the campaign in the Town newsletter,
flyers, and information available on the website.

Explored opportunities to streamline the overall
electrification process for homeowners and
innovative funding options to lower the upfront
installation costs for electric appliances. Updated
the Town’s Green Building webpage with new
content to help homeowners and renters plan for
electrification.

R-3: Building
and
Appliance
Electrification
46 E-1: Energy
Efficiency
Programs
3,077
O-2:

Community
Engagement
N/A
Promoted the Resilient Neighborhoods Climate
Action Workshops in the Town newsletter.

Helped organize and promote the EV and E-bike
show in partnership with the Town of Fairfax and
Ride and Drive Clean. Ride and Drive Clean
estimated that anywhere from 200-300 people
attended the EV and E-bike show. Of those that
participated in the event survey, over 45% said
they planned to purchase an EV over the next 24
months and 29% said they already drove an EV.

Promoted the Marin Green Home Tour (that the
Town is sponsoring again) and webinars hosted
by the County covering home energy
O-1:

Community
Education
N/A
O-2:

Community
Engagement
N/A
26 Item #: 1.4
Action CAP
Measure
Estimated GHG
Emissions
Reduction in
2030 (in MTCO2e)
improvement projects such as installing heat
pump water heaters and solar + battery storage.

Approved waivers issued by Marin Sanitary
Service (MSS) for San Anselmo businesses that
qualified for an exemption from complying with
SB 1383 requirements. Collaborated with MSS
staff on how to handle enforcement of noncompliant organic waste generators to ensure they enroll in organics collection service.

Updated the Town’s SB 1383 Local Assistance
grant budget to include new potential programs
such as ordering kitchen compost bins that
would be made available to residents that need
them and allocating additional funds towards
procurement of compost and mulch to assist in
meeting the Town’s required procurement
targets. Trained on how to use the ArcGIS
Recovered Organics Procurement and
Distribution Tracker developed by PlaceWorks
that will be used to identify opportunities for
using compost/mulch within San Anselmo and
countywide, and can be used to track how much
compost/mulch has been applied on an annual
basis along with associated costs.

W-1:

Commercial
Organic
Waste
216
W-2:

Residential
Organic
Waste
508
S-2: Habitat
Restoration
and Soil
Regeneration
N/A
Prepared a staff report and resolution to contract
with EcoGreen Solutions to upgrade the lighting
in Town-owned facilities to LEDs as part of
PG&E’s Energy Efficiency Retrofit Loan Program
and to authorize the Town Manager to execute
the PG&E On-Bill Financing agreement. If
approved by the Council, the lighting would be
upgraded at Town Hall, the Historical Museum,
Library, Corporation Yard, Memorial Park, and
Isabel Cook Community Center and result in an
estimated cost savings to the Town of
approximately $193,000 over the life of the loan.

E-7:

Municipal
Energy
Efficiency
Audit and
Retrofits
19 In addition, staff is continuing to:
 Serve as a staff liaison to the Climate Action Commission (CAC), provide updates on CAP implementation during the CAC meetings, and provide feedback on CAC proposed initiatives.
27 Item #: 1.4
 Identify new climate action funding opportunities and manage existing grant funds (Applicable to CAP Measure I-3: Identify and Secure Funding Sources).  Educate community members about climate action-related incentives, programs, events, and regulations through the Town’s newsletter, social media, website, flyers, etc. (Applicable to CAP Measure O-1: Community Education, and Measure O-2: Community Engagement).
 Coordinate with MCEP members to discuss and develop plans, policies, programs, and strategies that can assist in CAP implementation across all Marin jurisdictions.
 Monitor CAP implementation progress and prioritize projects to meet the CAP goals.
 Stay abreast of new climate-related state and federal regulations, technological innovations, and opportunities to further the Town’s climate action efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s review and approval of this report is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
None
28 Item #: 1.5

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.5
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Revenue and Expenditure Reports, September 2023 FROM: Jeff Zuba, Finance & Admin Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the monthly year-to-date Revenue and Expenditure Reports and corresponding activity for the period ending through September 30, 2023.

SUMMARY
Every reporting period end, the Town of San Anselmo presents to the Town Council its operations as shown on the Revenue and Expenditure reports for discussion and approval.

BACKGROUND
The Revenue and Expenditure reports are year-to-date summaries of revenues and expenditures from the Town’s financial system (‘Tyler Incode’) for both the current as well as the prior corresponding fiscal year. These reports include the General Fund’s operations given most of the Town-level operational activities are processed through the General Fund either directly or indirectly. This approval is to be obtained once a month within the fiscal year.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The revenue and expenditure data through September 30, 2023, is a compilation of all operating activity that is year-to-date for the current and prior fiscal year. These reports are sourced directly from the Town’s financial system, of which a corresponding analysis has been performed identifying the key trends the Town Council should take note of.

Revenues
Overall, through the September 2023 reporting period end, the Town’s General Fund revenue has decreased its base relative to the prior year by $0.036M. As it’s the beginning of the fiscal year the revenue numbers are low since most of the Town’s revenue is collected at specific times. All activity is either flat year-over-year or nets 29 Item #: 1.5
correspondingly to an immaterial change—all of which are within management’s expectations.

As shown above, the Town’s overall revenue base decreased by $0.036M as its  Property Taxes - The Town receives disbursements from the County of Marin for property taxes in December, April, and June.
 Sales Tax increased by $0.23M compared to the prior period due to an increase in consumer activity and the costs of goods. The Town receives disbursements monthly from the State for Sales Tax. This disbursement was the first for fiscal year 2023-24.
 License & Permits decreased by $0.050M compared to the prior period due to declining construction activity around the Town and the timing of collection for Business License Taxes.
 Intergovernmental increased by $0.013M compared to the prior period due to timing of collections for the Prop 172 .5% sales tax.

As far as the other revenue streams, these changes either decreased or remained relatively flat year-over-year resulting in an immaterial change.

Expenditures
Overall, through the September 2023 reporting period end, the Town’s General Fund expenditures have increased by $0.566M compared to the prior year. This is primarily from increases in compensation, outside services, debt service, and other expenditures.

All other activity is either flat year-over-year or nets correspondingly to an immaterial change—all of which are within management’s expectations.

Category SEP YTD FY24 SEP YTD FY23 $ Change % Change
Property Tax 20,913.98 24,041.45 (3,127.47) -13.01%
Sales Tax 124,719.49 101,736.25 22,983.24 22.59%
Property Transfer Tax - - -
Franchise Taxes 112,486.66 111,470.27 1,016.39 0.91%
Licenses & Permits 250,425.99 300,479.58 (50,053.59) -16.66% Fines 18,118.71 11,932.97 6,185.74 51.84%
Cash & Investment Interest 2,915.88 4,331.99 (1,416.11) -32.69% Intergovernmental 24,180.52 37,950.33 (13,769.81) -36.28% Other Fees 94,091.60 95,799.49 (1,707.89) -1.78%
Transfers In 65,731.57 62,635.85 3,095.72 4.94%
Total 713,584.40 750,378.18 (36,793.78) -4.90%
Category SEP YTD FY24 SEP YTD FY23 $ Change % Change
Compensation 1,051,424.92 905,034.97 146,389.95 16.18%
Retirement 74,784.63 60,689.48 14,095.15 23.23%
Training 9,156.41 12,947.20 (3,790.79) -29.28%
Outside Services 3,116,905.69 3,029,924.15 86,981.54 2.87% Maintenance 41,947.10 35,510.52 6,436.58 18.13%
Utilities 16,010.39 16,202.72 (192.33) -1.19%
Supplies 61,633.07 14,969.96 46,663.11 311.71%
Debt Service 498,269.00 405,926.80 92,342.20 22.75%
Other Expenditure 922,744.45 745,270.49 177,473.96 23.81% Transfers Out - - -
Total 5,792,875.66 5,226,476.29 566,399.37 10.84%
30 Item #: 1.5
As shown above, the Town’s expenditures base overall increased by $0.566M of which is driven by compensation, outside services, debt service, and other expenditures:
 Compensation (Salaries & Wages and Benefits) increased by $0.0146M compared to the prior fiscal year primarily due to the 4.5% cost of living adjustment effective July 1, 2023, step adjustments, and increase in health insurance premiums.
 Outside Services increased by $0.086M compared to the previous fiscal year due to the changes in payments for Public Safety JPA’s and construction project activity.
 Debt Service increased by $0.092M compared to the previous fiscal year due to the repayment of the 2021 Pension Obligation Bonds noted above. The bond payments are due in August and February.
 Other Expenditures increased by $0.177M compared to the previous fiscal year due to the increase in insurance premiums for property, liability, and cyber security as well as a slight increase in internal service charges for technology and building maintenance.

As far as the other expenditure streams, these changes either slightly changed or remained flat year-over-year resulting in an immaterial change. All other changes are taken together overall immaterial for further discussion and are expected given the Town’s operations.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion and approval of this report is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report by subcategory, September 2023
Attachment #2: Expenditure Report by department, September 2023 31 ITEM 1.5 - ATTACHMENT 1
Town of San Anselmo
2023-2024 Rev & Exp Report
as of 09/30/2023
2022-2023
Revised
Budget
2022-2023
Audited
Actuals
2022-2023
YTD Actuals
% of
Audited
Actuals
2023-2024
Adopted
Budget
2023-2024
Revised
Budget
2023-2024
YTD Actuals
% of
Actual /
Budget
Fund: 01 - GENERAL FUND
Revenue
400 - PROPERTY TAX GENERAL 9,030,734.00 9,316,564.27 4,444.97 0.05 % 9,609,527.00 9,609,527.00 3,029.66 0.03 % 401 - PENSION 2,592,646.00 2,913,414.27 599.21 0.02 % 2,756,290.00 2,756,290.00 54.98 0.00 % 402 - PROPERTY TAX OTHER 3,760,449.00 3,537,673.91 18,997.27 0.54 % 3,875,006.00 3,875,006.00 17,829.34 0.46 % 410 - OTHER TAXES 1,610,000.00 1,579,452.60 101,736.25 6.44 % 1,545,000.00 1,545,000.00 124,719.49 8.07 % 411 - FRANCHISE TAXES 775,000.00 900,545.14 35,267.14 3.92 % 848,000.00 848,000.00 112,486.66 13.26 % 420 - BUSINESS LICENSE 260,000.00 299,090.84 26,364.54 8.81 % 290,000.00 290,000.00 12,402.91 4.28 % 421 - PARKING 24,500.00 2,080.10 3,859.63 185.55 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 422 - CONSTRUCTION 1,075,000.00 1,074,971.84 270,255.41 25.14 % 1,016,000.00 1,016,000.00 238,023.08 23.43 % 430 - VEHICLE CODE 10,000.00 10,268.23 0.00 0.00 % 10,000.00 10,000.00 703.76 7.04 % 431 - LIBRARY 0.00 4,050.62 307.57 7.59 % 1,250.00 1,250.00 532.13 42.57 % 432 - PARKING 50,000.00 73,714.66 11,625.40 15.77 % 115,000.00 115,000.00 16,882.82 14.68 % 440 - USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY 70,000.00 121,574.14 4,331.99 3.56 % 75,000.00 75,000.00 2,915.88 3.89 % 450 - STATE REVENUE 127,500.00 185,570.89 37,950.33 20.45 % 137,500.00 137,500.00 24,180.52 17.59 % 460 - FEDERAL REVENUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 470 - LOCAL AGENCY REVENUE 0.00 66,000.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 480 - FEES FOR SERVICES 171,000.00 151,507.01 51,858.24 34.23 % 178,250.00 178,250.00 47,431.33 26.61 % 490 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 100,070.00 162,016.07 43,941.25 27.12 % 102,772.00 102,772.00 46,660.27 45.40 % 519 - TRANSFERS IN 384,447.00 356,096.38 0.00 0.00 % 384,030.00 384,030.00 65,731.57 17.12 % 520 - SOURCE OF PROCEEDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Total Revenue: 20,041,346.00 20,754,590.97 611,539.20 2.95 % 20,943,625.00 20,943,625.00 713,584.40 3.41 % Expense
600 - SALARIES AND WAGES 3,072,145.00 2,837,609.24 701,641.98 24.73 % 3,336,127.00 3,336,127.00 812,742.36 24.36 % 601 - RETIREMENT 535,751.00 240,972.70 60,689.48 25.19 % 561,590.00 561,590.00 74,784.63 13.32 % 602 - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 884,105.50 634,244.72 180,589.85 28.47 % 890,116.00 890,116.00 215,789.38 24.24 % 604 - RETIREE BENEFITS 156,390.00 156,390.00 22,803.14 14.58 % 164,779.00 164,779.00 22,893.18 13.89 % 610 - TRAINING 43,200.00 54,360.77 12,947.20 23.82 % 55,750.00 55,750.00 9,156.41 16.42 % 611 - OUTSIDE SERVICES 12,461,732.37 12,342,729.85 3,029,924.15 24.55 % 12,885,864.00 12,885,864.00 3,116,905.69 24.19 % 613 - PUBLICATION / DUES 15,845.50 9,189.26 2,170.99 23.63 % 25,272.00 25,272.00 2,251.00 8.91 % 614 - MAINTENANCE 21,792.50 26,704.73 18,397.97 68.89 % 83,235.00 83,235.00 24,391.36 29.30 % 615 - BUILDING MAINTENANCE 98,643.00 64,029.70 16,963.58 26.49 % 50,000.00 50,000.00 16,596.06 33.19 % 616 - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 6,515.00 14,686.62 148.97 1.01 % 2,000.00 2,000.00 959.68 47.98 % 617 - UTILITIES 0.00 43,034.42 16,202.72 37.65 % 0.00 0.00 16,010.39 0.00 % 618 - HIRING 1,000.00 4,279.64 1,600.00 37.39 % 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,501.73 150.17 % 619 - MISCELLANEOUS 19,000.00 11,208.45 0.00 0.00 % 50,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 % 620 - OFFICE SUPPLIES 36,665.00 25,478.83 3,085.49 12.11 % 0.00 0.00 3,316.06 0.00 % 622 - DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES 46,355.00 131,309.00 7,940.67 6.05 % 152,450.00 152,450.00 53,587.35 35.15 % 623 - BOOKS / MAGAZINES / VIDEOS 24,074.00 22,973.10 3,943.80 17.17 % 27,500.00 27,500.00 4,729.66 17.20 % 629 - MISCELLANEOUS 1,185,641.00 1,212,247.26 741,499.50 61.17 % 1,371,875.00 1,371,875.00 918,991.72 66.99 % 630 - EQUIPMENT 0.00 132.30 0.00 0.00 % 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 % 631 - CAPITAL OUTLAY - CONSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 640 - PRINCIPAL 285,000.00 285,000.00 285,000.00 100.00 % 410,000.00 410,000.00 410,000.00 100.00 % 641 - INTEREST 248,976.00 209,248.63 120,926.80 57.79 % 176,067.00 176,067.00 88,268.81 50.13 % 670 - TRANSFERS OUT 1,503,517.00 1,503,517.00 0.00 0.00 % 699,500.00 699,500.00 0.00 0.00 % Total Expense: 20,646,347.87 19,829,346.22 5,226,476.29 26.36 % 20,943,625.00 20,943,625.00 5,792,875.47 27.66 % Total Fund: 01 - GENERAL FUND: -605,001.87 925,244.75 -4,614,937.09 0.00 0.00 -5,079,291.07 Report Total: -605,001.87 925,244.75 -4,614,937.09 0.00 0.00 -5,079,291.07 ITEM 1.5 - ATTACHMENT 1
32 STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 2.1
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Receive report and provide direction to staff whether to consider a rent stabilization ordinance and eviction
protection ordinance beyond the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482)
FROM: Administration, Planning, Town Attorney’s Office
RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and provide direction to staff whether to consider a rent stabilization ordinance and/or an eviction protection ordinance providing protections beyond what is provided in the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482).

BACKGROUND
At its June 21, 2023 meeting, the Town Council received an update from staff regarding State laws related to renter protections along with additional rental protection efforts in Marin County. Following the presentation, the Council directed staff to conduct two community discussions to gather opinions from San Anselmo residents regarding residential rental policies. At that meeting, Councilmembers asked that feedback be focused on both rent stabilization and on eviction protections.

Councilmember Fineman asked specifically that staff address particular aspects of renter protections, including Rent Stabilization/Rent Cap, Fair Return/Appeals Process, Short Term Relocation Assistance, Long Term Relocation Assistance, Applicability/Type of Unit, Associated Fees, Master Tenants, Anti-Retaliation Provisions, and ReRental/Right to Return.

In response to the Council’s request and to solicit feedback from the community, staff conducted the two community discussions on September 14, 2023 (focus on tenants), and October 5, 2023 (focus on landlords). Both workshops were conducted in-person and via Zoom with Spanish interpretive services available. See Attachment 2 for a summary of all public comments received at the discussions along with emailed public comments.

Item #: 2.1
33 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council with general background regarding rental policies statewide along with several jurisdictional examples and to provide the Council with a summary of the public comments received at the two community workshops and through email. Another purpose of this report is for the Council to identify the information it may want to examine in greater detail as the process advances. Lastly, this discussion is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of rent regulations, but rather to spotlight key elements of the topic should the Council direct staff to prepare a Rent Stabilization and/or Eviction Protections ordinances.

General Overview
To enhance understanding and provide context, staff will furnish details about the tenant protection aspects that were identified during the June Town Council meeting.

Presented below is a glossary that defines key terms related to residential rent stabilization and eviction protection regulations and that reflect the identified elements that were the focus of the community forums:

Rent Cap: Rent control in AB 1482, the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, refers to the set of regulations and limitations placed on the ability of landlords to increase rent for residential rental properties covered by the law. This legislation imposes specific restrictions on how much and how often rents can be increased in eligible properties.

Under AB 1482, Landlords cannot raise rent more than 10% total or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living – whichever is lower – over a 12-month period.

Rent may be increased a maximum of two times per year but may not exceed the total cap. If the tenants of a unit move out and new tenants move in, the landlord may charge a market rate to the new tenants.

Fair Return/Appeals Process: A provision that allows landlords to achieve a reasonable rate of return on their investment in rental properties when a landlord requests a rent increase above what is allowed under either State or local rules to obtain a fair and reasonable return on their property. Such an increase may be appealed by the tenant to the designated appeals officer or board for consideration and decision.

Short-Term Relocation Assistance: Refers to when a landlord must provide the tenant with temporary housing or short-term relocation payments while performing repairs to the rental unit for a period of 30 days or less. There is no State law requirement for short-term relocation benefits.

Long-Term Relocation Assistance: State law, AB 1482, requires landlords to provide relocation assistance in the event of a no-fault termination. No-fault terminations include when the landlord or family intends to occupy the property, withdraw the unit from the Item #: 2.1
34 rental market if required by law, or if the landlord intends to demolish or substantially remodel the property.

Applicability: This refers to the type of housing unit such as a single-family home, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), condominium, duplex, 3-plex building, 4-plex building, multi-unit apartment building, etc.

Rental Registration and Fees: Local ordinances may impose landlord requirements such as registration of rental units or carrying a business license. These requirements will typically include a fee paid by the landlord.

Subleasing and Master Tenants: Prohibits a sublease where the total subtenant rent exceeds the rent cap under the primary lease. State law does not authorize a tenant to sublet or assign the lease where otherwise prohibited.

Anti-Retaliation Provisions: Prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a tenant in response to the tenant’s exercise of legal rights. Retaliation includes a variety of actions such as increasing rent, threatening to report immigration status, attempting to force the tenant to move, or decreasing housing services such as parking or laundry.

The tenant may bring legal action against the landlord and can receive monetary damages and recovery of legal costs. In some cases, the tenant may receive “treble damages” which is three times the amount of actual damages incurred.

Re-Rental and Right to Return: Provides landlords with a legal process to exit the rental housing market and remove their rental units from the market. Allows property owners to evict all tenants from their rental units, effectively ending their participation in the rental market. Landlords typically use the Ellis Act when they want to sell or demolish the rental property, or if they intend to withdraw it from the rental market for other reasons.

Existing State Renter Protections
Two state laws are of particular note in considering rent protections. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (1995) introduced three limitations. First, it exempted certain types of rental units from local rent stabilization (most notably single family homes, condominiums and duplexes where one if the units is occupied by the owner ). Second, it exempted units built after the February 1, 1995, effective date of the Act. Third, it prohibited “vacancy control.” Vacancy control refers to regulating the amount a landlord may charge for a new lease of a vacant unit. Under Costa-Hawkins, when a unit becomes vacant, a landlord is not restricted in the amount of rent charged in a new lease.

The Tenant Protection Act (AB 1492 - 2019) introduced rent stabilization on a statewide basis. The Act establishes a rent ceiling of five percent (5%) plus inflation (local Consumer Price Index), with a maximum of ten percent (10%). The current inflation rate has resulted in a ceiling of 10%. Among the notable features of the Act are that it Item #: 2.1
35 applies to units that are more than fifteen years old on a rolling basis, and it applies to single family homes and condominiums if those units are owned by a real estate trust or a corporation. In this respect, the Act expands its reach beyond what local ordinances are allowed under the Costa-Hawkins Act. No local rent cap stricter than the Tenant Protection Act limits may be imposed on post-1995 units per Costa Hawkins, but local rent caps may be stricter for pre-1995 units. The Act sunsets on January 1, 2030.

Establishing an Annual Rent Increase Ceiling
Perhaps the most significant component of a rent stabilization ordinance is the establishment of a rent increase ceiling – the most rent can increase in a given period.

Most ordinances in California define the ceiling using a formula based on a consumer price index (##% of CPI) or a fixed number, whichever is lower. The challenge is to determine a rent increase ceiling that the tenant can afford while ensuring that the landlord realizes a fair rate of return. Many ordinances set the percentage of CPI within the range of 50-75% and the fixed number in the range of 3-5%.

Locally, two Marin County jurisdictions have adopted renter protection ordinances. The Town of Fairfax has established a rent cap at .75% of the annual CPI. The original ordinance had a cap of .60% of the CPI but the Fairfax Town Council made the noted adjustment following community feedback it received. In Larkspur, the City Council has established a rent cap of 5% plus the annual CPI with a cap not to exceed 7%.

Of the two local rent control ordinances that have been adopted in Marin County to date, both have been challenged and will be put to the voters in November of 2024. If voted down, the rent cap and eviction protections would revert to those contained in State law, the Tenant Protection Act.

Local jurisdictions remain subject to the Costa-Hawkins Act and its restrictions. Should it desire to consider an ordinance, the Council must decide what is a fair rent increase ceiling for both the tenant and the landlord. Many speakers have suggested that the Council establish 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is lower.

Rent stabilization ordinances establish a ceiling (or maximum amount) by which the rent of a residential unit may be increased in a given period of time. The ordinances identify under what circumstances the rent increase might be allowed to exceed the ceiling – usually relating to the incurrence of capital improvement and other extraordinary costs.

Local jurisdictions that control land use are allowed to create rent stabilization regulations as a form of police power, meaning that the local jurisdiction has determined that rent stabilization is needed to protect the health and welfare of the community. Rent stabilization is perceived as a tool to protect tenants from displacement. Creating a ceiling gives tenants greater certainty about their cost of living as it relates to housing.

Constitutional case law requires that landlords are entitled to receive a “fair and reasonable return” on their property so as not to constitute an unconstitutional “taking”.

Item #: 2.1
36 What constitutes a fair and reasonable return is evaluated by case law, is fact-specific, and is not subject to a precise legal formula. In broad terms, landlords are entitled to cover their costs plus make a profit. Accordingly, any ceiling placed on annual rent increases must be sufficient to ensure a fair rate of return, or the jurisdiction must provide a regulatory scheme and guidelines for the landlord to exceed the ceiling in order to receive a fair return. While most rent regulation structures require the landlord to seek approval to exceed the ceiling, others require tenants to petition for the review of an extraordinary increase. These applications and petitions require evaluation and, sometimes, adjudication. Most jurisdictions rely on an appointed or elected board or commission, usually called a “rent stabilization board,” to resolve disputes and make determinations.

Eviction Protections
The recent community discussions presented information on both rent stabilization and eviction protections, although much of the focus of public input has been around the rent cap issue. The Council may choose to take up the question of additional eviction protections to complement any rent regulations it might want to adopt. In particular, rent regulations are rarely adopted without also adopting a body of regulations meant to protect tenants from eviction without cause. Because the Costa Hawkins Act prohibits vacancy control (i.e., landlords are allowed to increase to market rent upon a vacancy), there is concern that rent regulations will incentivize landlords to evict tenants without cause so that a unit’s rent can be raised to market rate. Eviction protections limit the reasons a tenant can be evicted to reasons for cause.

The Tenant Protection Act does include eviction protections, so there are State law protections in place in San Anselmo today. The Act enumerates eleven “at fault” reasons that a tenant might be evicted, nearly all of which deal with violations of leases or the law.

The Act also provides four “no fault” reasons why a landlord can evict a tenant:
• the landlord or their family wish to move in to the unit; • the landlord withdraws the rental from the market as per the Ellis Act (which protects a landlord’s right to withdraw a property from the rental market); • an order is issued by a court or government agency that requires a tenant to vacate; and
• the landlord wishes to demolish or substantially remodel the unit.

Under the Act, no fault evictions require a payment to the tenant of relocation assistance of at least one month’s rent.

Many jurisdictions have evaluated no fault evictions and determined that they require further definition and additional limitations to address the concern of displacement. The Council may want to add this topic to subsequent agenda items.

Item #: 2.1
37 Rental Registry
Rent regulation requires an accurate and comprehensive accounting of residential rental property. Jurisdictions create this database by requiring landlords to register their rental units. The resulting rental registry assists the jurisdiction in monitoring its regulation program. Jurisdictions are allowed to charge a fee for registration of rental units to cover costs. The fee can be used to offset the cost to the jurisdiction to administer its regulation program. Some agencies have a flat fee for all rental units, while others have different fees based on the types of regulation that apply to that unit (rent regulation, eviction protections, or both). Some jurisdictions allow landlords to pass a portion of the fee to the tenant, while others require the fee to be absorbed entirely by the landlord.

Cost recovery fees are defensible if they have been subjected to a fee study. Fee studies are typically done by a third party to ensure impartiality. Many jurisdictions acknowledge that the start-up costs for a new regulatory program (including the cost of the fee study) will be borne by the General Fund until a defensible fee is adopted.

Applicability in San Anselmo
The current US Census Bureau Quickfacts data from 2017-2021 states that there are 4,995 units (AKA Households) located in San Anselmo. The households are comprised of single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes, and multifamily units. Of those units, approximately 3,436.56 units, or 68.8%, are owner-occupied and the remaining 1,558.44 units, or 31.2% are renter occupied. Other data sources available, such as RentCafe.com, Zumper, and City-Data.com shows that the number of rental units is fluid and ranges from 31% to 34%. The increase in units may be attributed to previous owner-occupied units coming onto the market.

Upon review of the Marin County Assessor’s Office data and as of the writing of this staff report, there appears to be 338 parcels totaling 1,276 units that may be eligible for rent control/stabilization policies (single family units have not been counted). Of those units, it appears that 106 parcels or 206 units would be exempted under the Tenant Protection Act because they are owner occupied units located within a commercial zoning district or an owner-occupied duplex. Thus, 232 parcels totaling 1,070 units (2 or more units on a single parcel) are remaining. Furthermore, as presented at the June 21, 2023, Town Council meeting, 117 parcels have three or more units totaling 839 units and 84 parcels have more four units or more units that total 733 units. See Attachment 3 for a list of the parcels that have 3 or more units and Attachment 4 for a list of 4 or more units.

Existing State Rent Regulations and Jurisdictional Examples For the purpose of comparison, in the attached presentation (Attachment 1) staff has presented a breakdown of both existing State laws along with ordinances enacted by five specific California jurisdictions. These ordinances offer supplementary rent Item #: 2.1
38 stabilization measures and eviction protections, or a combination of both. As directed, staff has provided of local jurisdictions includes the Town of Fairfax, the City of Larkspur, along with the City of Petaluma as local examples. Furthermore, we have chosen two jurisdictions outside of the Bay Area, namely the City of Oxnard and the City of Ojai, to provide insights into differing approaches. Staff selected these jurisdictions due to their relative similarity to San Anselmo.

Public Input
Feedback from members of the public both at the community forums and via email express similar sentiment. Tenant input is primarily focused on the establishment of a rent cap, while many landlords expressed that existing State law provides adequate renter protections while still allowing “mom and pop” landlords to stay in business.

Landlords have also expressed that if the Town were to consider local rent stabilization and eviction protection ordinances that they should be enacted by the voters and not the Town Council.

Staff received very little if any direct feedback regarding eviction protections as most of the input was focused on rent stabilization.

A full accounting of feedback received at the two community forums can be found in Attachment 6 and emails received by the posting of the agenda can be found in Attachment 7.

County of Marin – Upcoming Public Process
In January, the County of Marin will be initiating a public outreach process regarding housing anti-displacement strategies. Anti-displacement strategies are designed to help low- and moderate-income households stay in their homes and neighborhoods when rising rents or property taxes make it difficult or impossible for them to afford to remain there. These strategies aim to preserve housing opportunities for low- and moderateincome households and prevent displacement among existing residents who struggle to afford the higher housing costs.

Anti-displacement strategies often include policies that help protect renters from being forced to move. These protections can be in the form of regulating property renting practices, bolstering tenant rights, and providing financial and legal assistance to tenants.

The County has invited any Marin jurisdictions who would like to be part of this process to get involved. Staff believes that this process may produce regulations that could be adopted by other local municipalities and potentially create processes such as a share rental registry or a shared review committee/rent board to process disputes.

The County anticipates the outreach process will take 6-9 months and the County planners will present the strategies to the Board of Supervisors by the end of Item #: 2.1
39 Item #: 2.1
2024. Although the County does not have any specific plans to discuss rent stabilization, it is anticipated that the topic of rent stabilization may discussed during the public outreach process.

OPTIONS
Staff recommends that the Council discuss the following questions as a basis for providing direction about future agenda items.
1) Does the Council want to consider a rent stabilization ordinance? - If yes, is there consensus on the Council about what the rent increase ceiling should be?
2) Does the Council want to consider eviction protections beyond those in the Tenant Protection Act?
-If yes, is there consensus on specific provisions to be addressed? 3) If yes to either or both of the above questions, does the Council wish to approve the ordinance(s) at the Town Council level or put the draft ordinance(s) on a future ballot? 4) Does the Town Council want to direct staff to join in the County of Marin’s efforts in 2024?

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Conducting a discussion regarding g residential rental regulations is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Staff Presentation
Attachment 2: Summary of Community Engagement Activities Attachment 3: Listing of residential parcels in San Anselmo with three units and above Attachment 4: Links to State laws and local ordinances
Attachment 5: Public Comment from the Community Discussions Attachment 6: Public Comment via Email
40 SAN ANSELMO RESIDENTIAL

RENTAL POLICIES
October 24, 2023
1 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
41 OUTLINE

1. Introductions

2. Summary of Community Outreach

3. Rent Stabilization and Eviction
Protection Presentation

4. Closing Comments
2 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
42 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY

OUTREACH
• Two community discussions were planned and designed to receive input from tenants and from landlords
• Recordings of meetings are available on the Town’s rental policies website: sananselmorentalpolicies.org
• Each discussion focused on potential tenant protection policies as outlined by the Town Council (list on following slide) • Staff will provide a presentation of the tenant protection items along with examples of how each is applied statewide or in the other jurisdictions
• All feedback was recorded and presented as part of a staff report to be presented to the Town Council
3 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
43 OVERVIEW OF RENTER

PROTECTIONS
• Rent Stabilization/Rent Cap
• Fair Return/Appeals Process
• Short Term Relocation Assistance
• Long Term Relocation Assistance
• Applicability/Type of Unit
• Associated Fees
• Subleasing and Master Tenants
• Anti-Retaliation provisions
• Re-Rental and Right to Return
4 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
44 EXISTING STATE LAWS
Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482 (Civil Code §§ 1946.2, 1946.12) – Expires January 1, 2030
• Requires a landlord to have a “just cause” to terminate a tenancy. • Limits annual rent increases to no more than 5% + local CPI (CPI = inflation rate), or 10% whichever is lower. Limit of 2 increases within the cap per year. • Exempt units include single-family homes, owner-occupied duplexes, units 15 years old or newer on rolling basis.
• Landlord must pay/waive one-month’s rent for no-fault eviction.

Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code §§ 1954.500-1954.535) • Prohibits local rent control on post-1995 units.
• Exempts single-family homes and condominiums from rent control • Allows landlords to reset the rental rate upon a vacancy or where the last rentcontrolled tenant no longer permanently resides at the unit.

Ellis Act (Government Code §§ 7060-7060.7) • 2 years – landlord must offer unit to displaced tenant if tenant gave notice at same rate • If re-rented within five years, rental rate must be that in effect at time unit was withdrawn plus allowable annual adjustments. • Ellis Act allows local ordinances requiring that landlord shall first offer withdrawn unit to displaced tenant if re-rents unit within 10 years. • Local ordinances may be more protective. Local ordinances may impose landlord requirements such as registration of rental units or carrying a business license.

These requirements will typically include a fee paid by the landlord. 5 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
45 RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION
• Rent Cap – Rent Stabilization - The Tenant
Protection Act (AB 1482) is a State law that caps rent
increases for most residential tenants in California.

Landlords cannot raise rent more than 10% total or
5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living –
whichever is lower – over a 12-month period. Rent
may be increased a maximum of two times per year
but may not exceed the total cap. If the tenants of a
unit move out and new tenants move in, the landlord
may charge market rate to the new tenants
6 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
46 STATE LAW – RENT CAP
7 State
• LOCAL REGULATION MUST CONSIDER STATE LAW
• Statewide rent control is 10% total or 5% + % change in cost of living – whichever is lower, retroactive to rent amount on March 15, 2019. (Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482, Sunsets January 1, 2030.) • Local rent caps prohibited on units constructed after 1995. Local rent caps allowed on pre-1995 units if more protective of tenants. This does not apply to buildings constructed within the past 15 years on a rolling basis. • Owners may reset rent to market rate upon a vacancy.
• Rent may not be increased more than twice over a 12-month period within the total rent cap amount.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
47 OTHER JURISDICTIONS

RENT CAP
8 Jurisdiction Rent Cap
Fairfax 75% of Consumer Price Index.

Larkspur 5% plus inflation or 7%, whichever figure
is lower.

Petaluma No local rent stabilization ordinance
Oxnard No more than 4% and no more than
once in any 12-month period.

Ojai No more than 4% and no more than
once in any 12-month period.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
48 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
• Fair Return/Appeals Process - Refers to when a landlord requests a rent increase in excess of what is allowed under either State or local rules in order to obtain fair and reasonable return on their property. Such an increase may be appealed by the tenant to the designated appeals officer or board for consideration and decision. 9 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
49 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
10 State
• Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
50 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
11 Fairfax
• Landlord and/or a Tenant may petition the Maximum Allowable Rent of individual Stabilized Rental Units. • May be adjusted upward or downward.
• Hearing examiner may refuse to hold a hearing and/or grant a Rent adjustment if an individual hearing has been held and the decision made with regard to the Maximum Allowable Rent within the previous twelve (12) months.
• Any person aggrieved by the decision of the hearing
examiner may appeal to the Town Council acting as the Appeals Board.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
51 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
12 Larkspur
• An owner of a residential property may petition for a rent increase in excess of that provided in the rent cap in order to obtain a fair and reasonable return on their property. • Such a petition shall be decided by the City Manager or their designee. An appeal of the City Manager’s decision may be filed with the rent review board.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
52 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
13 Petaluma
• No local rent stabilization ordinance
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
53 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
14 Oxnard
• An owner of a residential property may petition for a rent increase in excess of that provided in the rent cap in order to obtain a fair and reasonable return on their property.
• Such a petition shall be decided by the City Manager or their designee. The decision of the City Manager is final.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
54 FAIR RETURN/APPEALS PROCESS
15 Ojai
• Landlords can apply to the Community Development Director for an increase above 4% if the landlord contends than the limitations on rent increases will prevent them from receive a fair and reasonable return ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
55 EVICTION PROTECTIONS
16 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
56 SHORT TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
• Refers to when a landlord must provide the tenant with temporary housing or short-term relocation payments while performing repairs to the rental unit for a period of 30 days or less.
17 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
57 SHORT TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
18 Jurisdiction
State • Does not address
Fairfax • Where a Tenant shall be displaced from their Rental Unit for renovation work for a period of thirty days or less, the Landlord shall immediately make a per diem
per day to the Tenant or the Tenant may elect not to
receive short-term relocation payments.
• If the Tenant receives short-term relocation payments, the Tenant remains obligated to pay the lawful Rent in
effect when the Tenant vacated.
• If the Tenant has elected not to receive short-term
relocation payments, the Tenant shall not be obligated
to pay Rent until the Tenant re-occupies the Rental
Unit.

Larkspur • Does not address
Petaluma • Does not address
Oxnard • Does not address
Ojai • Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
58 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
State law, AB 1482, requires landlords to provide
relocation assistance equal to one month’s rent in the
event of a no-fault termination. No-fault terminations
include when the landlord or family intends to occupy
the property, withdraw the unit from the rental market if required by law, or if the landlord intends to demolish or substantially remodel the property. To qualify for
relocation assistance, a tenant must have occupied the
unit for at least 12 months.
19 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
59 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
20 State
• For no fault termination, landlord must provide either: 1-month’s rent or waive final month’s rent as relocation benefit if tenant occupied unit for at least one year, or one common tenant occupied for 2 years.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
60 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
21 Fairfax
• A Landlord seeking to recover possession must make relocation payments to the Tenant’s household of the Rental Unit. • The amount of the relocation benefit shall be equal to two months’ Rent, at the rate of Rent applicable at the time of the relocation.
• Any Tenant household that, at the time the notice of intent to withdraw Rental Units is filed with the Town, includes a Tenant who is 65 years of age or older, 17 years of age or younger, Disabled, or certified as being terminally ill by the Tenant’s treating physician shall be entitled to receive payment of one months’ rent.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
61 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
22 Larkspur
• The amount of relocation assistance shall be equal to: (i) three months of the tenant's rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy, (ii) $5,000, whichever is greater. • If a tenant or member of tenant’s household has resided in the unit for at least twelve (12) consecutive months and is sixty-two (62) years of age or older, disabled, or certified to be terminally ill by the treating physician, the amount of relocation assistance shall be increased by $3,000.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
62 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
23 Petaluma
• Landlords terminating any tenancy for no-fault just causes must provide relocation assistance in the form of a direct payment to the tenant equal to the lessor of 250% of one month of rent under the rental agreement in effect at the time of notice of termination of the tenancy or $9,000.00 as adjusted annually for inflation beginning on the first anniversary of the effective date of this chapter and continuing every year thereafter. • Relocation assistance required pursuant to this chapter shall be paid within 14 calendar days of service of notice of termination.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
63 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
24 Oxnard
• The amount of relocation assistance will be equal to (i) two months of the tenant's rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy, or (ii) $5,000, whichever is greater. • Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
64 LONG TERM RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE
25 Ojai
• If a tenant is evicted for a no-fault reason, the landlord is required to give the displaced tenant financial assistance to move in the amount equal to two months rent or $5,000, whichever is greater.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
65 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
This refers to the type of housing unit such as a singlefamily home, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), condominium, duplex, 3-plex building, 4-plex building,
multi-unit apartment building, etc.
26 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
66 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
27 State
The just cause provisions of the state bill only apply after a tenant has occupied the unit for 12 months. After meeting this requirement of the bill, all rental units are covered, which exceptions for the following:
• Condos or single-family homes, unless owned by a real estate investment trust (REIT), a corporation, or a limited liability company where at least one member is a corporation, and so long as the tenants have been given proper notice of the exemption.
• Duplexes where the owner’s principal residence is one of the units. • Buildings constructed in the last 15 years, a rolling date. Which means that units built in 2006 will be covered in 2021, and units built in 2007 will be covered in 2022.
• Dormitories owned by an educational institution.
• Affordable housing restricted by a deed covenant, regulatory agreement or other recorded document. • Units covered by a local Just Cause ordinance, if the ordinance was adopted before September 1, 2019, or a local ordinance that is more protective was passed after September 1, 2019. • Transient and tourist hotel occupancies.
• And housing in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, license care facility for the elderly or an adult residential facility.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
67 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
28 Fairfax
Shall apply to all properties in Fairfax that are hired, rented, or leased to a household within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code section 1940, including properties that contain any of the following:
(1) Dwelling Units which contain a separate bathroom, kitchen, and living area in a multifamily or multipurpose dwelling; (2) Dwelling Units in single room occupancy residential structures; (3) Dwelling Units owned by a limited liability company when at least one member is a corporation, a limited partnership, a real estate investment trust (REIT) as defined in Section 856 of the internal Revenue Code, a private equity firm, a private equity REIT, a corporation or other corporate structure (4) units in a structure that is being used for residential uses whether or not the residential use is a conforming use permitted under the Fairfax Town Code
Exemptions:
• Rental Units in hotels, motels, and inns which are rented for a period of fewer than 30 days • Rental Units in any hospital, convent, monastery, extended medical care facility, non-profit home for the aged, or dormitory
• Rental Units which a government unit, agency or authority fully owns, operates and manages. • Any dwelling unit located in a development where the dwelling units are subject to legally binding restrictions ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
68 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
29 Fairfax (cont’d)
Exemptions:
• Rental Unit occupied by a lodger
• Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) – with or without a separate entrance, as long as the owner of the Dwelling Unit resides in the Dwelling Unit
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as long as the ADU is attached to an owner-occupied Dwelling Unit ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
69 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
30 Larkspur
• Shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or residential circumstances:
• Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in Cal. Civil Code, Section 1940(b). • Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, or licensed residential care facility for the elderly
• Dormitories
• Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner • Single-family owner-occupied residences, including a residence in which the owner occupant rents or leases no more than two bedrooms
• A duplex in which the owner-occupied one of the units as the owner's principal place of residence • A unit permitted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU).

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
70 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
31 Petaluma
• Shall apply to tenants and tenant households on the first day of the term of rental agreements for dwelling units:
(1) That contain separate bathroom, kitchen, and living area in a multifamily or multipurpose dwelling (2) In a single room occupancy residential structure
(3) In a structure that is being used for resident uses whether or not residential use is a conforming use permitted under the Zoning Ordinance, that is hired, rented, or leased to a household within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 1940. This includes any dwelling unit that is actually used for residential purposes, including live-work spaces, whether or not the residential use is legally permitted. • Exceptions: Notwithstanding above, the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Tenant Protections Act Exceptions: (a) Transient and tourist occupancies (b) Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or adult residential facility (c) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.
(2) Small Property Owners: Residential rental units of property owners that are not real estate investment trust, or a corporation, or a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation, that own 3 or fewer such units in the city, and that have provided written notice to the tenants in the rental agreement that the residential property is exempt from this chapter. (3) Temporary Tenancies (4) Tenant Property Managers (5) Units shared with Owner
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
71 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
32 Oxnard
• “Tenancy" means the lawful occupation of residential real property, including Accessory Dwelling Units, or mobile home spaces that are not subject to Chapter 24, Mobile Home Parks, of the Oxnard City Code, and includes a lease or sublease, as such may be subject to local ordinance. The Article shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or residential circumstances.

1. Transient and tourist hotel occupancy and properties that have obtained a City of Oxnard Short Term Vacation Rental Permit

2. Housing Accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, or licensed residential care facility for the elderly

3. Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school

4. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen facilities with the Owner who maintains their principal resident at the residential real property

5. Single-family Owner occupied residents, including a residence in which the Owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two bedrooms.

6. A duplex in which the Owner occupied one of the units as the Owner's principal place of residence at the beginning of the Tenancy, so long as the Owner continues in occupancy.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
72 APPLICABILITY – TYPE OF UNIT
(E.G., DUPLEX, ADU, JADU, ETC.)
33 Ojai
• Shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or residential circumstances:

1. Transient and tourist hotel occupancy

2. Housing Accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, or licensed residential care facility for the elderly

3. Dormitories

4. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares facilities with the landlord

5. Single-family Owner-occupied residents, including a residence in which the Owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two bedrooms

6. A duplex in which the Owner occupied one of the units as the Owner's principal place of residence

7. Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit, provided that both of the following apply:
i. The owner is not any of the following a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.
ii. The tenants have been provided written notice that the residential property is exempt

8. Housing Restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency

9. Residential real property occupied by the landlord or their spouse, domestic partner, etc.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
73 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
Local ordinances may impose landlord requirements
such as registration of rental units or carrying a
business license. These requirements will typically
include a fee paid by the landlord.
34 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
74 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
35 State
• Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
75 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
36 Fairfax
• All Landlords shall pay the business license fee required by the Town Code section 5.16.010, if applicable, in addition to the Rental Housing Fee. The Town may charge the Rental Housing Fee at the same time as the business license fee. • The Rental Housing Fee will be set by resolution of the Town Council. Enforcement of this Chapter shall be funded by the Rental Housing Fee
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
76 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
37 Larkspur
• All owners with rental units shall pay the tenant protection program fee, as established by city council resolution. • The tenant protection program fee is to fund the city's cost to implement and enforce the provisions of this ordinance.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
77 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
38 Petaluma
• Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
78 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
39 Oxnard
• All owners with rental units shall pay the tenant protection program fee, as established by city council resolution. The tenant protection program fee is to fund the city's cost to implement and enforce the provisions of this ordinance.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
79 RENTAL REGISTRATION AND
FEES
40 Ojai
• Once established by City Council, landlords will be required to pay a rent stabilization and/or tenant protection program fee to offset the costs of implementing the ordinance, as established by City Council Resolution.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
80 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
State law, AB 1482, prohibits a sublease where the total subtenant rent exceeds the rent cap under the primary
lease. State law does not authorize a tenant to sublet or assign the lease where otherwise prohibited.
41 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
81 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
42 State
• A tenant of residential real property subject to this section shall not enter into a sublease that results in a total rent for the premises that exceeds the allowable rental rate authorized by subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes a tenant to sublet or assign the tenant’s interest where otherwise prohibited.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
82 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
43 Fairfax
• Notwithstanding any lease provision to the contrary, a Landlord shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy based on a Tenant’s sublease of the Rental Unit if the Landlord has unreasonably withheld the right to sublease following written request by the Tenant.
• The following requirements must be met:
• (i) The Tenant continues to reside in the Rental Unit as their primary residence. • (ii) The sublease replaces one or more departed Tenants under the Rental Agreement on a one-for-one basis or the sublease adds additional occupants up to the maximum amount of occupants legally allowed under section 503(b) of the Uniform Housing Code as incorporated by California Health & Safety Code section 17922, except where prohibited by law.
• (iii) A Landlord’s refusal of a subtenant must state the reason for the refusal. If the Landlord fails to respond to the Tenant’s request to sublease in writing within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Tenant’s request, the Tenant’s request shall be deemed approved by the Landlord.
• (iv) A Landlord's reasonable refusal of the Tenant's written request may not be based on the proposed additional occupant's lack of Creditworthiness, if the occupant will not be legally obligated to pay some or all of the Rent directly to the Landlord.
• Before endeavoring to recover possession based on the violation of a lawful obligation or covenant of tenancy regarding subletting or limits on the number of occupants in the Rental Unit, the Landlord shall serve the Tenant a written notice of the violation that provides the Tenant with a minimum of fourteen (14) days’ opportunity to cure the violation. The Tenant may cure the violation by making a written request to add occupants referenced in subsection (ii) of section 5.54.030(C)(2)(a) or by using other reasonable means to cure the violation.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
83 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
44 Larkspur
• Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this section, an owner shall not take any action to terminate a tenancy based on a tenant’s sublease of the residential real property if all the following requirements are met:
(a) The tenant requests permission from the owner in writing to sublease the residential real property; (b) The tenant continues to reside in the residential real property as their primary residence; (c) The sublease replaces one or more departed tenants under the lease on a one-for-one basis; and (d) The owner fails to respond to the tenant in writing within a reasonable amount of time of the receipt of the tenant’s written request. If the owner fails to respond to the tenant’s written request, the request shall be deemed approved by the owner if the lease is for a period of one year or less. An owner’s reasonable refusal of the tenant’s written request may be based on, but is not limited to, the ground that the total number of occupants in a residential real property exceeds the maximum number of occupants as determined under Section 503(b) of the Uniform Housing Code or successor provision.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
84 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
45 Petaluma
• Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
85 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
46 Oxnard
• Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant's lease, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this section, an Owner shall not take any action to terminate a Tenancy based on a tenant's sublease of the residential real property if all the following requirements are met:
(1) The tenant requests permission from the Owner in writing to sublease the residential real property; (2) The tenant continues to reside in the residential real property as their primary residence; (3) The sublease replaces one or more departed tenants under the lease on a one-for-one basis; and (4) The Owner fails to respond to the tenant in writing within a reasonable amount of time of the receipt of the tenant's written request. If the Owner fails to respond to the tenant's written request, the request shall be deemed approved by the Owner if the lease is for a period of one (1) year or less. An Owner's reasonable refusal of the tenant's written request may be based on, but is not limited to, the ground that the total number of occupants in a residential real property exceeds the maximum number of occupants as determined under Section 503(b) of the Uniform Housing Code or successor provision.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
86 SUBLEASING AND

MASTER TENANTS
47 Ojai
• Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the Tenant's lease, as described in Section 1161(4) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this section, a Landlord shall not take any action to terminate a Tenancy based on a Tenant's sublease of the Rental Unit if all the following requirements are met:
i. The Tenant requests permission from the owner in writing to sublease the Rental Unit.; ii. The Tenant continues to reside in the Rental Unit as their primary residence; iii. The sublease replaces one or more departed Tenants under the lease on a one-for-one basis; and iv. The Landlord fails to respond to the Tenant in writing within a reasonable amount of time of the receipt of the Tenant's written request. If the Landlord fails to respond to the Tenant's written request, the request shall be deemed approved by the Landlord if the lease is for a period of one year or less. A Landlord's reasonable refusal of the Tenant's written request may be based on, but is not limited to, the ground that the total number of occupants in a residential real property exceeds the maximum.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
87 ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS
48 State
• State law prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a tenant in response to the tenant’s exercise of legal rights. Retaliation includes a variety of actions such as increasing rent, threatening to report immigration status, attempting to force the tenant to move, or decreasing housing services such as parking or laundry. • The tenant may bring legal action against the landlord and can receive monetary damages and recovery of legal costs. In some cases, the tenant may receive “treble damages” which is three times the amount of actual damages incurred.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
88 ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS
49 Fairfax
• Whenever a Landlord attempts to prevent a Tenant from acquiring any rights under this Chapter, retaliates against a Tenant for the exercise of any rights under this Chapter, or engages in activities prohibited under this Chapter, the Tenant may institute a civil proceeding for money damages or injunctive relief, or both. This section creates a private right of action to enforce all terms, rights, and obligations under this Chapter. • Whomever is found to have violated this Chapter shall be subject to appropriate injunctive relief and shall be liable for damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages, said award may be trebled if the trier of fact finds that the Landlord acted in knowing violation, reckless disregard, or otherwise willfully failed to comply with this Chapter. • The court may award the defendant attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in cases where plaintiff’s claim is deemed unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
89 ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS
50 Larkspur
• Any person whose rights pursuant to this article have been violated shall have the right to file an action for injunctive relief and damages. Whoever is found to have violated this article shall be subject to appropriate injunctive relief and shall be liable for damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. • Treble damages shall be awarded for willful failure to comply with the relocation payment obligations established by this article. Any action pursuant to this article shall be a civil matter and adjudicated through civil court.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
90 ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS
51 Petaluma
• Whenever a landlord attempts to prevent a tenant from acquiring or exercising the tenant’s right under this chapter or retaliates against a tenant or tenant household for the exercise of their rights under this chapter, or otherwise violates the requirements of this chapter, the tenant, tenant household, or the City may institute a civil proceeding for money damages or injunctive relief, or both.
• Landlords found to have violated this chapter shall be subject to appropriate injunctive relief and shall be liable for damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
91 ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS
52 Oxnard
• It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this article. The violation of any provision of this article shall first be punished through the use of a civil citation, prior to prosecution as a misdemeanor, infraction, or civil injunction as provided in City Code section 1-10. • Any person whose rights pursuant to this Ordinance have been violated shall have the right to file an action for injunctive relief and damages. Whoever is found to have violated this Ordinance shall be subject to appropriate injunctive relief and shall be liable for damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. • Treble damages shall be awarded for willful failure to comply with the Relocation Payment obligations established by this Ordinance. Any action pursuant to this Ordinance shall be a civil matter and adjudicated through civil court.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
92 ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS
53 Ojai
• Contact the Community Development Department and present them with evidence of a violation. If the evidence supports it, the City may begin issuing citations for the violations, however, the City’s enforcement may be limited to the citation process. If the City’s citation process is not effective, the ordinance allows tenants to file suit on their own.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
93 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
Properties removed from rental market, State law:
*2 years – landlord must offer unit to displaced tenant if tenant gave notice at same rate
*If re-rented within five years, rental rate must be that in effect at time unit was withdrawn plus allowable annual adjustments.
* Ellis Act allows local ordinances requiring that landlord shall first offer withdrawn unit to displaced tenant if re- rents unit within 10 years.

Local ordinances may be more protective.

Local ordinances may impose landlord requirements such
as registration of rental units or carrying a business
license. These requirements will typically include a fee paid by the landlord. 54
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
94 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
55 State
• Landlord’s right to Withdraw units from rental market: The Ellis Act grants landlords the legal right to evict all tenants and remove rental properties from the market. • Landlord must remove all units in the building from the market (may not single out a tenant). • 2 years after withdrawal Landlord must offer unit to displaced tenant if tenant gave notice at the same rental rate. Landlord subject to actual and exemplary damages to displaced tenant. • If re-rented within five years, rental rate must be that in effect at time unit was withdrawn plus allowable annual adjustments.
• Local ordinance may be adopted requiring that landlord must first offer withdrawn unit to displaced tenant if re-rents unit within 10 years.
• 120 day eviction notice period; longer for seniors and disabled persons. Landlord must follow required procedures to evict.
• No restrictions if landlord converts property to ownership units.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
95 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
56 Fairfax
• Units withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis act. • If the Rental Unit is offered again for Rent or lease for residential purposes within two years and five years of the date the Rental Unit was withdrawn from Rent or lease various provisions apply.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
96 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
57 Larkspur
• It establishes that should the circumstances that justified a no fault, just cause eviction no longer exist and a landlord wishes to rent the subject unit within 12-months of the eviction, the landlord must first offer the unit to the tenant who was subjected to the eviction at the rent the tenant was paying at the time of the eviction. • Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market under, and subject to, the provisions of the Ellis Act. • Tenants shall be entitled to a minimum of 120-day notice for evictions pursuant to the Ellis Act. In the case that a tenant or member of tenant’s household has resided in the unit for at least twelve (12) consecutive months and is sixty-two (62) years of age or older, disabled, or certified to be terminally ill by the treating physician, tenant shall be entitled to a minimum of one-year’s notice.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
97 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
58 Petaluma
• If a dwelling unit to which this chapter applies that was withdrawn from the rental market is offered again for rent for residential purposes within 6 months of the date the dwelling unit was deemed withdrawn pursuant to this chapter, the owner must first notify the City Housing Manager.
• Tenants to whom this chapter applies that are provided notice of termination of a tenancy for a no-fault just cause may, within 30 days of date of the notice, provide the landlord written notice using the form provided by the City for that purpose of the tenant’s desire to consider an offer to renew the tenancy. • Tenants who provide the landlord such notice shall have the first right of refusal to return to the dwelling unit if the dwelling unit is returned to the rental market by the landlord or successor landlord within 6 months of the time that the dwelling unit is deemed withdrawn pursuant to this chapter.

ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
98 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
59 Oxnard
• Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
99 RE-RENTAL & RIGHT TO RETURN
60 Ojai
• Does not address
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
100

ITEMS TO NOTE
• Tenant Protection Act sunsets January 1, 2030
• City of Larkspur protections sunset December 31, 2023 • The Town of Fairfax ordinances are in effect, their
provisions will not be implemented until sufficient
agreements for support have been approved by the Town
Council. The Fairfax Town Council voted unanimously on
August 2, 2023 to certify a citizens' ballot initiative that seeks to repeal the town's rent control and just-cause-foreviction ordinances. The measure will be placed on the November 5, 2024 ballot.
• The City of Larkspur Town Clerk’s office received a
referendum petition against the rent stabilization ordinance on September 28, 2023, which has been sent to the
Registrar of Voters to verify signatures to be placed on a future ballot.
• County of Marin – upcoming public process 61
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
101

PUBLIC INPUT
• Tenant input primarily focused on the establishment of a rent cap.
• Landlords expressed that existing State law provides
adequate renter protections while still allowing “mom and pop” landlords to stay in business.
• Landlords also expressed that if the Town were to consider local rent stabilization and eviction protection ordinances they should be enacted by the voters and not the Town
Council.
62 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
102

OPTIONS
• Staff recommends that the Council discuss the following questions as a basis for providing direction about future agenda items. 1) Does the Council want to consider a rent stabilization ordinance? - If yes, is there consensus on the Council about what the rent increase ceiling should be?
2) Does the Council want to consider eviction protections beyond those in the Tenant Protection Act?
-If yes, is there consensus on specific provisions to be addressed? 3) If yes to either or both of the above questions, does the Council wish to approve this ordinance at the Town Council level or put the draft ordinance(s) on a future ballot?
4) Does the Town Council want to direct staff to join in the County of Marin’s efforts in 2024?
63 ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
ITEM 2.1 - Attachment 1
103
Residential Rental Policies – Summary of Community Engagement August 2023:
● Website:
○ Special page created and updated regularly containing information on existing CA laws and examples of local CA towns/cities ordinances:
○ https://www.townofsananselmo.org/1620/San-Anselmo-Residential-Rental-Policie ○ Highlighted on Town Spotlight (beginning 8/21/23)
● Postcards created with QR code to webpage
○ Bulk mailed to all San Anselmo residential households and out of town landlords - qty 7,025 (week of 8/21/23)
○ Hand distribution to SA apartment buildings with 10+ units (week of August 28) ○ Extra postcards available in SA Library & counter lobby of Town Hall ○ Posted on Town Announcement Bulletin Boards
● Press Releases to Media contacts
○ First release sent 8/24/23
● Town Manager Newsletter (5700 subscribers)
○ Series of announcements in newsletter, weekly beginning: 8/26/23 ● Social Media
○ Posted on Instagram (2150 followers): 8/29/23, 9/14/23, 10/2/23 ○ Posted on Nextdoor (11K members, 5K households): 8/29/23, 9/14/23, 10/2/23 ● Email Created: SanAnselmoRentalPolicies.org
○ Received emailed pubic comment
September 2023:
● Live on the Avenue staffed outreach table: Friday, September 8 - 5:30-7:30pm ● Community Discussion #1 - September 14, 6:00 pm in Council Chambers (Tenant Concerns & Questions)
○ In person Attendance: 50-60 people, 22 spoke
○ Zoom Attendance: 35-40, 17 spoke
October 2023:
● Community Discussion #2 - October 5, 6:00 pm in Council Chambers (Landlord Concerns & Questions)
○ In person Attendance: 30-35 people, 21 spoke
○ Zoom Attendance: 30, 6 spoke
● Town Council Meeting - October 24, 7:00pm
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 2
1 104
APN ADDRESS TAX STATUS CODE ZONING DISTRICT NO. UNITS CONSTRUCTION 007-051-20 1218 SAN ANSELMO AVE Commercial - Improved C-1 3 1932 005-121-15 1608 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Commercial - Improved C-1 3 ? 007-251-20 417 SAN ANSELMO AVE Commercial - Improved C-2 3 ? 006-083-08 711 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Commercial - Improved C-L 3 1906 007-212-11 51 TAMALPAIS AVE A Exemption - Improved R-3 3 1910 007-011-24 1509 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-1 3 ? 006-173-02 25 SPRING GROVE AVE UNIT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-3 3 ? 007-283-07 NO STREET ADDRESS Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 1979-2000 007-262-05 63 KENSINGTON RD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-113-12 1008 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-062-10 40 CANYON RD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 1978 007-053-14 104 MORTON LN Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-052-42 51 ELM AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-052-05 1363 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-051-04 1374 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-023-05 23 HUMBOLDT AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-012-22 17 LANSDALE AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 006-211-14 409 GREENFIELD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 006-072-14 18 SAIS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 005-101-32 160 BUTTERFIELD RD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 3 ? 007-231-02 274 OAK AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1-C 3 1904-2000 007-141-14 405 REDWOOD RD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1-C 3 1935 007-284-28 42 MARIPOSA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-2 3 ? 006-162-08 19 PARK WAY Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-2 3 1975 005-194-36 42 ASH AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-2 3 1985 007-284-23 26 MARIPOSA AVE APT A Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 ? 007-284-05 65 ROSS AVE APT A Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 ? 007-162-09 837 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 1925 007-162-06 853 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 1980 006-161-02 23 ANCHO VISTA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 1975 006-081-07 821 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD APT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 1965 005-222-16 1212 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 ? 005-124-31 1590 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 3 1963 005-193-07 9 FERN LN Multiple-Resid. - Improved SPD 3 ? 007-111-03 1107 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-1 4 1975 007-113-05 964 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 4 ? 007-023-03 17 HUMBOLDT AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 4 ? 006-083-29 19 MADRONE AVE APT A Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 4 1958 006-201-45 14 FORBES AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-2 4 1958 005-153-04 1505 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-2 4 ? 007-284-43 28 MARIPOSA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 ? 007-283-05 111 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1969-2000 007-282-15 60 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1960 007-222-50 35 CEDAR ST Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1970 007-222-49 39 CEDAR ST Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 ? 007-222-04 43 CEDAR ST Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 ? 007-213-48 192 TUNSTEAD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1975 007-212-38 40 MAGNOLIA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1962 007-162-04 859 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 ? 007-014-17 3 OAK KNOLL AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1964 006-081-04 835 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1975 006-081-03 839 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD APT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1950 005-224-06 1340 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1980 005-222-15 1220 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 4 1979 006-171-04 122 GREENFIELD AVE Commercial - Improved C-3 5 1956 007-284-04 67 ROSS AVE APT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 1964 007-213-49 194 TUNSTEAD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 1968 007-212-49 54 MAGNOLIA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 1985 007-162-11 829 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 1988 007-162-08 841 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 ? 005-225-13 1374 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 ? 005-194-22 10 ASH AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 1966 005-129-05 1562 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 5 1963 PARCELS with 3 or More Living Units in San Anselmo
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 3
1 105
APN ADDRESS TAX STATUS CODE ZONING DISTRICT NO. UNITS CONSTRUCTION 006-162-13 250 RED HILL AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved SPD 5 ? 007-111-04 8 LAUREL AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-1 6 1980 006-173-19 4 GREENFIELD CT Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 6 1950 006-121-18 19 BUENA VISTA Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 6 1980 006-091-54 20 LUNA LN Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 6 1972 006-162-11 252 RED HILL AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-2 6 1970 007-284-36 75 ROSS AVE APT A Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 6 1964 007-212-35 26 MAGNOLIA AVE UNIT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 6 1985 007-211-22 22 TAMALPAIS AVE UNIT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 6 1964 007-211-21 20 TAMALPAIS AVE UNIT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 6 1967 007-015-11 1516 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 6 1952 005-124-30 1598 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 6 ? 007-301-07 151 SAN ANSELMO AVE Commercial - Improved C-3 7 1926 007-301-11 22 BELLE AVE Commercial - Improved R-3 7 1956 006-052-02 6 SAUNDERS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-1 7 1964 007-302-10 21 BELLE AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 7 1959 007-302-08 29 BELLE AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 7 1964 007-213-61 55 MAGNOLIA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 7 1970 007-212-44 60 MAGNOLIA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 7 1985 006-161-03 13 ANCHO VISTA AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 7 ? 005-195-02 1355 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD APT 14 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 7 1972 007-284-48 19 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-3 8 1906 007-284-18 211 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-3 8 1970 007-282-06 24 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 8 1984 006-121-19 25 BUENA VISTA Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-1 8 1970 007-282-18 40 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 8 1970 007-282-03 53 WOODLAND AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 8 1958 007-213-73 154 TUNSTEAD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 8 1973 007-211-09 15 SAN RAFAEL AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 8 1975 005-224-20 1308 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 8 ? 007-213-62 190 TUNSTEAD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 9 ? 007-162-01 869 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 9 ? 007-213-76 138 TUNSTEAD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-3 10 1962 007-302-11 19 BELLE AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 10 1985 007-282-16 41 WOODLAND AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 10 1955 007-114-25 917 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 10 1969 006-083-40 114 SYCAMORE AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 10 1965 006-081-02 875 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD APT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 10 1958 006-091-13 600 RED HILL AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved SPD 10 1965 007-213-78 166 TUNSTEAD AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 11 1990 005-124-32 1586 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 11 1975 007-212-10 57 TAMALPAIS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 12 1975 006-121-38 51 ESSEX ST Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 12 1974 007-281-26 108 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 13 1968-2000 005-243-05 1208 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 13 1965 007-284-06 57 ROSS AVE APT 11 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 15 1955 007-212-48 35 TAMALPAIS AVE UNIT 3 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 15 1961 006-254-47 1 LINCOLN PARK UNIT 203 Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-3 16 2022 006-091-38 760 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD Multiple-Resid. - Improved C-L 16 1959 007-015-12 1520 SAN ANSELMO AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 16 1962 007-282-21 36 ROSS AVE Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 19 ? 005-195-03 1355 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD APT 14 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 21 1972 006-083-38 100 SYCAMORE AVE APT 1 Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 24 1980 006-121-45 88 BUENA VISTA Multiple-Resid. - Improved R-3 34 ? 006-061-26 101 SUNNY HILLS DR Multiple-Resid. - Improved SPD 70 1985 839
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 3
2 106
ITEM 2.1 – ATTACHMENT 4
ITEM 2.3 – ATTACHMENT 4
Links to State Law and local ordinances
• California Legislative Information AB-1482
(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1482) • Town of Fairfax Renter Protections Page (https://www.townoffairfax.org/renters-andlandlords/) • City of Larkspur July 19, 2023 and September 6, 2023 Staff Reports (https://www.ci.larkspur.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/17885/72-Rent-Stabilizataion-andEviction-Protections-Ordinances-for-July-19 & (https://www.ci.larkspur.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/18144/81-Rent-Stabilization-Ordinance) • City of Petaluma Guide to Tenant Protections Page (https://cityofpetaluma.org/guide-to-tenantprotections/) • City of Oxnard Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Page (https://www.oxnard.org/citydepartment/housing/rso/) • City of Ojai Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Tenant Protection Page (https://ojai.ca.gov/529/Rent-Stabilization-FAQ)
107
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #1 - Tenant Concerns/Questions - September 14, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees in
Chambers
Rent Stabilization Items
Joey Davis Marin? x
My apartment complex 24 units, 20 single. All the gig workers are all renters. The people who bought our complex are from another state.

They keep raising the rent. They don't seem to really care. SF was an amazing city, then corporate people moved in. 10% increase for me + adding utilities (sneaky way to raise rent) It's way too much if you are on a fixed income. I hope San Anselmo can keep it's charm. 50-60 6:00-7:00PM Reverend Lisa Marie San Anselmo x
I am a renter, my landlady is in the room and she has treated me so kindly.She rented to me when I was jobless when I didn't have a job.

I am an employee at University of Redlands - event sales manager.

Hard time for higher education - they laid off 10-12% of their staff recently or took a tiered pay cut for the lowest ranking. President took an 18% pay cut. I can barely afford to live here. I have a son in high school with two jobs. I would desperately like to buy a house so I don't need to worry so son can get through the next couple of years and know he can come home. I cannot do that now. I think there are many good landlords here and many good people. It takes a village.

I thank this town for being a safe place
. San Anselmo x (20 years
Work in a local school as a special education aide. We are very lucky, we have an amazing landlord who charges everyone below market and keeps increases below __ % We live in fear of our rent going up. I recently heard a one bedroom apartment building is $2400/month. As renters we keep underlying fear that our rental will become unavailable or someone will buy the building and rent will increase. Everyone who works here should be able to live here.

Thank you for considering this. I am for rent stabilization in Town.

Katherine Smith San Anselmo (+30 years) x
Moved into modest one bedroom that was $2400, now this month it was raised $200/month in anticipation of rent stabilization. If it doesn't happen landlord would credit back to me. But didn't say how. Said bringing up to market value. I have social security and a modest job. If she raises it again next year, then I won't be able to afford it. People don't know who our homeless population is - it's becoming our senior population. Quickest growing population. Rent being too high is the tipping point.

Sarah Chapelle Grew up here SA x
Many people are paying more than 1/2 of their income in rent. We are being displaced by corporations buying up the properties. Need a rent cap of no more than 5%, ideally 3-4%. 5% is still quite high. The 7% cap that Larkspur just passed is a horrible occurance, not much lower than the state. Some say it belongs on the ballot, but courageous legislatures are who we need. The people who build this town will continue to be displaced
man San Anselmo x
I really like this Town. I don't see it possible for us to stay here. As my child grows we will expand out of a 700 sq ft one bedroom apartment. It's no secret that there is a widening gap between who can afford to be here.

Mike Blakely San Anselmo x
I was a renter but now fortunate to be a homeowner. Encourage town to keep everyone informed. I received the postcard. We don't want a situation that Fairfax had. We need more information and data. What data do we have that says why the Town needs to intervene vs what the State has done. Please hold more of these forums.

Hughes San Anselmo x
I am a renter at the seminary. I am a student and staff. I am lucky I get a semi-subsidized rent since I am a student. It is 2/3 of my income. I love where I live, my kids are growing up in a great area. A lot of my co-workers can't live here. Same with my kids teachers.

They live in Petaluma or further north. There aren't really subsidized options. I called the Housing coalition and all their lists were closed.

There will be a lot more people without options without subsidizing ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 1
108
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #2 - Landlord Concerns/Questions - October 5, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees (in chamber or zoom) 6:00 PM 32 in chamber
30 on zoom
Man SR resident (landlord in
SA) x
State has done an excellent job. Don't see need for
more. Relocation expenses concerns me.Thank
you for doing an excellent job in your research
Benedetto Cico SA? (Owns Inn in SA) Property
Owner
Thank you for the presentation. My comments are
as property owner. This process is a solution in
search of a problem. Does the Town have a need to
make the Town restrictions more than the State? Is
there any data or complaints from tenants? At the
Inn we get temporarily relocated tenants. If this is a
big issue, then passing rent control will have
consequences. I owned properties in NY for many
years and Italy - rent control causes property
owners to stop renting. So, wondering why doing
this? Put on the ballot if you feel it's necessary.

Ford Greene SA x x
For something of this importance the public should
have more than 2 minutes. People want to vote on
this. People are motivated to get a referendum. The
issues are too important. The scope of current
protections for the State they bite landlords.

Mom/Pop landlords are not corporations. They
often rent out space so they can stay in place - not
right to gouge them further. Most important: rent
control tends to set-up a relationaship of hostility
between tenants and landlords - we don't need that
in San Anselmo. Landlords will take their units off
the market rather than be tortured by the laws. And
they can jack up the rates prior to laws taking effect.

Sue Ellen SA xx
I found the original State laws really confusing. Do
you think the tenants understand how much their
rights have been improved by just cause with AB
1482? They have a lot of rights. So good idea to let
everyone get used to it now. I don't understand what
the fair return of appeals is about? And retaliation - I raise the rent 2% and find that hard to do. I love my
tenants
Katie Hogan SA - 47 years Realtor
Realtor. You've given us examples of 5 towns. 2 are
going to have votes - so we are talking about 3 that
have rent control. Apparently none of the other
towns have rent control? Majority rules? In regards
to a fair and reasonable return. Some people put
down 30% to purchase a home, some pay in full.

Taxes are high. Rates of return calculated. Is fair
rate - a net rate of return? I'm assuming so. This
should be tabled - and maybe brought up to a vote.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 2
109
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #2 - Landlord Concerns/Questions - October 5, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees Ben Burto ?
Are the policies going to have the net effect of
incentivizing or disincentivizing.... I would point out that governement does not provide housing, private
people do. There is a housing shortage in Marin.

Housing will always be more expensive here. If you
start from zero you do not get a positive cash flow
for a long time until rents rise enough to get a return on the investment. Expectations in CA: negative
effect on housing production, know landlords who
chose to sell vs dealing with issues regarding
tenants with housing regulations. Intelligent
alternatives - Housing Element, ADU's. New
regulations will create additional beaucracy,
increased cost to housing and with net result of
opposite purpose
Alex Grew up in SA x
Landlord for one single house. Realtor. Had sellers
who could not vacate their tenants. Prices remain
high due to beaucratic red tape. Question the
incentive. Imagine a fair share of revenue to the
government comes from property taxes?
Man 35 year property owner
in SA x
Just paid off property bought 35 years ago last year.

Nobody regulates accountants or grocery stores or
plumbers, but why push for landlords. As if we are
evil and trying to take advantage of our tenants.

Seems immoral in an organized political way. There
is clearly a lack of affordable housing in Marin. This
regulation pushes the problem onto property owners
- making rental properties the new low income
housing. The whole county is responsible to
address, not just property owners. Ask that this be
tabled
Jeff Kroot x x?
Real life situations. If someone has a problem it can
cost people $50-100K to get rid of an awful tenant.

Council members should have the courage to be
here to hear this. We owned a house in Berkeley
before we moved here - we rented to graduate
students - we started getting bad tenants. We sold it
before rent control came in. In SF 60K units are off
the market because of rent control. 2 minute time
limit is not a requirement - please don't limit in the
future.

Josh SA ?
Tenant and landlord in SF in the past: the pattern
there is one of escalation. Put in reasonable rent
control. Bad actor landlords find loopholes -
escalates rent control and system of bad blood.

Unintended consequences: benefits tenants already
there. Hurts tentants who are protected (age, etc.)
Upkeep and investment. Chilling effect on building
properties. Wanted to decarbonize but didn't
because got negative feedback.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 3
110
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #2 - Landlord Concerns/Questions - October 5, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees Nicolaus SA x x
Thank you for putting this together. 3 minutes better.

Who is the decider if it doesn't come to vote? If the
councilmember is a tenant or a landlord then isn't
that a conflict of interest? Taxes are way up, water
is way up, garbage is up, sewer fees, the fees are
all way up - the rent then has to go up too. Winning
lottery ticket if you are already here if there is rent control. The high school kids now will be shut out if
they want to come back
Margaret SA - 48 years x in Fairfax
Owns duplex in Fairfax. Don't repeat their process.

Go on the ballot. Shortterm relocation - 4 people -
$900/day while landlord is spending money for
contractors for a little remodel. Reasonable return:
$1M duplex, put down 30%, $700K loan at 7% +
taxes. The rent for one bedroom in Fairfax =
$2000/month. Negative return. I feel sorry for the
tenants, but landlords aren't in the charity business,
do not punish them. Protected groups also suffer.

Derek SA - 25 years x x
Mom/Pop landlords. Cost of being a landlord is not
inexpensive.We haven't raised our rent in 6 years
throught the pandemic. Our property taxes are over
$1000/month. Villanizing the landlords is not a good
idea. Uncle in Berkeley - wanted to give his brother
a 6-plex property there. He had a squater and three
people paying below market rate. Litagation fees too
high to make it at all affordable. Brother walked
away. We may not rent our unit if rent control
passes here. All the utilities increasing hits us hard.

Wendy Todd SA resident x
Three questions: 1. Why are we doing this?
Fineman had asked for data/demographics - can we
see those? 2. Why were Ojai and Oxnard looked at?

3. What criteria is staff using to develop
recommendations to Council? You are just
gathering information? I've been a volunteer to go
door to door to hear from tenants. I wanted to
understand the issue myself. People like to tell their
story. One example: Parkside - change of
ownership, tenant concerned about increases.

That's what I hear across the board - concerns and
instability. Domenican University presentation just
given had a lot of data. We need policies in place to
preserve housing. A lot of unintended
consequences. Encourage to determine what it
would take to protect renters. And consider all multiplexes.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 4
111
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #2 - Landlord Concerns/Questions - October 5, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees Kurt Ries SA renter
Co-chair of Marin chapter of ...... Clear up point 0
Marin DSA representatives are paid. I grew up here,
and am fighting to survive here with my daughter.

Truly baffling that people don't understand why this
is being introduced. 1/2 rent burdened - paying 50%
of salaries to rent. People cannot afford to live here.

Policy provisions - urge Council to focus on a rental
cap: % of CPI with ceiling above that. And adopt just
cause eviction provisions. And mandate relocation
payments 3-4 months rent. Lastly make policies as
broadly inclusive as possible.

Rick
landlord
elsewhere
in the
County
Landlords of a 5 unit place elsewhere in Marin.

Rent stabilization is a local attempt to deal with a
much larger problem. It's a temporary solution.

Need to increase supply for workforce housing. Risk
when you buy a rental property. No easy fixes. Fair
and reasonable return definition has not been
apparent.

Kyle SA renter x
Raised here. Child life expert. Work with kids on
hospice care. Just cause eviction clauses. Housing
insecurity is a public housing crisis. Women, people
of color, and families with children are at high risk of eviction. And the threat of eviction can exact a
physical toll. Protecting school aged children - will
benefit. Every move - student loses 3-6 months of
school, miss doctors appts. Quoted studies.
michael SA x x
House and duplex over 20 years here in SA. lucky -
had good tenants. I've heard a lot of horror stories:
can't get rid of them or have to pay to get them out.

It's a business agreement. Just cause is an
interesting definition. I should have the right to give tenants ample notice when I would like to terminate
our agreement. Sacred to home ownership. Renters
who live on the same property as the owner should
have rights.

Corrine SA x x
22 years ago bought a duplex. Owner occupied.

Never raised rent about 2-3%.I am concerned about
just eviction. When I bought here I found something
in the SA flats. I bought a duplex in case I needed a
caregiver. But I'm older now, and I resent the fact
that if I need my other unit for a caregiver then I can be financially penalized. Please exclude owner
occupied situations.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 5
112
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #2 - Landlord Concerns/Questions - October 5, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees Alison SA x
Tenant in SA for 27 years. I hope we can listen to
each other and not hear us dismissing anyone. It's
been interesting to hear about unintended
consequences and people's stories. We rent
because we can't afford to own a place around here.

Hard to hear that it's a problem looking for a
solution. I've had the same amazing landlord who
gives minimal increases. Compromises that don't
incentivize people. Listen and don't demonize
people.
zoom - Donald x
I'm a SA landlord who lives in Mill Valley - I didn't
receive a notice. Needed for maintaining diversity.

Socialism doesn't mean an individual subsidizes -
the community. Own a complex in SA, we don't
have a big pot of money, we've had tenants there
for 38 years and 21 years. We are in our eighties.

We pay $4300/year for sewer. Rent is driven by
costs not by greed.
zoom - Veda x
Thank you for the presentation. Currently a renter,
but have been a homeowner and landlord. It's a
people business - not necessarily a money making
business. Dealing with people with a precarious
commodity. If we continue to raise rents - there is
not government agency that will fault you for that.

Important to have protections in place for tenants.

Trust our councilmembers.
zoom - Rick x
Landlord in SA. I don't understand what is going on
here - free marketplace isn't about screwing over
one person to benefit another. When one of our
tenants had trouble during Covid, we gave them
free rent, we worked with them. I would ask to think
of what they did with Sir Francis Drake Blvd - they
didn't rename it because of the hardship for people.

Think of that same level of leadership. We don't go
to Safeway and tell them how to sell their
canteloupes. Put it to a vote
zoom - Kate x
Overwhelmed by the lack of discussion who talk
about the importance of the community and
diversity. It matters to have people who work here
to live here too. I've been renting in SA for 8 years.

It's hard, I don't have security - we live in fear. I'm a teacher for two decades. I want people to care
about who lives here and protect them. We need
rent control. Mom/Pop landlords seem to be fair.

Let's work together and find an equitable solution.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 6
113
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #2 - Landlord Concerns/Questions - October 5, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees zoom - Victor x x
Lifelong resident of San Anselmo. We should call
this rent control. 3 evictions in 30 years. My rents
are low, everything goes up, but I don't pass all of
that along to my tenants. We don't have tons of
money. Oxnard is 200K people. Ojai has ...people.

Look at Evictions that have occured in SA, they
have to go to court - there aren't many in SA. We
need a public/private enterprise to make this work.

Landlords don't have a lot of money. Let the people
vote.
zoom - Warren x x
Small ADU in San Anselmo. When bought the home
- provided them access to ADU for 4 years after
they had a tragedy. I don't think I could make that
same allowance if these types of rules were so
strict. I wouldn't rent. Issue needs to go to the
voters.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 7
114
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #1 - Tenant Concerns/Questions - September 14, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees in
Chambers
dr don hart SA x
I have lived here 40 years. I am here to speak about what I think is right. The concept of liberty. The rent control thing is communist garbage. I've seen what it does in NY. Landlords cut off the heat - tenants and landlords need to benefit one another it's supposed to be a free market. Life liberty and property (vs pursuit of happiness).

What if this Town adopted an ordinance that we had to bring homeless people into their home? You have no right to tell people John Falcone SA x
Just moved here to move to the seminary. I hear rents are going up - the more we know why then we know what to do. It's useful to know the root cause. I'm a religious scholar - told story about a ship drilling a hole. It's important to have your own cabin, but do not to sink the ship.

Jonathan SA x
I'm a homeowner I feel the diversity of economic backgrounds is what makes this community and it is at threat. It's crucial to create stabilization for the community. And for the neighbors we value very much
Zoom Kay ? county x
Teacher in County. Live under constant threat of having to leave the county due to rent increases regularly. Every 3-4 years ok, but recently mgmt company every year. I live under so much stress. We need to do the right thing. We don't get raises every year. I've been educating kids in Marin for 3 decades now, my kids grew up here. I urge SA to think about what we want. I hope we can do better than that. STabilization closer to 3-4 % please.
zoom michael SA ?
I've been here for quite a while and I contribute to the community. We will lose creativity and the kids suffer when things go out of control. I teach art. We need to be artists, musicians, dancers - if you work all the time to pay the rent, that doesn't work. Good creativity is important and needed.
zoom Pat San Anselmo x x
SA since 1978. Tenants since 1997 - never raised the rent, I have reduced the rent. We do need to approve rent stabilization at 5%.

When I was a teacher other teachers had to move. Neighbors move because their kids can't afford to live here. When you build your lease, you know what your costs are then you base your rent on that.

Your tenants hope you pay your bills and mortgage and taxes. The state left it open for municipalities to do what is needed for their community. There are bad actors out there so we need rules zoom Skylar ? county x
Political director of Marin County of Democrats. Thank you to Town for thoughful approach and thank to speakers. Advocating for rent control. Difficult for any young people to live here. I'm a student at COM as well and a lot of my fellow students come from a long way to get here. 5% is great, but even lower is even better. I make $30/hour at a law firm and have to live at my parent's house. Thank you zoom Colin San Anselmo x x
I've lived here for about 6 years. Can only afford because we rent out part of our house. That income is important. Same tenant for 4-5 years. Raised rent about $100. I dont like the idea being told how much we can increase rent. Because taxes go up. We are fair. We take care of our tenant. I don't like having the governement telling us what to do. If we think ti will stop gentrification we are fooling ourselves.

Ford Green SA x x
Lived here in SA for 40 years first as a tenant and then as a homeowner and a landlord. Mom and pop landlords - there isn't a lot of difference between survival status for landlords and tenants vs corporate landlords. I would like to have that differentiation stated.

The corporate concern has nothing to do with San Anselmo or this community. Water meter is an example. I have no control over rate increases. The liberty of managing your own property. Sometimes you might rent for someone who is difficult/crazy/hostile - to have to live with that is unfair. Hopefully we won't end up like Fairfax.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 8
115
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #1 - Tenant Concerns/Questions - September 14, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees in
Chambers
Tatiana SA x
Lived here since 2010. I love this town. I'm a local artist at SF Opera as a makeup artist and student at COM. I do children's face painting. I clean houses too. I've been a nanny. A teacher assistant. The rent and living here is expensive. I can survive here as an artist and single parent. I have a very kind church community - offering us subsidized rent ($800). My daughter just graduated from HS. I'm not sure I can stay here. I have to give up my housing now that my daughter is 18. Help us artists survive.
woman SA? x x
Rent control. When communists took over in china- landlord couldn't survive the reduced rent. Homeowners become homeless. Her parents were. Mom/Pop landlords. My bank owns my house. I live in the basement and I have renters living in my house - if I lose my tenant, then I lose my house. During Covid we lost thousands $$.

Gov't didn't give us property tax discounts.

William Conk SA x
If the rent goes up, I'm evicted immediately this year. That's all I have to say (tears)
NYC woman SA? x
Curious about Airbnb, regulated in Tahoe. I hope we put on guardrails - studies where there is Airbnb, there is homelessness. I hope we keep that in mind.

Anita mitchell SA x x
landlady now - mom/pop. Small inlaw unit. I want to reiterate the sentiments of the difficulty for landlords like us to live here. We have been here 21 years. We rely on our rent to live here. Current tenant lived here 6 years. Never raised rent. New bathroom and major remodel. We gave her a break during Covid, and with a paymet plan she paid us back. We were in dire straits - since we still had all of our expenses with no breaks. I truly hope that you realize it's not just big corporations/greedy landlords. I am in favor of a cap, but I do hope everyone understands our side of the story as well.

Steve SA x
Renter been in SA for 20 years. I want to point out that people have been getting a mortgage reduction for many years. Renters do not get a break. When we talk about what is fair - there has been a long subsidy for homeowners not renters.
zoom hilary SA x
lIved here for 17 years. We are homeowners. Great community. I agree on airbnb/short term rentals should be a focus. People are buying up houses all over and renting them out. The unintended consequences are very scary. I'm concerned about homelessness.

We have social responsibilities here. I would like to see more protections
zoom anne SA x x
I am a minority. I think there is a stigma about homeowners/landlords.

I am new, been here 6 years. I have a roomate to be able to live here.

There is no control for us over taxes or repairs. If there is a cap then it is hard because inflation is going up. All those costs are not 3-5%. I would like to see the data to see if this will fix the problem. Please don't put everything on the homeowner to subsidize.
zoom victor SA x
Lifelong resident of SA. We live in a democracy. My parents were imigrants and came here and lived the dream. Needs to come to a vote. Let the people decide.
zoom david SA x x
SA renter and homeowner and landlord. Entire career in mortgage finance industry. I can tell you that at no point did we underwrite with an assumption that a landlord can raise the rent any time they want.

Oneous of risk is on the landlord. We cannot pass off our bad decisions to the renters. Argument against stabilization is naive. If you
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 9
116
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #1 - Tenant Concerns/Questions - September 14, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees in
Chambers
zoom joe SA x
I'm a new renter in SA. Moved here 3 months ago. Some bitter conflicts over rent control. I think the longterm solution is to build more housing and I hope the town council will focus on that. It did not fulfill it's housing element on time. Include dense/multi family buildings. We have good jobs but we are locked out of ownership. Decades of exclusionary housing. We need to build more housing at all different levels.
zoom Sarah SA x
10 year resident and homeowner. Speaking of the seniors in our community - it's clear the rent caps are a shortterm way to prevent homelessness. Need more affordable housing as a longterm solution.

We see our older community members who are precarious and living on social security - it's possible to install rent caps. You can also consider income limits set into policy for protections. Happy medium using good data to make an equitable solution
Eviction Protection Items 27 people 7:30 PM
eddie Marin/SA x
Want to request add info into your communication. I have received 100% rent increase - granted a 60 day notice. Only protection. When renters move it's a pain in the ass. Security deposits are often kept in bad faith by landlords. It's part of the game of increasing income. You can go to court but you have to convince a judge and most renters don't. In my three situations it was mom/pop landlords (37 on zoom) woman/reverend SA x
My concerns: I have a woman who wants to sell her house and she wants me to leave. She has given me lots of notice - she has rented to me undermarket. SFTS is older than the town of SA. Univ of Redlands bought it which was necessary. They didn't do a very graceful job. Another graduate school is coming in.
chris braun SA x
Resident here in an apartment for 30 years. My landlord died and Tom Garbarino bought it two years ago and hired a large mgmt company that is a criminal organization. I have section 8 housing and legal aid shut them down. 8 Laurel Avenue. This is criminal and has happened over and over since they took over. They want people like me out and so people who can pay more can move in. Rent control is a vehicle to help the process of keeping SA from being overrun by the wealthy. There are a lot of controls involved. My family has lived here for over 90 years. I represent the history of this town.

Erin Hughes SA x
The cool postcards did not get to a lot of us. That can present problems if you want a wide represenation. Only about 1/2 in my complex received them.
zoom - Anh duong x
Seattle rental market - larger corporation has the ability to spend thousands to relocate people. Not the mom/pop landlords. Why is the penalty so much on landlords with regards to renewals. Airbnb can put money into local economy - with restrictions. Not outside investors.
zoom - Joe
Thank you again to the Town for doing this. I feel like I'm locked out of ownership. I have a friend getting kicked out of his house and he's getting probably $20K to move out. It's not necessarily enough since it's dfficult to move out. Landlords should have to have just cause to evict. Not to discriminate against tenants. Build more housing at every income level. To allow a real diversity in Town
zoom - Michael Sexton
Marin Residents.org founder. Every community has the right to decide housing policy for their own community. It didn't happen in Fairfax. Regardless of policy - encourage to bring it to a vote of the people in 2024. CA does already have comprehensive rent control.

Adding more adds more problems. This has been wonderful to see how you are doing it.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 10
117
Rent Stabilization - Community Discussion #1 - Tenant Concerns/Questions - September 14, 2023 - – In-Person and Zoom Public Comment Name Jurisdiction Homeowner Tenant Landlord Neither Comment Attendees in
Chambers
zoom - victor
We need housing in SA. 20% low income, we need more than that.

We need to look at building housing. We are losing population it's over priced, especially for service workers. ADU's have to have 4' from property line - that stops a lot right there. Private/public organizations are needed. I think ADU's are the way to approach fair housing.
zoom - skylar
Marin County democrats. I do agree that longterm necessity is building more housing. In SR - northgate housing - 10% will be dedicated to low income (double requirement), but even at lowest level - it's 50% of median income ($50K). In the short/medium term, rent control is still needed.
zoom CC x x
No landlord wants to evict a good tenant. It's thousands of dollars to turn over a place.That's a misperception
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 5 11
118
Dear Council members,
Please read our letter in opposition to rent control and tenant improvement ordinance.

Best,
Hassan Afrookteh
415‐377‐8442 Cell
[email protected]
www.domusbuilders.com
San Anselmo Town Council
[email protected]
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Rent Control and Eviction Protection Ordinance currently under consideration by the Town Council. While I understand the intentions behind this ordinance, I believe that it will have detrimental effects on both landlords and tenants, and ultimately, on our community.

First and foremost, I believe in the importance of property rights and the ability of property owners to make decisions about their own investments. Rent control measures interfere with this fundamental right by imposing arbitrary limits on rental prices. Such restrictions discourage property owners from maintaining and improving their properties, leading to a decline in housing quality over time. Moreover, they discourage new investment in rental properties, limiting the housing options available to our community.

Furthermore, rent control can lead to unintended consequences such as reduced housing supply and a decrease in the overall quality of housing stock. When property owners cannot realize fair market rents, they may be less inclined to invest in property maintenance and improvements, which can negatively impact the living conditions of tenants. This could result in a decrease in property values throughout our community. In a survey of 464 economists in a May 1992 issue of American Economic Review, 93% agreed that a ceiling on rents reduces both the quantity and the quality of available housing. It is an accepted economic principle that government‐imposed price controls, i.e., rent control, always lead to price distortions. Many landlords may prefer to sell or otherwise remove their rental housing if faced with strict rent control.

Rent control can lead to inefficient allocation of housing. Since rents are artificially capped, some tenants may stay in larger or more desirable units than they need, while others may be unable to find suitable housing because available units are occupied by long‐term renters. Too often, the well‐off enjoy artificially low rents and stay in their rent control housing for years displacing the truly needy. This can result in a mismatch between housing supply and demand. Most importantly, rent control should be reserved for those who need it, and include effective means to determine need based on level of income.

TENANT PROTECTIONS - Emails Received Through 10/18/2023 ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6 1
119
Broad eviction protections may deter responsible property management. Landlords may find themselves unable to address issues such as non‐payment of rent or disruptive behavior, sub‐leasing without their consent, and perma‐tenants. Cases of abusive tenants are all too real, yet are seldom reported in the media. One such case can be read here: https://lamag.com/news/airbnb‐rental‐squatter‐bel‐air‐tenant‐ from‐hell, as well as here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/airbnb‐la‐tenant‐similar‐ dispute‐oakland‐home‐18411423.php. Little or no safeguards are in place for the unfortunate homeowners who can find themselves caught in these types of situations. The consequences of ill‐ conceived eviction protections can lead to unjust victimization of homeowners in the short term, and a long‐term deterioration of the living environment for other tenants and negative impact on the community's quality of life. Property owners provide the property taxes that are the lifeblood of our communities. The Town Council must find a way to avoid killing the goose that lays the golden egg if it wants to protect tenants.

In areas with strict rent control, black markets for housing can develop, where tenants pay additional, unofficial fees to landlords, or existing tenants, in exchange for renting or sub‐letting a controlled unit.

This can undermine the intended benefits of rent control and create an environment of illegal and unregulated housing transactions.

I believe that a more balanced approach, which encourages both property owners and tenants to uphold their responsibilities, would be a more effective way to address housing concerns in our community. This approach could include incentives for landlords to maintain and upgrade their properties and provide financial assistance to tenants facing financial hardship. Additionally, many mom‐and‐pop landlords who depend on their rental income can and will become the unintended victims of rent control. Any consideration of rent control and tenant protection must also include robust safeguards to protect homeowners from predatory practices of “Tenants from Hell.” In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Town Council reconsider enacting a Rent Control and Eviction Protection Ordinance and instead explore alternative solutions that strike a fair balance between the rights of property owners and the needs of tenants. It is my hope that we can find ways to address housing challenges by re‐examining our town’s zoning ordinance to encourage housing creation without resorting to measures that may harm our community in the long run.

Sincerely,
Hassan Afrookteh
Brooke Peterson
20 Lincoln Park
San Anselmo
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
2 120
From: Jennifer Asselstine <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: The Community meeting Oct 5 regarding rental policies in San Anselmo CAUTION: External Sender
RE: The Community meeting Oct 5 regarding rental policies in San Anselmo

Hello,
I will be participating via Zoom tonight but I am neither a renter nor a landlord and I hope to listen to other comments. I am a member of the Planning Commission and my comments do not reflect the Planning Commissioners opinions. I am participating as a citizen of San Anselmo.

It is my understanding that San Anselmo has a heavy lift ahead in order to create the number of units required by the State of California within the next several years. Many people agree that small scale developments such as ADU’s and second units are a significant and beneficial pathway toward meeting this goal while maintaining the architectural character of our town.  In order to have built units result in additional housing for the town residents – today and in the future – it is important that we not only construct ADU’s and second units, but that they are also implemented as permanent rental housing.

Therefore we hope to continue to entice homeowners to consider creating permanent housing on their own property – perhaps adjacent to their own home.

I listened to the Fairfax Town Council meeting that took place after the rent control policies in Fairfax were recently implemented and the voices of the landlords suggested that many were considering taking units off of the town rolls based on their deep concerns about losing confidence in how the policies would affect their long term agency over their own homes.

While San Anselmo is not Fairfax, we hope that Town Council members will look deeply at concerns of local property owners who have experienced changes in rental policies. If our citizens do not remain confident that creating long term housing can be a benefit to themselves and the community and if they turn to less desirable options like AirBnb – San Anselmo will lose their ability to achieve goals that have been put in place by the most recent Housing Element.

Thank you
Jennifer Asselstine
1365 San Anselmo Ave
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
3 121
Rent Control in San Anselmo
Jonathan Bleier <[email protected]>
Mon 8/28/2023 5:18 PM
To:Town Council <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
Hi San Anselmo Town Council,
Thank you for having a meeting to discuss rent control. I am a new resident of San Anselmo, I have been here for 1 year now and moved here for the fantastic Ross Valley School district.

My rent here is the maximum I can afford at $4100/ month plus utilities $250-$400/ month for a 2 bedroom 2 bathroom apt for me and my son.

About me and my son: I am a tech manager at a prominent tech company, working from home, and my son is a boyscout here in sleepy hollow, and he is in the top 10% of his class. He got top remarks on state testing. He achieved 4/4 on math and reading in the state testing. And he achieved a Top 10% lexile score. I am a very proud father! It is increasingly worrying me that if rent goes up, I will not be able to afford to live here. I moved here to be close to my son's mom who lives on Butterfield rd, and my sons school, so that he can continue to be a part of this exemplary education system here and I can be a part of his life. I fear having to move away, not being able to take my son to school or having to tell him we can't afford to live here and I have to move farther away.

Please consider the renters in San Anselmo that are positive contributors to the community that would like to be able to stay here for our kids etc.

Thank you,
Jonathan Bleier
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
4 122
From: ConnieBorter
To: Rental Policies
Cc: Town Council
Subject: Re: Public Comment for 9/14/23 town council meeting Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:51:21 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2023, at 8:07 PM, ConnieBorter <[email protected]> wrote:

My name is Connie Borter. I live in San Anselmo. I support the rental stabilization movement for San Anselmo.

I understand the pressure of making the rent payment. I was forced to move from my home in Sonoma County because of rental increases.I now live in San Anselmo with my daughter.

Rents are skyrocketing. My daughter is a teacher in San Anselmo and she talks of other teachers in our community that can't afford to live here because of the high rent.

The cooperate landlords have no interest in the community. Why should they? They don't even live here.Their interests are elsewhere, with their investors in perhaps North Carolina, maybe even China.

I want to support this community. Why should our citizens be forced to leave? A community without some rent stabilization is a worried community.What happens when everyone is worried? Tension and Separation, and possibly an increase in crime.

Eviction should always be a fair action. No one should ever be forced out of their home because an out of town cooperation comes in with big business motives.

Other independent landlords, who rent their property and are dependent on that rent for themselves need to recognize their limitations and their part as part of our community. Everyone needs to be reasonable. Everyone needs to support each other and most of all keep everyone in their homes.

Sincerely,
Connie Borter
[email protected]
707 623 4282
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
5 123
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
6 124
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 10:46 AM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Cc: Town Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Eviction protection and rent control ‐ from a resident CAUTION: External Sender
Hello esteemed Council,
My name is Daniel Brogowski, and I live at 130 Woodside Drive in San Anselmo.  Although this issue doesn't impact my current rental situation, I can't imagine that it won't impact me in the future, and for sure it's the right thing to promote and push for. As a renter, there are several things that worry me on a day‐to‐day basis, but the most pressing currently, which has the power to impact me more seriously than any other life upheaval might, would be that the owner of my house could pass on and his heirs could sell this property to an investor. Even though he has been generous with the rent and the current master tenant, there is no guarantee that anyone taking over for him would maintain that same loving relationship. I imagine it's even worse in situations where it is not a person's home that you rent a room in, but investment rental properties that are being profit‐maximized efficiently.

I work at Good Earth, and I would estimate that 95% of my coworkers are renters, some of whom travel from places as far flung as Richmond and Petaluma because it's almost impossible to find affordable rentals in this area. Once the profit‐ maximizing corporations get control of rental units, they are required, by law, to maximize shareholder profit, which means that they will have to raise the rent the maximum amount allowable by law every time they are allowed to, or they will be at risk of being sued by shareholders for not making them enough money. This means that the only incentive in this equation is a push for higher rents that will continue to spiral up without some kind of brake on that acceleration.

I urge, implore, and beseech you all to carefully explore best practices that will maintain our lovely town as an accessible, family‐friendly, working‐class‐friendly place to support all the people in our community who we love encountering on a daily basis.  The people from whom we buy food, who teach our children, who are there to respond when we show up at the hospital in need, who take care of our pools, who clean our houses, and who want to raise their families in a healthy and safe place.

Please use the power you have to protect renters and their families and keep the nature of our town a lovely mix of people from many different income strata.  Don't be bullied by the people with deep pockets and spare time who can make the most noise because they stand to lose their ever‐increasing stream of revenue. There is a way that we can sustainably enjoy having rental properties and allow the people who own them to make a comfortable living from them! Please seriously consider very strong rules about just cause eviction protection and rental increase caps that will show everyone the progressive and inclusive nature of our town.

I would love to come to the meeting, but unfortunately, I have to be at work, and rarely will have an opportunity to be at the Town Council meetings until and unless I buy in and become one of the owners at Good Earth, which is something I hope to do.  I'm certain that, even moreso then, I will really appreciate having San Anselmo maintain an accessible inventory of rental properties for my fellow Good Earthlings.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
7 125
Respectfully,
Daniel Brogowski
Sent from my cell phone ‐ please forgive any typos.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
8 126
From: Eileen Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 1:09 PM
To: Town Council <[email protected]>; Rental Policies <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Protects Families
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Members of the Town Council,
Thank you for listening to the members of our community who need and support rent control. I appreciate you taking up this issue.

Strong rent control policies protect families, seniors, students, teachers and other members of our communities.

I urge you to pass an annual rental cap based on 60% of CPI, or 5%, whichever is lower. This would give renters and financially vulnerable members of our community a critical bulwark against the ever‐rising seas of rent increases, and allow them to stay in our community.

I also urge you to create a minimum five year right of return policy following a no‐fault eviction, so that tenants are able to return to their homes at their prior rent, and so that landlords do not abuse the no‐ fault eviction clauses.

As State Senator Mike McGuire said at a recent San Anselmo community meeting, the current state laws were created as a floor, with the intention that communities can create stronger protections based on local conditions. With exorbitant costs of housing in San Anselmo, I believe we are one of those communities which needs much stronger renter protections.

Thank you,
Eileen
‐‐
Eileen Cohune Brown, LMFT
She/Her/Hers
Psychotherapy for Adults and Youth
On Coast Miwok Land
www.marintherapyworks.com
(415)887‐8539
“
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Access to this email by anyone other than the addressee is prohibited without prior approval. Please note that electronic communications cannot be considered either private or confidential, although every effort will be made to provide the highest security in sending/receiving and storage of your communications.  If you received this email transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone and delete the transmission.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
9 127
From: Charlotte Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: San Anselmo Rent Stabilization
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello
I'm a senior renter residing in San Anselmo for the last 25 years and a Marin resident for the last 44 years. I am lucky enough to be residing in the same apartment for the last 25 years (had 4 previous owners) and the latest landlord has increased the rent steadily between 5% and 7% annually. Most recently in July 2023, there was a 7% increase. My landlord has been very generous with these high increases compared to other horror stories I've heard.

I continue to work full-time out of necessity and luckily just started collecting Social Security last year. My recent job raise in June 2023 was 3% and I would not be able to afford to stay in my place otherwise.

The new asking price for a recently vacant apartment in my building will be $2200 per month for the same 1 bedroom that I currently rent at $1800.

Thank you for listening.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
10 128
From: Sara Chappelle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 12:49 PM
To: Town Council <[email protected]>; Rental Policies <[email protected]>; Alexis Fineman <[email protected]>; Brian Colbert <[email protected]>; Eileen Burke (SA Council) <[email protected]>; Steve Burdo <[email protected]>; Tarrell Kullaway <[email protected]> Subject: Important Rent Stabilization Information
CAUTION: External Sender
Good Afternoon -
I would like to point out that in the Thursday, Oct. 5th edition of the Marin IJ, there was a headline article that Marin Kaiser employees (radiology assistants, pharmacy staff, etc.) are striking for a living wage, causing non-essential services to be cancelled/postponed. Including some chemotherapy. They say the lack of a living wage here in Marin is resulting in a huge reduction in the quality of patient care.

A one-bedroom apartment in San Anselmo, if you're lucky, averages $2450 a month. According to rent.com, zumper.com, and similar sites, this is a 23% raise over last year. Since one is considered rent-burdened if their rent is more than one third of their income, one would have to earn $7350 a month, or about $45 an hour for a 40-hour week, to not be rent-burdened here. Further, most landlords renting require the tenant to earn three times the rent.

Kaiser, a facility which serves many San Anselmo residents, is offering $23 an hour, so it is obviously less now.

Several of the Kaiser employees mentioned in the article live quite far away, and have to travel in cars (which affects climate) to get here to work, because they cannot afford to live here.

They say expressly in the article that they should be able to and need to be able to live where they work.

I ask you to bear this in mind as an important example when considering our request for a timely San Anselmo rent stabilization ordinance limiting yearly rent increases to 60% of inflation with a cap of no more than 5% (hopefully 3 or 4%), whichever is less.

Thank you -
Sara Chappelle
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
11 129
1 Serge Avila
From: Sara Chappelle <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 1:30 PM
To: Town Council; Alexis Fineman; Brian Colbert; Steve Burdo; Tarrell Kullaway; Eileen Burke (SA Council); Dave Donery; Rental Policies
Subject: San Anselmo Rent Stabilization
CAUTION: External Sender
HelloWhen I and others spoke on 9-14 on the rent control issue, many of us referred to 3 and 4% caps, which have been enacted recently in other Bay Area towns, and in other places throughout the State. 5% is awfully high ($100 a month more, every year, on a $2000 apartment). That said, I want to be sure the Council understands that while we are asking for a decent cap, that is AFTER language stating that it be 60% of inflation or the cap, whichever is lower. That, I presumed, the Council already understood is the first part of what is required, not just the cap. But since I did not say it out loud on 9-14, I want to reiterate it clearly in this email.

Also. It is really vital that included in the staff report and in the rent control ordinance is the requirement that is in the Fairfax rent control ordinance (I don't think Larkspur put this in); language requiring individual metering if water is charged. This is so important, as corporations are using the one-meter inequitable division with administration fees, etc. (which ends up including double-payment for washers, the main water usage in the building, as we already pay for the water when we pay to use them) to circumvent rent-control ordinances.

This practice, usually called RUBS (Ratio Utility Billing System), has been banned as a clear attempt to circumvent rent-control ordinances in several places in CA.

Please refer to the wording in the Fairfax rent control ordinance requiring individual metering if the landlord wants the tenant to pay for water. I have heard NO complaints about that part of the ordinance from any landlords. If you look on Craigslist, you will see that 90% of SA/Marin landlords still pay water/trash, which has historically been the case in apartment buildings. Including this language does not require them to not have the tenant pay for water, it just requires individual metering so the tenant is actually paying for the water they use, rather than the landlord using this shady system, which can never be equitable (people conserve differently, people are out of town for different amounts of time, some lengthy, etc.). And they are also generally using a third-party billing company, usually the company Conservice, which has itself had lawsuits against it for lack of transparency, added fees, difficult to understand formulas, etc. And the one-meter inequitable division is added to the rent as one thing. The corporation that bought my own building on Sycamore has done this, and actually puts it together with the rent as one charge, saying the water part is collected "first", so if not paid (if, for instance, the tenant has reason to think the water amount billed is not correct), it will make it look like part of the rent is unpaid, resulting in possible eviction. So, right there, there are circumventing rent control caps by making the utility and rent one thing. They also will not disclose what percentage THEY are paying of the onemeter water bill for grounds maintenance, leaks outside our units, and washers, which we have already paid for on a per-use basis. So, this is already happening in San Anselmo and needs to stop.

I'm sure if the Council passes a rent control ordinance, you want it to be respected and not have landlords trying to find ways, like this billing, to get around it.

Please read this link; it is an example of one decision to ban this billing in California.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
12 130
2 https://smdp.com/2018/08/30/court-declares-that-landlords-cant-circumvent-rent-limits-by-charging-extra-forwater/ Again, this is an issue for Council legislation, and not the ballot. One-third of your constituents are renters, and one half of those are rent-burdened. That is fully one sixth of your constituents. Traditionally, vulnerable minorities have needed to be protected through the American way of legislation. If, for instance, as an example, de-segregating schools in the South had been put up for a vote on the ballot, there would have remained a lot of segregated schools. Some issues simply need courageous legislators or courts.

Income from rental property is a business. Every business in Town has their regulations. This is no different.

Before the greedy corporations who have already taken over many San Anselmo apartment buildings, this regulation wasn't needed so much, but it is now. The landlords who say they don't raise the rent this much anyway will, of course, be unaffected. Only the companies who don't care about anything but extremely high profit, who don't care about San Anselmo at all, will be affected.

And, really, the Council can gather data about who is and is not one of these corporations (I personally know of 3 or 4 who have bought in San Anselmo and displaced community members of decades), but I hope valuable time is not taken in doing this. People can and will sell to who they want to, and these corporations will be known by their deeds; by the attempt to raise rents yearly to the full extent of the ridiculous State "rent control", which is set to expire in 6 years, anyway.

I see in the Town newsletter the Town has accepted a State grant for an Age and Disability Friendly plan. So presumably, the Town cares about its older residents. Many, many of the SA renters facing displacement by out of control rents are older. And make a smidge too much to qualify for subsidized senior housing, but not nearly enough to keep up with these insanely rising rents, after a lifetime of being able to pay the rent in San Anselmo. If San Anselmo cares about its older community members, it should certainly care to enact real, effective rent stabilization.

Finally, time is really of the essence here. Every day without rent stabilization is a day a long-time community member, your neighbor, can lose their home.

Thank you -
Sara Chappelle
San Anselmo Renter and Life-long Community Member.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
13 131
From: sarachap4 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 12:37 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Cc: Dave Donery <[email protected]>; Serge Avila <[email protected]>; Town Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental Policies facts excluded
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello -
On the Rental Policies Webpage that was sent to all in this week's newsletter, I am upset to see that in the description of current State law, it says rent may be raised no more than twice a year. Separately, it explains that the cap is 10%, but does not say 10% YEARLY. Combined, these two things give the impression that it can be 10% twice a year, which isn't so.

Secondly, as has happened when describing AB 1482 previously, at Council meetings, etc. it is left out that this State law expires in 6 years to NO State rent control, VERY important for landlords/homeowners to know. It has been mentioned once or twice, but that fact is usually omitted when talking about the State law, as it is omitted in the online description of the law by the Town on the Rental Policies Webpage. For instance, when reading the State law facts at the first Town Council meeting on the subject this year, Mr. Donery did not read this fact, though it was on the screen in very small lettering, and really everyone was listening to him, rather than reading the screen. An honest mistake, I'm sure, but a fact that needs to be right out in front.

These are important facts, and I would like to see a correction of both of these things written into next week's newsletter and also in the description of the State law that is on the the Rental Policies Webpage, as fact, to clarify these things.

Also, I did not receive a postcard, myself, and I have lived at this San Anselmo address for 17 years.

Thank you -
Sara Chappelle
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
14 132
From: Bridget Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Cc: Steve Burdo <[email protected]>; Alexis Fineman <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control & policies to consider for tenants CAUTION: External Sender
Hi, as a home owner, I do believe we should consider some form of rent control in San Anselmo. The high cost of housing is a problem. There are landlords that are greedy. Please consider some policies that cap the rent increases.

I hope as leaders of our community, you will look at this with an equity lens. I can share examples of tenants in my neighborhood that have had nightmarish experiences in San Anselmo. There are some very unreasonable landlords in our area.

As our community ages, we should try and help to enable workers of all kinds to live in our area who can support our aging population. We need to consider reasonable policies for the common good of all people who are trying to live in Marin.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bridget Clark
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
15 133
From: Eileen Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 1:09 PM
To: Town Council <[email protected]>; Rental Policies <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Protects Families
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Members of the Town Council,
Thank you for listening to the members of our community who need and support rent control. I appreciate you taking up this issue.

Strong rent control policies protect families, seniors, students, teachers and other members of our communities.

I urge you to pass an annual rental cap based on 60% of CPI, or 5%, whichever is lower. This would give renters and financially vulnerable members of our community a critical bulwark against the ever‐rising seas of rent increases, and allow them to stay in our community.

I also urge you to create a minimum five year right of return policy following a no‐fault eviction, so that tenants are able to return to their homes at their prior rent, and so that landlords do not abuse the no‐ fault eviction clauses.

As State Senator Mike McGuire said at a recent San Anselmo community meeting, the current state laws were created as a floor, with the intention that communities can create stronger protections based on local conditions. With exorbitant costs of housing in San Anselmo, I believe we are one of those communities which needs much stronger renter protections.

Thank you,
Eileen
‐‐
Eileen Cohune Brown, LMFT
She/Her/Hers
Psychotherapy for Adults and Youth
On Coast Miwok Land
www.marintherapyworks.com
(415)887‐8539
“
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Access to this email by anyone other than the addressee is prohibited without prior approval. Please note that electronic communications cannot be considered either private or confidential, although every effort will be made to provide the highest security in sending/receiving and storage of your communications.  If you received this email transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone and delete the transmission.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
16 134
1 Serge Avila
From: Marin DSA <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 8:37 PM
To: Rental Policies; Town Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Thursday's public forum on San Anselmo rent control CAUTION: External Sender
Hello town council and town staff,
I believe Susan (cc'd) intended to send this email to you all.

Thank you
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: SUSAN ENGLISH <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Thursday's public forum on San Anselmo rent control To: <[email protected]>
To Whom it May Concern;

I cannot attend this evening's discussion but I would like to chime in from the point of view of a senior. I love where I live. I've been at El Paseo for the last 6 years. I am close to work and long time friends. My rent is being raised yet again next month. 5%! My salary is guaranteed until my 70th birthday and then just my social security. That covers very little and being in an expensive state, will cover less. If I am guaranteed a secure, homey environment, familiar to my needs, I would like to continue living where I am. I am sure there are many seniors in my situation trying to remain close to family and friends and the towns we love.

Please consider my words and that the rent hikes limit all our living conditions and well being.

Have a productive evening discussion. I hope to be at the next one!

Suze English
1355 SFD Blvd, #9
San Anselmo, CA
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
17 135
From: G.R Fariwar
To: Town Council; Rental Policies
Subject: Rent Control
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 2:41:41 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
To whom it may concern,
As a renter i would like to suggest:

1. strong rental cap based on inflation: A rent stabilization policy is only as strong as its cap on annual rent increases. It's important that San Anselmo's cap be tied to a percentage of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), so that it's fair for both tenants and landlords. We're asking for a rental cap set at 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is lower. That means that during normal inflation years, annual rent increases would be limited to around 2%, while during high inflation years, annual rent increases would still hit a 5% ceiling.

2. Right of return: A key component of just cause eviction protections is to grant tenants the right to return to their unit if they are evicted due to no fault of their own and the reason for their eviction is no longer relevant. For example, if a tenant is evicted because the landlord or their family member wants to move into the unit, then the tenant should have the opportunity to move back into that unit—at their former rent—when the landlord or family member moves out. We are asking that tenants' right of return lasts for at least five years following a no-fault eviction. This would help prevent landlords from abusing no-fault evictions to circumvent rent control by evicting long-term tenants and jacking up rents.

3. Relocation payments: Another crucial part of just cause eviction protections is to require landlords who evict tenants who have done nothing wrong to pay relocation payments that allow those tenants to land on their feet and find a new place to live in the community. We are asking for relocation payments equal to at least 3-4 months rent so that tenants can cover first and last month's rent, a security deposit, and moving fees.

4. Applicability: We want San Anselmo's rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies to apply to as many renters as possible, while providing reasonable exemptions for small owneroccupied units. State law already prohibits local rent control from applying to single-family homes, condos, and buildings constructed after 1995. And with most of San Anselmo's renters living in small-to-medium-sized apartment buildings, it's crucial that both rent stabilization and just cause evictions apply to all multi-unit buildings, including duplexes and triplexes.

Best,
Ghulam R Fariwar
875 Sir Francis Drake San Anselmo,
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
18 136
FW: I support renter protections.

Rental Policies <[email protected]>
Mon 9/11/2023 3:48 PM
To:Serge Avila <[email protected]>
Jeff Zuba
Finance & Administrative Services Director
Town of San Anselmo | 525 San Anselmo Ave | San Anselmo, CA 94960 Mobile (262) 989-2208 | Email [email protected] From: Kaytee Fink <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: I support renter protections.

CAUTION: External Sender
To whom it may concern,
Protecting renters means protecting both current residents and making San Anselmo more appealing and safer for new community members, which could bring much-needed diversity. San Anselmo has an opportunity to do better than Fairfax and Larkspur did.

In taking this up voluntarily, San Anselmo is showing good faith in supporting renters.

Do not attempt to turn this into a town referendum / vote, as Fairfax will -- the town can protect renters without needing to turn it into a voting issue. Voting would also be inherently unfair, as landlords have more resources, financially and to organize, than renters do.

Please support renters protections,
Kaytee Fink, she/her
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
19 137
I support renter protections.

Kaytee Fink <[email protected]>
Mon 9/11/2023 12:57 PM
To:Rental Policies <[email protected]> CAUTION: External Sender
To whom it may concern,
Protecting renters means protecting both current residents and making San Anselmo more appealing and safer for new community members, which could bring much-needed diversity. San Anselmo has an opportunity to do better than Fairfax and Larkspur did.

In taking this up voluntarily, San Anselmo is showing good faith in supporting renters.

Do not attempt to turn this into a town referendum / vote, as Fairfax will -- the town can protect renters without needing to turn it into a voting issue. Voting would also be inherently unfair, as landlords have more resources, financially and to organize, than renters do.

Please support renters protections,
Kaytee Fink, she/her
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
20 138
From: Stephenie Hendricks <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Unique Input from a Landlord
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello,
We are long time San Anselmo residents, now living temporarily in British Columbia as I complete. a graduate studies program. Years ago I served on the Quality of Life Commission.

I wanted to reach out because I may hold a view that might be unpopular with landlords, yet is one that needs to be considered for the preservation of Quality of Life in San Anselmo..

I am a landlord, and have been one in Marin as well as up here in Canada.

I believe that landlords need to go through a vetting process to become landlords.

Landlords must begin to understand that they are providing homes for people who comprise the fabric of the neighborhood and of the larger community, and thus society as a whole. It is a huge responsibility. To me, this is far more important than profit from home rentals or equity from home sales.

I believe that landlords must sign a binding contract that guarantees the stability of their tenants' lives. Up here, we were required to have a property manager by law, for example. Evictions are a complex process ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
21 139
that require generous amounts of time and financial assistance for tenants. They were banned during the pandemic.

I also think that there must be some sort of way an algorithm can be fashioned that factors in the landlord's economic circumstances, the tenants' economic circumstances, the condition of the property, property taxes, insurance, potential equity growth, etc. and come up with a fair rent. There is such a thing as "enough."
We've always based the rent we charge on our expenses and offered below market rate so as to enable families or others who might be vulnerable to gentrification a chance to live in San Anselmo. Our current tenants, for example, were forced out of their previous 3 bedroom 1 bath rental when the rent rose to $6000/month. That's just plain greed and shouldn't have been allowed to happen. They had three kids in local schools and they would have been uprooted and moved to a new community. I had a friend who was in a basement studio apartment that had mold and no door on the bathroom and she was charged $3,000/month. Again, I believe this is the type of greed that ruins our community and it should be criminalized.

Home sellers need to take into account what works best for their community. When we sold a rental up here, where gentrification is also a threat, we had our property manager go to the tenants (it was a duplex, one couple expecting a baby) to see if they were interested in buying, and if so, what their price point was. One of the tenants who had been there eight years did want to buy it and so we started at his price point. We ended up selling it below market rate. We could have made more money, but to us, the value of not uprooting two families in the community combined with the equity we did make was enough.

That extra money would not have enabled us to sleep better at night ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
22 140
knowing two families would have had to move out of the town, as rents and home sales are rising here, too. The new owner has repainted the house and is constantly working on updating it - the place is shining in the neighborhood. Every time I drive by I am joyful with the decision we made.

I've taken note of this proposal from a government official in the Netherlands : https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/netherlandshousing-income-dutch-home-ownership-1.6899951 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/15/netherlands-housingcrisis-dutch-elections https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/peoples-housing-non-profit-socialhousing-netherlands Up here they have other creative ways to house people. For example there is a "strata" process where a group of people decide to create an intentional living community with some shared
responsibilities. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housingtenancy/strata-housing I believe that there has to be clear and strong policy for not only landlords, but also for land speculators, developers, "flippers," - especially those who live outside of the community - to curb greed; to codify sustainable business practices that provide housing while protecting a community equanimity that comes with stable housing.

If San Anselmo wants to be an enclave for the rich who will be themselves vulnerable as the middle class shrinks with no place to live (inviting crime and a narcissistic community culture), then the Town Council can continue the status quo.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
23 141
If you want to create an innovative policy that is sustainable for an enduring healthy community full of families and retirees, that is inclusive of people making less than millions of dollars per year, you'll need to be courageous and strong. If there is a way I can help support efforts in this direction, I am happy to participate by Zoom.

I have to say, if San Anselmo continues on its gentrification spiral, we'll be seeing if our tenants are interested in buying and we will seek a more altruistic community in which to live upon our return to the U.S.

For that matter, think of all the interesting, productive, and valuable, community centered people who aren't living in San Anselmo because it has proved impossible for them - particularly for young people who grew up there. These are great losses for San Anselmo.

I appreciate that you are making efforts to make things better, and I wish you the best.

Warm Regards
Stephenie
-
Stephenie Hendricks
250 777-7065
Without courage we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can’t be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest. Maya Angelou
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
24 142
From: Donald Herzog <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Forum
CAUTION: External Sender
Please provide this letter to each member of the
City Rent Control Policy committee before the
October 5, 2023 Forum.

If possible, please have the letter read at the
forum.

Please send me the Zoom link for the meeting. I
did not receive a postcard about the Forum.

Thanks,
Donald Herzog
Owner, 859 San Anselmo Avenue
October 3, 2023
Dear Members of the City of San Anselmo Rental Policies Forum:

My wife and I have owned the fourplex at 859 San Anselmo Avenue since 1973.  We used every penny we could scrape together to purchase the building and didn’t have a positive cash flow for over 5 years.  We are now in our eighties and rely on the property income to pay our bills.  Our net income is about the same as we would have if we sold the property and invested the proceeds in risk‐free and carefree government bonds.

We pride ourselves on maintaining the building, keeping the rents reasonable, and having a long‐term relationship with our tenants.  One tenant has been there since 1985

DONALD AND GLORIA HERZOG
45 EAST MANOR DR. • MILL VALLEY, CA • 94941
PHONE: (415) 302 ‐ 0572
[email protected]
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
25 143
(38 years) and another has been there 21 years.  We have never evicted anyone in the 50 years we have owned the building.  A Section 8 tenant got ill and lost her job.  We worked with her and deferred her rent for several months until she got back on her feet.

We do everything possible to keep the rents affordable and our tenants happy.

We previously owned a nice rental property in San Francisco.  The rents were below market rates when rent control began, and we were unable to raise the rents enough to properly maintain the building while earning a reasonable return on our investment.

Our tenant relations changed from very positive to the point where every action required appearing before a Rent Control Board.  We ultimately gave up and sold the property to a religious order that evicted the tenants and converted the building into a tax‐exempt facility.  We don’t want to be forced to sell this building.

Rent increases are driven by the real increases in the cost of utilities, appliances, maintenance, roof replacements, sewer lateral replacement, outrageous sewer taxes, government fees, painting, and everything else.  Just as the San Anselmo Town Hall Project is double the estimated cost, so does everything for my apartment.  Rent Control that doesn’t allow increases reflecting real inflationary costs requires cutting maintenance and upkeep of our very nice building.  It starts with the gardener being cut back from weekly to monthly, appliances being repaired instead of replaced, and carpets being replaced only when completely worn out.  Paint will be touched‐up instead of repainted.  The roof will be patched instead of replaced.  Maintenance will be deferred, and the resultant deterioration accepted.  Our wonderful relationship with our tenants will deteriorate as a Rent Control Board inserts itself between us.  If the situation becomes too onerous and unprofitable, we will sell the property to a corporate property owner with the staff and resources to game the system, and will invest the proceeds in a risk‐free and carefree government bond.  In our eighties, we do not have the stamina or the willingness to deal with a rent control board.

Rent subsidies are necessary in order to maintain a diverse community.  However, subsidies are a community wide responsibility.  Mandating that property owners subsidize rents is no different than mandating that a grocery store or any other business subsidize their customers.  Rent subsidies should be provided by the entire community, just like food stamps and health clinics.

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy housing stock without using a bomb.  Please resist the temptation of short‐term political gain by pandering to those who think they can overturn economic reality.  There are no free rides, and the results will be disastrous.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
26 144
Yours truly,
Donald and Gloria Herzog
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
27 145
From: Nicole Heslip <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 1:47 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: San Anselmo Rent Control
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Staff of San Anselmo,
I am a renter and longtime San Anselmo resident and am writing to ask the council to develop strong local rent control and just cause eviction ordinances in San Anselmo.

The cost of housing has exploded in Marin. With the average home costing about $1.5 million, the only way that thousands of working families, young people, and seniors are able to make it here is to rent.

Marin rents have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the nation, far outpacing wages. With almost no local protections in place, more than a third of all Marin residents—our friends, families, and neighbors—are one rent hike away from being forced out of their homes and out of our communities.

We need rent control.

A rent stabilization policy is only as strong as its cap on annual rent increases. It's important that San Anselmo's cap be tied to a percentage of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), so that it's fair for both tenants and landlords. A rental cap set at 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is lower, feels like a fair and just policy.

This would mean that during normal inflation years, annual rent increases would be limited to around 2%, while during high inflation years, annual rent increases would still hit a 5% ceiling.

A key component of just cause eviction protections is to grant tenants the right to return to their unit if they are evicted due to no fault of their own and the reason for their eviction is no longer relevant. A tenant's "right of return" should last for at least 5 years following a no‐fault eviction. This would help prevent landlords from abusing no‐fault evictions to circumvent rent control by evicting long‐term tenants and jacking up rents.

Another crucial part of just cause eviction protections is to require landlords who evict tenants (who have done nothing wrong) to pay relocation payments that allow those tenants to land on their feet and find a new place to live in the community. Relocation payments should be equal to at least 3‐4 months rent so that tenants can cover first and last month's rent, a security deposit, and moving fees.

San Anselmo's rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies should apply to as many renters as possible, while providing reasonable exemptions for small owner‐occupied units. State law already prohibits local rent control from applying to single‐family homes, condos, and buildings constructed after 1995. And with most of San Anselmo's renters living in small‐to‐medium‐sized apartment buildings, it's crucial that both rent stabilization and just cause evictions apply to all multi‐unit buildings, including duplexes and triplexes.

In summary, please develop and pass a local rent control ordinance in San Anselmo, with a strong rental cap based on 60% of CPI, as well as just cause eviction ordinances.

Thank you for your attention and consideration of these matters.

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
28 146
Regards,
Nicole Heslip
San Anselmo resident & renter
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
29 147
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
30 148
From: Amy Knapp <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 3:51 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: AddiƟonal rent control
CAUTION: External Sender
Town Council:

It has come to my aƩenƟon that San Anselmo is considering imposing addiƟonal rent control measures on all San Anselmo landlords and I am really concerned about this idea.

I have an ADU unit that I rent for average to below market price. I believe I am a fair and good landlord and have in turn had several wonderful tenants.

Having the right tenant is important when you are sharing your property with others.

I added the ADU to help me stay in my home as I slowly reƟre and my income is decreasing. The ADU serves two purposes, offering much needed housing in a beauƟful neighborhood and helping me stay in my home by generaƟng income.

The cost to construct, maintain and pay property tax on these are not inexpensive, and aŌer all is said and done it take years to break even.

Not to menƟon Marin County high property taxes and ever increasing uƟlity prices.

AŌer hearing about the Fairfax debacle and reading through your materials, I am saddened to say I would most likely NOT rent my unit if this would pass into law.  It is way too risky and frankly not feasible for me to provide someone with endless months of rent if I decided I wanted to make a change. This gives the tenet so much power over my property.

I understand the issues of high rent in our area, my own adult children cannot afford to live here. That said, these new laws would take rentals off the market and decrease the supply of housing because people like me will be very wary to conƟnue with rentals. Such a shame aŌer the city was literally forced to add more housing and this is going to cause the reverse.

Rent control might make sense for properƟes with over 3 rental units, or owned by corporaƟons, but for people like me who are reƟring and just trying to stay in our homes it is a disaster.

It would decrease property values if folks see a rental unit as potenƟal income but then see these laws in place. Would you even want to wade into the potenƟal mess as a new home owner? Do the right thing, add addiƟonal housing, not implementaƟon of ideas from the socialist party of marin.

Amy Knapp
54 Scenic Ave
San Anslemo
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
31 149
FW: In Favor Renters Protection
Rental Policies <[email protected]>
Mon 9/11/2023 3:49 PM
To:Serge Avila <[email protected]>
Jeff Zuba
Finance & Administrative Services Director
Town of San Anselmo | 525 San Anselmo Ave | San Anselmo, CA 94960 Mobile (262) 989-2208 | Email [email protected] From: Jonathan Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:08 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: In Favor Renters Protection
CAUTION: External Sender
I'm writing as a proud San Anselmo resident to encourage the adoption of strong renter protections. San Anselmo has a large renter population and they add crucial economic and racial diversity to our town. The vitality of our businesses, downtown, and cultural life depend on the stability of our renters. A fair system is very possible, but it must be effective in providing stability from sudden rent hikes or evictions.

Thank you!
--
Jonathan Knight
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
32 150
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 1:42 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: FW: What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control? | Brookings CAUTION: External Sender
hƩps://www.brookings.edu/arƟcles/what‐does‐economic‐evidence‐tell‐us‐about ‐the‐effects‐of‐rent‐control/
This is a link to a Brookings InsƟtuƟon arƟcle reviewing the effects of rent control in the housing market over a 20 plus year period in both San Francisco and Cambridge, MA.  I hope the Town of San Anselmo will review this arƟcle before making any decisions.

Regards,
Yvonne Lovell‐Lawrence
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
33 151
From: Rental Policies
To: Serge Avila; Dave Donery
Subject: Fwd: Rental Ordinances under Consideration
Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 6:01:58 AM
From: Yvonne Lovell-Lawrence <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:16 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Rental Ordinances under Consideration
CAUTION: External Sender
I was not able to make the Community Discussion meeting on October 5th for landlords. I am very concerned about the proposed ordinances regarding rent control, because it will create a financial hardship on “mom and pop” landlords such as myself.

The single family home we purchased in 1986 was done as a partnership with my mother who lived in the property until her death in 2022. My husband and I were silent partners with my mother. My mother had been a majority owner, but we bought her interest in the property in order to supply her with an infusion of cash in the last years of her life. Beginning in 2018 we were planning to start repairs on the house, but my mother was diagnosed with cancer and it wasn’t the time to start a major project.

The house has a lot of deferred maintenance, and as a result is currently rented at a below market rate of $2,550 per month. We were planning to start renovating the house, starting with a new roof and skylights which will total about $35,000. In addition, the siding has to be replaced on two sides of the building and a new deck built, etc. In other words, a lot of money has to be invested in this property in the near future. If the Town of San Anselmo adopts policies similar to Fairfax, it will be difficult to justify investing so much money into a single property to rent it with so many restrictions.

If San Anselmo proceeds with proposed restrictions, we will probably just do the improvements and then sale it. So, San Anselmo will have sabotaged its goal of maintaining rental stock in the town.

The state has put in place protections for tenants. Maybe San Anselmo needs to consider tax incentives, zoning and density revisions to encourage affordable housing. However, if the town wants to drive forward more protections for tenants, I think it should be put before the voters.

Regards,
Yvonne Lovell-Lawrence
Sent from Mail for Windows
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
34 152
From: Beth Mahar <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:09 AM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Sirs,
I just want to add my voice to all the beautiful people who are living and thriving in the lovely community of
San Anselmo.

I am a senior citizen who has rented homes here in San Anselmo for many years and I love living here. I feel safe. I feel seen.

But I am very concerned about the rising cost to live here and combined with inflation and my fixed income I worry that I can continue to enjoy this Community and continue to thrive.

I believe if the town passes a rent control ordinance with a strong rental cap based on 60% of CPI that it would be extremely helpful and put my mind at ease in regards to continuing to live and rent here in this great town.

Thank you for your time.

Peace and Love,
Beth Mahar
140 Tunstead Ave.

San Anselmo, Ca. 94960
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
35 153
Rent Increase Moratorium
Andrew Pederson <[email protected]>
Wed 8/30/2023 10:50 AM
To:Town Council <[email protected]>
Cc:[email protected] <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
To - Town Council Of San Anselmo, California
Dear Council members. Renters in San Anselmo, are increasingly being burdened by growing rental costs.

Almost half of San Anselmo renters are paying 30% of their monthly income on housing.

A quarter of them are encumbered with 50% of their income.

We are asking you to offset this burden, with rent control, so that a majority of San Anselmo residents, don't have to make choices between, food, transportation and other necessities, and having a roof over their heads.

Please don't allow those living from pay check to paycheck, or Social Security, to possibly end up, on the street, homeless. This could be the result, if rent control/stabilization is not allocated.

I am a San Anselmo renter, since 2017, and Marin County resident, since 2010, and if it were not for financial assistance, I would not be able to live in Marin County.

Thank you, for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Andrew Pederson
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
36 154
From: Gavin Pugsley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 12:39 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]>; Town Council <[email protected]>; Galyna Iakovenko <[email protected]> Subject: A comment supporting rent control and tenant protections CAUTION: External Sender
Greetings,
We have been residents of San Anselmo since 2012. We have many friends who live in San Anselmo and have been active in the community, including at local non profits and the local community garden at Robson Harrington park.

Our family belongs to a category of renters who can’t afford to purchase a home for 1.5 or 2 million dollars, so our only option is to rent. We have been very fortunate to have been able to live in the apartment we have called home together for the past 8 years in downtown San Anselmo. The town is our absolute favorite place to live in. We are a middle aged multicultural family and have both lived in different parts of the world at one point or another. As single adults and later as a married family with a child, we have both rented rooms or apartments from early on in our lives including in San Anselmo.

The current apartment we live in could not be in a better location on Magnolia Ave.

However, after our original landlord passed away and a rental management company took over, the rent has steadily increased every year, and has come with additional fees on top of the rent. It’s worth mentioning that our annual rent increase is the highest amount allowed by law. We are worried that we will soon be priced out and our child will not be able to grow up in the place that we have called home for so long.

Throughout the time we have lived here, we have had many, many friends with families who were forced to leave San Anselmo due to the exponentially rising cost of living here.

We welcomed our first child a couple of months ago and we would love to raise him in this safe and welcoming community.

We welcome any tools the city can provide to protect us and our modest lifestyle in the community we call home.

Thank you for your consideration.

Gavin Pugsley & Galyna Iakovenko
26 Magnolia Ave. #5
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
37 155
1 Serge Avila
From: Rental Policies
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:32 AM
To: MICHAEL SEXTON
Cc: Serge Avila
Subject: RE: video of meeting
Good morning Michael,
We are currently experiencing an issue with the video that was posted on the Town website. Here is a temporary link to the recording from 9/14
https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/lgtBoPMK1UttJOReO8Enk5Ah74CnR5jPno2fjXd97Fpt4OLgPb_LpXqw‐ QMWRnQN.HXCi1UTRAXbzvHCn. We have submitted this issue to our website provider to assist in getting the error corrected.

Thank you,
Jeff Zuba
Finance & Administrative Services Director
Town of San Anselmo | 525 San Anselmo Ave | San Anselmo, CA 94960 Mobile (262) 989‐2208 | Email [email protected] From: MICHAEL SEXTON <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: video of meeting
CAUTION: External Sender
The link to the video of the rental meeting is not working on the site. There is a link, but when clicked, the resource can not be found.

Thank you.

[email protected]

ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
38 156
2 Michael Sexton
Photographer, Video Producer
www.sextonarts.com
[email protected]
415.309.4560
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
39 157
From: Kathrin Smith
To: Rental Policies; Town Council
Subject: Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection in San Anselmo Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 3:27:58 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear San Anselmo Town Council and Town Staff,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at the recent renters forum. I appreciate all of the consideration and work that the town of San Anselmo is doing to address this critical issue. I am proud of San Anselmo for being one of the leaders in Marin to seriously address an issue that is complicated, multi-layered, divisive and yet here to stay. I understand that San Anselmo cannot solve the homeless crisis in this country, no one person or town can. But if each town and each one of us do what we can, as a collective we may be able to ease the burden of others. San Anselmo could set the bar high for other towns in Marin to do the same.

I have always been curious as to how much responsibility for the housing crisis is placed on the housing developers and corporate landlords. I never hear anything about them in the conversations to find solutions. I truly believe that housing is a human right. In my opinion, housing, like health care, should not be something that some make millions off of at the detriment of those who cannot afford it. But folks cry out "socialism" when this point of view is presented. I believe that regulations regarding the cost of housing must be implemented and enforced. There is just not enough housing, not enough affordable housing, and the wealth divide in this country will eventually take us all down if it is not reined in sooner than later.

As you know, one way San Anselmo can help ease this tenant (for example, teachers, firefighters, gardeners, caretakers, child care workers, restaurant workers, etc) burden is through a rent stabilization policy.

1. A strong rental cap based on inflation: A rent stabilization policy is only as strong as its cap on annual rent increases. It's important that San Anselmo's cap be tied to a percentage of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), so that it's fair for both tenants and landlords. We're asking for a rental cap set at 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is lower. That means that during normal inflation years, annual rent increases would be limited to around 2%, while during high inflation years, annual rent increases would still hit a 5% ceiling.

In addition, tenant protections are instrumental in preventing homelessness. While working in Oakland from 2002-2018, I watched what happened when housing developers came into Oakland. Folks who lived for years in single occupancy hotel rooms, or modest affordable apartments, were forced out with nowhere to go but the streets. Year after year, Iwatched the homeless encampments grow up around every neighborhood in Oakland. Many of these newly homeless folks were lifelong Oakland residents. I saw individuals and families sleeping in their cars every night right outside my office building. They would wake up in the mornings, go to their jobs, and come back in the evening, spending the night again in their cars. Just cause eviction is crucial to keeping folks in their homes or compensating them so they don't end up on the streets.

2. Right of return: A key component of just cause eviction protections is to grant tenants the right to return to their unit if they are evicted due to no fault of their own and the reason for their eviction is no longer relevant. For example, if a tenant is evicted because the landlord or their family member wants to move into the unit, then the tenant should have the opportunity to move back into that unit—at their former rent—when the landlord or family member moves out. We are asking that tenants' right of return lasts for at least five years following a no-fault ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
40 158
eviction. This would help prevent landlords from abusing no-fault evictions to circumvent rent control by evicting long-term tenants and jacking up rents.

I urge the town of San Anselmo to enact a strong rent stabilization policy and a strong tenant protection policy.

I appreciate you taking the time to read my letter and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Kathrin Smith
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
41 159
From: josopko
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent control
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:03:36 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello
I am a renter in san Anselmo .I am a senior on a fixed income. I am joining with other in the request for the town to pass a rent control ordinance, with a strong rental cap based on 60% of CPH is extremely helpful
Thank you
Jo Sopko
And don't feel like you have to cover all the information provided above! Even a short and sweet email calling for the town to pass a rent control ordinance with a strong rental cap based on 60% of CPI is extremely helpful.

Sent from my Galaxy
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
42 160
From: Marjorie Sun <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 9:11 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: rental hearings recorded?
CAUTION: External Sender
SA staff,
Will the upcoming hearings on possible rent control be recorded? If so, will the recordings be accessible to the public a day or two after the hearing? Regards,
Marjorie Sun
San Anselmo resident
Sent from my iPhone‐‐
Best,
Marjorie
Marjorie Sun
m 415.261.8786
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
43 161
From: Shervin Talieh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:37 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: rent control for San Anselmo
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello from a resident in San Anselmo.

My name is Shervin Talieh, and I live at 210 San Francisco Blvd. Having lived in Boise Idaho for the past five years, I moved back to my beloved California and to the town of San Anselmo specifically because of my experience in Idaho, specifically, the lack of diversity.

What makes any community great is the diversity of the people within it, and the convergence of interests in building something sustainable. Sustainability means that we must be able to provide housing that is affordable and accessible for people who want to work in the stores we shop at, the people who make the food we eat, and the people who take care of our children, our parents and our homes. Sustainability means that we should reduce the need for people to commute for hours, burning more fossil fuel and congesting our roads, further adding to our climate change. Sustainability means systemic protections against frivolous evictions and other punitive measures against the housing insecure.

Compassion is not the job of others; it is the duty of the citizens of each community, for each other.

Rent control is at the heart of what is needed, right now, so that people are not living in poverty once they've paid their rent, or forced to uproot themselves in search of shelter and inclusion.

Rent control means creating disincentives for large, corporate landlords, and localizing our housing supply chain. As a homeowner, I welcome meaningful rent control (not performative 7% caps) and other safety measures that have real teeth. If we do not act now, our younger generation will be driven out of the community, and then we will slowly turn into a dying, privileged enclave with no growth, no future, and no soul.

I urge you to protect us from such a bleak future, and to do the right thing. Thank you.

Shervin
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
44 162
FW: YES on Renter Protections
Rental Policies <[email protected]>
Mon 9/11/2023 3:48 PM
To:Serge Avila <[email protected]>
Jeff Zuba
Finance & Administrative Services Director
Town of San Anselmo | 525 San Anselmo Ave | San Anselmo, CA 94960 Mobile (262) 989-2208 | Email [email protected] From: Debbie Toizer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: YES on Renter Protections
CAUTION: External Sender
I am encouraged to hear that San Anselmo is looking into renter protections, and I'm writing today to urge you to move forward with it.

It is important to me, as a white resident of Marin, that our county be welcoming to a wide diversity of people and especially to more people of color. As things stand now, Marin County is not affordable for most people, with a rental rate that I understand is the highest of any county in California.

I applaud you for moving forward with reasonable but effective protections for renters in San Anselmo.

Thank you. Debbie
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
45 163
YES on Renter Protections
Debbie Toizer <[email protected]>
Mon 9/11/2023 1:05 PM
To:Rental Policies <[email protected]> CAUTION: External Sender
I am encouraged to hear that San Anselmo is looking into renter protections, and I'm writing today to urge you to move forward with it.

It is important to me, as a white resident of Marin, that our county be welcoming to a wide diversity of people and especially to more people of color. As things stand now, Marin County is not affordable for most people, with a rental rate that I understand is the highest of any county in California.

I applaud you for moving forward with reasonable but effective protections for renters in San Anselmo.

Thank you. Debbie
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
46 164
From: Penny <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2023 4:20 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Meetings
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello:

I am a landlady in San Anselmo and would appreciate getting a link to these meetings.

Thank you.

Penny Wells
[email protected]
415‐457‐6094
ITEM 2.1 - ATTACHMENT 6
47 165
1 Serge Avila
From: Ms Angela Gott <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 5:06 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Support rent stabilization and tenant protections in San Anselmo on 10/24 CAUTION: External Sender
October 21, 2023
Dear San Anselmo Town Council Members,
I waited to age 70 to finally draw Social Security because I knew it would be very low based on my 53 years of low paid jobs. I was set at $1,254/month to start in May 2021, despite getting 32% more because I waited and maximized it at age 70. Many women of the boomer generation either never married or had short multiple marriages, each less than 10 years duration so they do not qualify for spousal support or widow survivor's SSA benefit from a former much higher earning spouse and these women also begin collecting Social Security at age 62 which is a huge mistake. Ronald Reagan in 1983 made our full retirement age 66 and those born in 1960 and later it is 67, so these women get a lifetime penalty of losing 25% to 30% off an already low check for life.

Social Security is based on the highest earnings of 35 years of working and so boomer generation women who were in and out of the labor pool raising kids and taking care of sick relatives have wound up with very low benefits for their old age years. I never married, never had children and never left the labor pool and always had multiple jobs, and still, even with 32% more, my SSA benefit was set to just $1,402 in May 2021 and with Part B Outpatient Premium taken off the top I wound up with just $1,254 a month to live on. I would be homeless and most women get far less than this amount because they did not even work the 35 years and have lots of zero earning years and they began collecting at age 62 and lose the $25% to 30% off an already very low benefit amount. This is why boomer generation women (born 1946-1964) wind up homeless in old age.

MARIN county and its individual towns have built very little low income housing. There are categories defined by HUD of poverty--acutely low, extremely low income, very low income, low income, and moderate. For years developers could pay money in lieu of building low income housing units in multifamily developments. When they did build affordable housing, it was usually for those in the low income and moderate income ranges. Almost no housing is ever built for the category of extremely low income and very low income levels. Because of inequality in pay, women wind up in the acutely low income and extremely low income categories and no housing is being built for this level of poverty.

Marin's seniors of the boomer generation are falling into homelessness. Minimum wage when I was 18 was $1.55/hour. These boomers entered the job market when wages were very low and women were paid the absolute lowest. We were the last hired and first fired. Women of the boomer generation never caught a break. Those who married and then divorced prior to 10 years of marriage are forever barred from inheriting their former spouse's Social Security survivor's benefit or access to spousal support and yet in most cases there were 2 to 3 kids born into these marriages and these women raised these children as single mothers and many never got child support or just sporadic child support and as seniors they are 166
2 deprived of the higher social security benefits their former spouses accrued based on their much higher earnings.

Society owes these boomer generation women who raised the next generation in the 1970s and 1980s and some of these women even raised grandchildren too. They need affordable housing and they deserve it. Marin County has just got to look at this. Marin County needs to have a discussion with the Social Security Administration to find out how many boomer generation women, residents of Marin County are on Social Security who are getting less than $1000 a month in benefits. Marin County needs to recognize the reality these boomer generation women face and build housing for their income stream so they can spend their final years living in dignity and security of having shelter in old age. San Anselmo simply has to build low income housing for this demographic. It is morally the right thing to do.

This is one of the wealthiest counties in CA and San Anselmo is one of the wealthiest towns so it needs to be compassionate and build low income apartments for boomer generation women. I managed to get on a waitlist at age 62 and I got extremely lucky and got into public housing at age 66. I am still working part-time to supplement my Social Security too. I use a rolling walker and I have a desk job in LarkspurGreenbrae 20 hours a month at minimum wage. I will be fine because 30% subsidized rent is a gamechanger. All of Marin's senior women deserve to obtain what I have though. Marin has got to get busy and build this critically needed housing.

Sincerely,
Angela Gott, age 72, resident of Kruger Pines Retirement Home in Strawberry CA 94941 167
1 Serge Avila
From: Paul Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 2:31 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Please support tenant protections, our community members are at risk! CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protections and rent stabilization in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. California law caps rent increases but the level permitted is far too high: CPI + 5% allows rents to be increased way beyond the rate of inflation.

San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, the only option is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many ‐‐ maybe hundreds ‐‐ of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.

The life of every displaced person is disrupted in profound ways, impacting schooling, employment options, transportation, mental and physical health and of course, shelter. Every displaced worker forced to commute adds to our traffic and emissions challenges.

I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances. As town council members, you have the responsibility to protect the diversity and social equity of our community. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Paul Gray (Kentfield)
168
1 Serge Avila
From: Rental Policies
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 5:23 AM
To: Serge Avila; Dave Donery
Subject: Fwd: Proposed San Anselmo Rent Control Ordinance From: Bill Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 11:37 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Cc: Steve Burdo <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed San Anselmo Rent Control Ordinance

CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Council Members and Mayor Steve Burdo,

My wife and I are long time San Anselmo residents and property owners since 1981.  We all live in a small town with limited land and houses.  The idea of an additional rent control ordinance on top of the states 2021 rent control seems very hasty.  When we think about the covid years and these new rental laws, has enough time passed to see what effect these laws will have on our housing?   If you limit people’s property rights  will that increase or decrease their motivation to create more housing with our limited existing properties?  We need more housing not less housing.  Will putting the ‘affordability burden’ on a few property owners backs solve the problem? Or is this a simple solution ‘band aid’ to try to just do something?
These are serious questions and issues here.  It would  be good to have a more concerted effort to develop incentives to create more housing, ADU’s , tax incentives for low cost units, find unused public land for affordable housing and more .

Why not do the work to get community ownership and involvement in some realistic solutions. The rent control efforts have been used in other places and have not had the desired effects or positive outcomes.

Please, please take the time to review our thoughts and questions.  Let us not be hasty in jumping at a solution with out getting all the people involved.  At the least these type of community milestones need a vote of the people you represent and those most affected by the decision you are making.

Here’s how more restrictive rent control has impacted other cities and can negatively impact San Anselmo.

1. The rental housing stock will decline as some landlords elect to sell properties to homebuyers rather than continuing to rent them .

2. Affordable ADUs will be withdrawn from the rental market to avoid eviction conflicts and expenses. A lower supply will put upward pressure on rental prices.

3. Elders and family members who want or need to move back into their homes may be required to pay tenants to vacate their property.

4. Landlords will be incentivized to maximize annual rent increases to cover higher insurance and maintenance costs and avoid falling too far below market rates.

5. Property maintenance will suffer as landlords minimize these expenses until their tenant moves out. Since tenants will not be likely to abandon below-market rents, depreciation will accelerate for the property and the surrounding neighborhood.
169
2 6. Some of the Town’s limited financial resources will be diverted to pay for establishing and operating a rent control bureaucracy to enforce the local ordinance, hold rent board hearings, and arbitrate tenant/landlord disputes.
 Seventy percent 70 % of San Anselmo resident are property owners, only 30% are tenants
 Measure will give this minority a legal claim on the properties they are renting,  Eviction for cause will be restricted
 Penalties to property owners to sell or use their property to meet their needs may be affected by this ordinance.

EFFECTS ON PROPERTY USE

1. Many owners will choose not to rent out their homes or ADU spaces

2. Elder homeowners cannot afford to keep their homes as rentals with the thought of moving back in if they or the family choose to.

3. There is little motivation to improve the property other than health and safety until a tenant moves out.

The outcome as shown on other severely restricted rent controlled cities have shown: as demonstrated will be  Less rental inventory
 More expensive rentals
 No new units built
 Existing rental stock poorly maintained
 A declining in the real estate values overall
 The loss of homeowners property rights to use their property to fit their financial and the families’ needs.

Thank you for your consideration ,
See you at the Council Meeting
Sincerely

Bill Johnson & Janet Franklin
348 Oak Ave
San Anselmo

170
1 Serge Avila
From: Greg Knell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 2:39 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Please support tenant protections, our community members are at risk! CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protections and rent stabilization in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. California law caps rent increases but the level permitted is far too high: CPI + 5% allows rents to be increased way beyond the rate of inflation.

San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, the only option is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many ‐‐ maybe hundreds ‐‐ of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.

The life of every displaced person is disrupted in profound ways, impacting schooling, employment options, transportation, mental and physical health and of course, shelter. Every displaced worker forced to commute adds to our traffic and emissions challenges.

I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances. As town council members, you have the responsibility to protect the diversity and social equity of our community. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Greg Knell
171
1 Serge Avila
From: Rental Policies
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Dave Donery; Serge Avila
Subject: FW: 118-120 sycamore San anselmo
Jeff Zuba
Finance & Administrative Services Director
Town of San Anselmo | 525 San Anselmo Ave | San Anselmo, CA 94960 Mobile (262) 989‐2208 | Email [email protected] From: Natasha Najafi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 3:13 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Cc: Dennis Morrow <[email protected]>; Brendan McDevitt <[email protected]>; Reza Najafi <[email protected]>
Subject: 118‐120 sycamore San anselmo
CAUTION: External Sender
Hi there‐ we are writing on behalf of many of our clients, but in this particular email, we write in behalf of our own investment.  As
Property owners for many years, we had a plan. The plan was to invest in property so that one day we could retire and enjoy life. At this moment, there’s almost no value or pride in owning property.  We as owners are having so many or our rights taken away. Today, we own property so our tenants and bureaucracy can override and eliminate everything we have worked so hard for.

We do know there are a few that have taken advantage of increasing rents dramatically, but that’s just a certain population. That’s not everyone. We just try minimally increase rent to keep up with the increasing taxes, utilities, attorneys to protect our investment etc.

It feels sad and discouraging to have every part of our lively hood controlled. Just because we’re owners, doesn’t mean we have deep pockets. We have to keep up with the crazy interest rates, demands of entitled tenant covid etc. Not all of them are entitled, but it’s becoming more of a trend.

We really are at the point of pleading to please reconsider all of these jurisdictions that is really hurting owners financially.

Thank you for your time.
172
2 Natasha Najafi  BRE#  01269763
Paradise Properties BRE# 00654880
1001 Bridgeway Suite B4
Sausalito CA 94965
[email protected]
415‐332‐7900  ext 112
Please always add
Elin Hyytinen [email protected]
173
1 Serge Avila
From: MICHAEL SEXTON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 9:26 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Extra Rent Control Discussion
CAUTION: External Sender
Please add to your public comments for the Oct 24 meeting. Thank you.

It is not shocking to anyone to hear that housing in Marin is expensive. But far from a crisis, or far from this being a new situation, housing in Marin and San Anselmo has been expensive for several decades.

When I moved to Marin from SF in the mid 90s, rental housing was expensive. I was using about 50% of my income to rent in Sausalito. Was it a ‘crisis’ for me, no. Was it expensive, yes. But I choose to live in Marin for the same reasons that so many of us live in Marin, because of the weather, access to open space and quiet compared to SF and the East Bay. This is also what makes Marin and San Anselmo expensive - it is the demand to live here and the restricted supply of any housing, not the greed of the housing providers.

Contrary to what the DSA or Marin Environmental Community Housing (MECH) or any other publicly subsidized housing organization tells you, it is not greedy mom & pop landlords or corporate entities that set initial prices, it is the marketplace - the balance of supply and demand.

What is disturbing is that these organizations want to artificially curb prices by setting up extra rent control, but 1. It doesn’t work, and 2. It actually makes rentals less available and with higher initial rents.

Many people believe the myth that housing providers can charge anything they want and raise rents year after year to astronomical levels. No. Housing providers are governed by the same economic rules which means that initial rents can decrease or stay level in tough years and increase due to other factors. No housing provider can charge more than what someone is willing to pay.

A September 19 2023 Marin IJ article: Marin Median Rent Declines Mirroring Bay Area Trend states that Marin rents declined by 6.1% in the last year, the largest in the Bay Area. This was a result of the decreased demand for housing because people are moving out of the area, and was well before any extra rent control in Marin.

It may be a surprise to some that San Anselmo rentals are already governed by comprehensive statewide rent control - AB1482. Will extra rent control in San Anselmo make rentals cheaper? - no. In fact, due to the extra liability hidden in ‘Just Cause’ regulations, many mom & pop landlords, like in neighboring Fairfax are just not renting out their spaces. Fewer rental options means that initial rents for spaces could be more expensive compared to non extra rent control communities. This is exactly what is not needed.

174
2 In considering what is best for San Anselmo, I would ask several things: 1. Don’t do what Fairfax did! 2. Let the citizens of San Anselmo vote to determine what is best for them. 3. Consider that San Anselmo already has comprehensive rent control. 4. Consider that extra local rent control actually makes initial rents rise because it decreases rental options. 5. Ask who does extra rent control hurt? - seniors, young families - the people who rely on rental income to stay in their homes. Don't penalize homeowners who are lucky enough to live here.

The real addressable solutions are, what can you do to incentivize the renting out of additional spaces - how can you make it easier and safer for homeowners and housing providers to increase supply?

That is how you make San Anselmo more diverse, make it less expensive for essential workers make the voting public happier.

Thank you.

Michael Sexton
Marin Residents
[email protected]

175
1 Serge Avila
From: Jody Timms <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 2:17 PM
To: Town Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please support tenant protections, our community members are at risk! CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protecƟons and rent stabilizaƟon in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. California law caps rent increases but the level permiƩed is far too high: CPI + 5% allows rents to be increased way beyond the rate of inflaƟon.

San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, the only opƟon is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many ‐‐ maybe hundreds ‐‐ of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.

The life of every displaced person is disrupted in profound ways, impacƟng schooling, employment opƟons, transportaƟon, mental and physical health and of course, shelter. Every displaced worker forced to commute adds to our traffic and emissions challenges.

I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement rent stabilizaƟon and tenant protecƟon ordinances. As town council members, you have the responsibility to protect the diversity and social equity of our community. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jody Timms, Ph.D.
176
1 Serge Avila
From: VICTOR TURKAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:04 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent control
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello All,
I have been following the rent control debacle in three different towns. It’s  not rent stabilizaƟon,  it’s RENT CONTROL.

What I have observed:

Five elected officials should not make decisions on this maƩer, it’s too big of an issue.  Two of these towns, now face referendums on theses ordinances.  I really think a town commiƩee should be created using tenants and landlords.   SA isn’t Fairfax or Larkspur. The commiƩee’s ideas should then be given to the VOTERS of SA to decide what is best. Why haven’t the rent control advocates pushed this issue to a vote of the people? Let the people decide! Why is SA looking at rent control?   Wasn’t AB 1482, adequate?  If rent control is implemented will the town create food and fuel cost ordinances to help alleviate the price shock? Rent control is actually not a town issue but a state issue. We NEED more affordable housing!  State legislators have now created laws which facilitate more housing.   SA has space to build or buy low to moderate housing.  Look at Sorich Park or the El Paseo apartments. Why are we not looking at building or purchasing land? Rental properƟes under rent control will become the new town’s low to moderate income housing policy.   Mom and pop landlords will not receive a fair return and rentals will be sold.  This type of ordinance will help deplete SA’s housing stock.   Will SA step in when unexpected costs arise such as, fire insurance going up 30% or more or when insurance providers start raising prices because of inflaƟon and canceling high risk policies?
Some renters think all landlords are greedy and are profiƟng from their rentals.   Well, this just isn’t true.

No Fault Just Cause, wait, a landlord is suppose to pay a tenant for:

Reclaiming their own property;
Removing a rental from the market;
Remodeling their own property.   I hope people realize the rental stock will shrink.

I really hope SA looks closely at the no fault just cause evicƟons. Again, mom and pop landlord’s cannot afford this pracƟce. Why own a rental if it becomes such a hassle?   Why don’t the towns create a fund to assist landlords to pay for renters moves instead of expecƟng landlords to.

Rent control is not the answer.  We need affordable new housing built.  ADU’s will help but when the town makes an ADU ordinance of 4’ from a neighbor’s property line.   That becomes a game changer with placing an ADU on small SA lots.  I truly think ADU’s are one of the answers in helping alleviate this housing issue.  I appreciate and applaud your efforts in looking at this issue but feel the voters need to decide.

Thank you
Victor
177
2 Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
178
1 Serge Avila
From: Wong, Wendy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 10:24 AM
To: Town Council
Subject: TOWN COUCIL MEETING PUBLIC COMMENT (OCTOBER 24, 2023, 6:30PM) CAUTION: External Sender
Dear San Anselmo Town Council:

I noticed that the e-mail (see below) that I had sent on September 14, 2023, as my input for the Tenant Community Forum, was not included in Item 2.1, Attachment 6 – Public Comments on the Agenda for the Town Council Meeting that will be held today. If that could be added, before this evening’s meeting, I would appreciate it.

Since I will be at work and unable to attend this evening’s meeting, I wanted to share with you the Living Wage Calculator for Marin County and the Pew Research Center article about housing affordability. Both clearly show how wages have not kept up with rental housing costs. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06041
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/23/key-facts-about-housing-affordability-in-the-u-s/ The model where what renters pay provides the owner of a property all the income needed to maintain that property is no longer feasible. We must deal with the reality that everyone is being squeezed financially over the most basic thing, housing, that we all need for stability in our lives. Providing rent stabilization and tenant protections for ALL renters would be a step in the right direction. A registry to track all rental properties in San Anselmo that is audited annually would provide accountability. Creating a town rental board that can come up with ways to provide financial assistance to help small rental property owners with their property expenses, would provide the balance needed to deal with this overwhelming situation that we are all in. We must work together to find a new model that can work.

Thank you for your time!
Warm Regards,
Wendy Wong
San Anselmo Resident
From: Wong, Wendy
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: TENANT COMMUNITY FORUM (SEPTEMBER 14, 2023, 6PM) Dear San Anselmo Town Council:

As mentioned in my July 25, 2023 written public comment, regarding the proposed process to solicit public input on options for tenant protections, we must consider that many lower income residents, who are renters, tend to work odd hour jobs or sometimes two jobs that do not offer paid time off, and should be provided a means to communicate their input on the subject of tenant protections in a written manner, since they most 179
2 likely would not be able to attend an in-person meeting or by Zoom. Since no written option was given, besides for questions at [email protected], I am writing in my public comment for the Tenant Community Forum, since I fall into that category.

Like many San Anselmo renters, I do not work in San Anselmo. I endure a very long commute (3+ hours roundtrip), with endless traffic, to and from San Francisco on public transportation, in order to pay rent for an apartment that takes up 45% of my take home income. Each weekday, I only have a few hours (3 hours) to enjoy time in my home, while awake, because if I plan to get enough sleep (8 hours), get up on time to get to work, work an 8 hour workday with an additional hour for lunch, and commute back home, this is all I can allot for myself. Every year in December, I dread the letter in the mail from property management notifying me how much more money I’m going to have to pay for the same apartment starting in January. Eventually, there will come a point where there is nothing left to cut back on in the personal budget to make up for the extra rent increase. The current California 10% maximum rent control increase is far higher than what most renters ever receive in an annual pay raise. This has caused the current unhoused situation we see all over California. How is someone supposed to afford a place to live, when wages can’t keep up with rental housing costs? Preventative measures, such as a local rent control in San Anselmo, can help keep people housed and allow them to save some of those hard earned wages, so that they don’t end up in a dire financial situation where they fear becoming unhoused. We must be proactive and come up with solutions that will truly help because the current model is unsustainable.

Thank you for your time!
Warm Regards,
Wendy Wong
San Anselmo Resident

180
1 Serge Avila
From: Rental Policies
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 5:22 AM
To: Serge Avila; Dave Donery
Subject: Fwd: Rental restrictions
From: Radhi Ahern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 6:59 PM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Rental restrictions

CAUTION: External Sender
HI there
I am a resident of San Anselmo at 130 Barber Avenue. We have raised our kids in this community for over 10 years and consider San Anselmo to be our "forever home". As a real estate agent our property is our primary investment vehicle for retirement. We have always planned on renting our home out and moving to a smaller home in the community when our kids graduate high school. Rental restrictions would make this a near impossibility. With the cost of maintaining a property through the roof, interest rates at all‐time highs and the fluxation in the market it is imperative we are able to increase rents in a reasonable manner as needed to survive.

We implore the Town to consider the needs of homeowners that may in the future need to become landlords. ‐‐
Radhi Ahern
130 Barber Avenue
San Anselm o
415.531.2981
181
1 Serge Avila
From: Carlo Berg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 10:14 AM
To: Town Council
Subject: Please support tenant protections, our community members are at risk! CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protections and rent stabilization in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. California law caps rent increases but the level permitted is far too high: CPI + 5% allows rents to be increased way beyond the rate of inflation.

San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, which is most people given where rates are these days, the only option is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many ‐‐ maybe hundreds ‐‐ of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.

I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement the twin remedies of rent stabilization/tenant protection with ordinances that expand supply boldly to force Landlords to compete for Tenants and not the other way around.

Sincerely,
Carlo Carlito Berg
182
1 Serge Avila
From: Nancy Carlston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 4:23 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Protect our renters!
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protections and rent stabilization in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. The state caps at CPI plus 5% allow rents to be increased far above the rate of inflation.

San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, the only option is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many ‐‐ maybe hundreds ‐‐ of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.

The life of every displaced person is disrupted in profound ways, impacting schooling, employment options, transportation, mental and physical health and of course, shelter. Every displaced worker forced to commute adds to our traffic and emissions challenges.

I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances. As town council members, you have the responsibility to protect the diversity and social equity of our community. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Nancy Carlston, Trustee
Mt. Tam Community Land Trust
183
1 Serge Avila
From: Owen Clapp <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 11:53 AM
To: Town Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please support tenant protections, our community members are at risk! CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protections and rent stabilization in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. California law caps rent increases but the level permitted is far too high: CPI + 5% allows rents to be increased way beyond the rate of inflation.

San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, the only option is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many ‐‐ maybe hundreds ‐‐ of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.

The life of every displaced person is disrupted in profound ways, impacting schooling, employment options, transportation, mental and physical health and of course, shelter. Every displaced worker forced to commute adds to our traffic and emissions challenges.

I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances. As town council members, you have the responsibility to protect the diversity and social equity of our community. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Owen Clapp
184
1 Serge Avila
From: Rental Policies
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Serge Avila; Dave Donery
Subject: Fwd: Rent stabilization limits
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Fred Coito <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 8:48:45 AM
To: Rental Policies <[email protected]> Subject: Rent stabilization limits

CAUTION: External Sender
I’ve lived in San Anselmo for 33 years. I am currently neither a landlord or a renter but have been both in the past. I may consider creating an ADU in the future.

I have no objections to rent control, but I think the cap must be reasonable. Allowing for caps below the general inflation rate doesn’t seem reasonable for landlords.

Using the Fairfax example where the cap is set at 75% of the CPI: if the landlord’s costs are increasing with inflation at $1000 per year, and they can only raise rents by $750 per year, they are eventually out of business. They lose $250 the first year, $500 the next year, $750 the third year, etc. (And this ends up hurting generous landlords the most. They have minimal profit margins to absorb the ongoing and escalating losses.)
Thanks for your time. Hopefully you’ll take these comments into consideration.

Fred Coito
54 Oakland Ave.

San Anselmo
185
1 Serge Avila
From: anne engert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 12:29 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: I am a provider of reasonable sfh rent and a resident that is concerned about implementing extra rent control in San Anselmo
CAUTION: External Sender
As a member of the community in Marin, I ask you to consider the terrible negaƟve effects of extra rent control.

San Anselmo already has comprehensive rent control ‐ statewide through AB 1482. The idea that extra rent control is needed, wanted or will make housing in our community more affordable is a myth. In fact, extra rent control leads to less rentals available and higher iniƟal rents for new and transiƟoning renters.

Please do not go down the path of Fairfax and create a divisive, contenƟous issue. Extra Rent Control does not work.

Help make Marin more affordable by not implemenƟng extra rent control in San Anselmo.

Thank you.

Please delete and do not share this message if you are not the intended recipient. Thanks 186
1 Serge Avila
From: G.R Fariwar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:06 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: In Support of Rent Control in San Anselmo
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town council members, as a renter I strongly support rent control and would like to expressed below points for your considerations,

WHY WE NEED RENT CONTROL & JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS
 More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent‐burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades.  San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest rents and highest home prices in the entire country.

Most ordinary working people can’t afford to purchase a home, so our only option is to rent. But with rents going through the roof, thousands of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town.
 Corporate landlords are buying up San Anselmo rental properties and jacking up rents. This is hitting long‐term senior tenants on fixed incomes particularly hard.
 San Anselmo prides itself on being welcoming and inclusive. But if nothing is done to stabilize rents and protect our diverse, working‐class tenants, then it will quickly become a town that’s only available to the wealthy and privileged.
 Our teachers, nurses, public workers, and service workers are all disproportionately renters. The people who make San Anselmo such a great place to live should be able to afford to live here.  Rent control and tenant protections are common‐sense, time‐tested policies that will keep families in their homes and provide real housing security for thousands of San Anselmo renters.

RENT STABILIZATION / RENT CAP
 San Anselmo tenants need a strong rent control policy with a cap on annual rent increases that’s tied to inflation. This will provide a fair and rational standard for both landlords and tenants.  Please adopt a rental cap set at 60% of the Consumer Price Index or 5%, whichever is less. This will ensure affordable rent increases year‐after‐year for the town’s long‐term renters, especially seniors and working families who rely on consistent, manageable rents. It will also protect renters against excessive rent increases during high inflation years.

WHO’S COVERED (APPLICABILITY)
 San Anselmo's rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies should apply to as many renters as possible, while providing reasonable exemptions for small owner‐occupied units.  Most of San Anselmo's renters live in small‐to‐medium‐sized apartment buildings. That’s why it’s crucial that both rent stabilization and just cause evictions apply to all multi‐unit buildings, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
 Exempting these smaller buildings would carve out more than a third of all rentals in San Anselmo, leaving hundreds of families without protections.

EVICTION PROTECTIONS
187
2  Right of Return: A key component of just cause eviction protections is to grant tenants the right to return to their unit if they are evicted due to no fault of their own and the reason for their eviction is no longer relevant.

For example, if a tenant is evicted because the landlord or their family member wants to move into the unit, then the tenant should have the opportunity to move back into that unit—at their former rent—when the landlord or family member moves out. We are asking that tenants' right of return lasts for at least five years following a no‐fault eviction. This would help prevent landlords from abusing no‐fault evictions to circumvent rent control by evicting long‐term tenants and jacking up rents.

Relocation Payments: Another crucial part of just cause eviction protections is to require landlords who evict tenants who have done nothing wrong to pay relocation payments that allow those tenants to land on their feet and find a new place to live in the community. We are asking for relocation payments equal to four months rent so that tenants can cover first and last month's rent, a security deposit, and moving fees.

Best,
Ghulam Fariwar
875 Sir Francis Drake Blvd,
188
1 Serge Avila
From: Lorrie Goldin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 5:14 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: Letter of Support for Tenant Protections and Rent stabilization CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council Members,
I urge your support for tenant protections and rent stabilization in San Anselmo. More than half of San Anselmo renters are rent-burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Rent increases have been outpacing wage increases for decades. California law caps rent increases but the level permitted is far too high: CPI + 5% allows rents to be increased way beyond the rate of inflation. San Anselmo, like all of Marin, has some of the highest housing costs in the US. For those who can’t afford to purchase a home, the only option is to rent. With rapidly increasing rents, many -- maybe hundreds -- of our neighbors are at risk of being forced out of their homes and out of town. The life of every displaced person is disrupted in profound ways, impacting schooling, employment options, transportation, mental and physical health and of course, shelter. Every displaced worker forced to commute adds to our traffic and emissions challenges. I urge the Town of San Anselmo to implement rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances. As town council members, you have the responsibility to protect the diversity and social equity of our community. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Lorrie Goldin
San Anselmo
189
190
191
192
193
From: Kathrin Smith
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent stabilization and renters protection
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 1:19:39 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Councilmembers,
I was at the Town Council meeting last night and was prepared to speak at public comment time. However, the Mayor requested that those of us who have stood up at past meetings to address this issue please not do so again.

Here is what I wanted to say:

I urge you to vote to cap rent increases at 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is less and to pass just cause eviction protections.

I very much appreciate the Town Council and staff members for the incredible work that they have done to date on this issue. It is such a complex situation. I realize that San Anselmo alone can not solve the huge problem of housing shortages and homelessness. No one town or city can.

But I feel like every town needs to do what they can do. If we don't address it now, it will only be worse next year. Sadly, this problem will not go away any time soon.

San Anselmo is the amazing town that it is because of the people that live here and contribute through their hard work and sacrifice and service to make it a place we all want to be. Those of us who have raised or are raising our families here, the firefighters, police, teachers, caretakers, nannys, gardeners, restaurant workers, health care workers, shop owners, we are all citizens of San Anselmo and deserve to be able to afford to stay here.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration of my request.

SIncerely,
Kathrin Smith
Tenant
194
195
Item #: 2.2

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 2.2
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Receive Staff Report Presented to Ross Valley Fire Board and Consider Recommendation from Fire
Board’s Labor Management Subcommittee Relating
to Increased Staffing per the "2022
Staffing/Deployment" Side Letter and Provide
Direction to the Town’s Fire Board Representatives
FROM: Administration and Fire Department
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council consider the recommendation from the Ross Valley Fire Board’s Labor Management Subcommittee to fund a third person on one of the Ross Valley Fire Department’s engine companies beginning on July 1, 2024 and provide direction to the Town’s Fire Board representatives.

BACKGROUND
In February of 2022, the Town Council approved the Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ross Valley Fire Department Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment 1).

This amendment outlines a plan for closing Fire Station 18 in Ross and amending the details regarding ongoing staffing levels and requiring that two of the three remaining RVFD stations be staffed with no fewer than three-person engine companies beginning in July of 2025.

As part of the Fire Board’s process in determining the newest JPA amendment, a side letter (Attachment 4) was developed containing the following provisions:

The Ross Valley Fire Department (hereinafter Department) and the Ross Valley Firefighters' Association (hereinafter Association) have mutually agreed to the following:
• Upon the closure of Fire Station 18 located in Ross, California, scheduled for July 1, 2025, the six assigned personnel (three Fire Captains and three Firefighter Engineers) shall be moved West to increase staffing from two to three personnel at Fire Stations 19 and 21;
196
Item #: 2.2
• The parties further agree the third person on each engine will be converted to a Firefighter/Paramedic Position through attrition.
• Nothing in this letter agreement shall affect the minimum number of personnel required for daily staffing under the parties' MOU.
• The parties agree that the labor-management sub-committee will meet at minimum quarterly, beginning the first quarter of 2022, with the goal of determining how to also increase the staffing to three personnel at Fire Station 20 in Sleepy Hollow. This subcommittee will include at least one Association member representing labor, a Board member from each member agency, and the management committee.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
At their meeting on October 5, 2023 the Labor Management Subcommittee discussed options for funding the 3rd person on the engine companies at Station 20. Below are the proposed options presented:

From Attachment 2:

The chart below represents a fully-burdened cost of three Firefighter Paramedic positions, taking into consideration the following: monthly salary/benefits were calculated using the Boards agreed (on 1/8/22) amounts from the Firefighter Paramedic “Side Letter Of Agreement” and salary schedule/benefits were adjusted to match the negotiated increase/benefit changes since 2020, overtime costs are based on the negotiated leave days (sick/vacation), and one time equipment costs are based on outfitting a Firefighter with protective clothing (one time equipment costs only included in 24/25 and 25/26).

COST BY MEMBER AGENCY
FY Fairfax Ross San Anselmo Sleepy Hollow
FPD
Percent Share 23.30% 23.37% 40.53% 12.80%
24/25 $147,262 $147,705 $256,161 $80,900
25/26 $156,034 $156,503 $271,420 $85,719
26/27 $164,114 $164,607 $285,473 $90,157
197
Item #: 2.2

FUNDING OPTIONS
Option 1: Each Member agency will begin paying their respective “percentage share” from the position date of hire, which is proposed to be on July 1, 2024.

Option 2: Authorize one-time use from undesignated reserves to fund the first year from the position date of hire. Each Member agency will begin paying their respective “percentage share” after year one.

Option 3: Authorize one-time use from undesignated reserves to fund a phased approach using a combination of undesignated reserves and member agency respective “percentage share” for the first two years of the position. The Department would use undesignated reserves to pay the difference of the actual cost and the amount being billed to the member agencies. Member agencies would be charged 50% in year one, 75% in year 2, and 100% in year 3.

Fire Board Discussion
At their meeting on October 11, 2023 the Ross Valley Fire Board received a staff report (Attachment 2) outlining the recommendation from the Ross Valley Fire Department’s Labor Management Subcommittee to consider funding options for a three-person engine company. The Labor Management Subcommittee recommended Option 1.

The Fire Board was in favor of selecting Option 1 but because it implements the upstaffing a year earlier than anticipated, staff and Board members thought it prudent to bring the item for review by each Town Council for discussion and direction to the members of the Fire Board. The decision will come before the Fire Board at their December meeting.

CONCLUSION
As stated in the attached staff report, the Ross Valley Fire Department is currently the only department in Marin County that has two-person engine companies. Marin County fire agencies have a combined 31 staffed fire engines, 26 of which are staffed with three personnel. Of the remaining five engines not staffed with three personnel, four of those engines are the Departments. The fifth station is located in rural West Marin (Hicks Valley/Cheese Factory).

FISCAL IMPACT
If the Town Council directs the Town’s Fire Board members to approve the recommendation to upstaff one engine company beginning in July of 2024, the cost of San Anselmo’s portion of this would amount to $256,161 for FY 2024/25. This cost would be funded through Measure J funding. The existing FY2023-25 Measure J 198
Item #: 2.2
Expenditure Plan will be coming back to Council in early 2024 for discussion and direction on potential updating and cost adjustments.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Providing direction to the Town’s Fire Board representatives on this matter is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Third Amendment for RVFD JPA
Attachment 2 – Staff Report presented to the Ross Valley Fire Board on 10/11/23 Attachment 3 – 2020 Side Letter between Ross Valley Fire Department and Ross Valley Professional Firefighters’ Association Local 1775 Attachment 4 – 2022 Side Letter Staffing/Deployment Agreement between Ross Valley Fire Department and Ross Valley Professional Firefighters’ Association Local 1775 Attachment 5 – 2019 Citygate Standards of Coverage Assessment Attachment 6 – 2010 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Report om Residential Field Experiments
Attachment 7 – 2010 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Report on EMS Field Experiments
199

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement (“Third Amendment”) is entered into as of January 1, 2022 (the “Third Amendment Effective Date”), and is made by and among the Town of Fairfax, a municipal corporation (“Fairfax”), the Town of San Anselmo, a municipal corporation (“San Anselmo”), the Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection District, an independent special district of the State of California (“Sleepy Hollow”), and the Town of Ross, a municipal corporation (“Ross”), each a “Member,” and collectively referred to as the “Members.”

RECITALS
A. Fairfax, San Anselmo and Sleepy Hollow entered into that certain Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 (the “Agreement”). All capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the same meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

B. The Agreement governs the operations of the Ross Valley Fire Department (the “Authority”).

C. The Members entered into the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement, effective as of July 1, 2012 (the “First Amendment”), to (i) include Ross as a Member of the Authority; (ii) modify the composition of the Board; (iii) revise the Members’ cost sharing and ownership rights; and (iv) address certain other issues agreed upon among the Members.

D. The Members entered into the Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement, effective as of February 13, 2014 (the “Second Amendment”), to: (i) establish a Management Committee and (ii) implement the provisions of Government Code § 54956.96, permitting the disclosure of certain closed session information in an authorized closed session of a Member.

E. The Members desire to enter into this Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement to: (1) provide for the closure of the Ross Fire Station and (ii) allocate Authority resources, savings and costs attributable to the Ross Fire Station closure.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Members agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Section 9.2, Fire Station Maintenance, is hereby amended by adding subsections d., e. and f. to read as follows:
“9.2 Fire Station Maintenance
d. Closure of the Ross Fire Station. Fire Station 18, located at 33 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Ross, CA (the “Ross Fire Station”) shall be closed on July 1, ITEM 2.2 - ATTACHMENT 1
1 200
2025, or upon a written agreement among all Members to close on an earlier date (such closure date being the “Ross Fire Station Closure Date”). e. One Time Cost For Remodel of Fire Station 21. On or before the Ross Fire Station Closure Date, the Town of Fairfax shall contribute one-time costs not to exceed $210,000 to fund the interior remodel of Fire Station 21, located at 10 Park Road in Fairfax, CA (“Station 21”) to accommodate additional staffing. f. Shared Costs for Station 19. Commencing in the first fiscal year following the Ross Fire Station Closure Date, and in each fiscal year thereafter, the Town of Ross and the Town of San Anselmo shall share the maintenance costs of Fire Station 19, located at 777 San Anselmo Avenue in San Anselmo, CA (“Station 19”) for which the Town of San Anselmo is responsible pursuant to Section 9.2 a. The Town of Ross shall contribute twenty-seven percent (27%) and the Town of San Anselmo shall contribute seventy-three percent (73%) toward maintenance costs; provided, however, that the Town of San Anselmo and the Town of Ross shall agree upon an annual budget for such costs for the ensuing fiscal year. The foregoing requirement to agree upon an annual budget is intended to obtain an agreement for the total annual maintenance costs to be shared by the parties and in no event shall such agreement modify the annual percentage obligations for Station 19 maintenance costs of either the Town of Ross or the Town of San Anselmo. Subsequent to adopting the annual budgets for the Town of Ross and Town of San Anselmo, and prior to incurring any unbudgeted cost under Section

9.2 a. in excess of $10,000 for Fire Station 19, the Town of San Anselmo shall notify the Town of Ross, and the parties shall meet and confer and agree on any such cost to be incurred.

2. Effective on the Ross Fire Station Closure Date, Section 9.4, Certain Service Levels, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"9.4, Certain Service Levels. The Authority's three fire stations will be routinely open, fully staffed and equipped for 24-hour continuous operation by not less than three (3) full-time sworn trained firefighters at two of the three fire stations and not less than two (2) full-time sworn trained firefighters at the third fire station.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Fire Chief shall have the sole discretion as to the most effective manner of handling and responding to calls for service. This includes positioning both equipment and staffing between and among the fire stations to meet conflicting demands. Consequently, the Members acknowledge that there may be times when equipment or personnel may not be available from all three fire stations."

3. A new Section 9.5, Closure of Ross Fire Station, is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows:

ITEM 2.2 - ATTACHMENT 1
2 201
“9.5 Closure of Ross Fire Station and Movement of Personnel. As of the Ross Fire Station Closure Date, the Fire Chief shall move personnel from the Ross Fire Station to Station 19 and Station 21 as the Fire Chief deems appropriate.”

4. Section 24.5, Existing Capital Assets, subsection a., Ross Fire Station, is hereby amended by restating subsection a. to read as follows:
a. Ross Fire Station. Beginning on the Ross Fire Station Closure Date, the Authority’s annual operations costs will be reduced (the “Savings”) due to the closure of the Ross Fire Station, the elimination of one engine from the Authority’s vehicle replacement schedule, the planned transition of three (3) Captain positions to three (3) Firefighter/Paramedic positions, and the planned transition of three (3) Engineer positions to three (3) Firefighter/ Paramedic positions, with such personnel changes occurring upon the resignation or retirement of the current Captain and Engineer personnel. The annual amount of Savings shall be detailed in the annual budget prepared pursuant to Section 6.2, with the portion of the Savings attributable to personnel changes determined at the time the changes occur, based on the difference in salary and fully loaded benefits of such personnel.

The annual amount of the Savings, as shown on the annual budget, shall be credited to the amount of the annual contribution owed by the Town of Ross pursuant to Section 7.1. After the full Savings, by the elimination of one engine from the Authority’s vehicle replacement schedule, the planned transition of three (3) Captain positions to three (3) Firefighter/Paramedic positions, and the planned transition of three (3) Engineer positions to three (3) Firefighter/Paramedic positions has been realized, the Members’ Percentage Shares (Section 8.1) shall be adjusted to reflect the savings attributed to Ross. In addition, The Town of Ross will be billed by the Authority for actual legal costs (not to exceed $15,000) incurred by the Authority in connection with the preparation of this Third Amendment.

5. Except as expressly modified by this Third Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect and binding on the parties.

6. This Third Amendment may be executed on behalf of the respective Members in one or more counterparts, all of which collectively shall constitute one document and agreement.

ITEM 2.2 - ATTACHMENT 1
3 202
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment as of the date first written above.

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO, a municipal
corporation
By: _____________________________
Alexis Fineman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk
TOWN OF FAIRFAX, a municipal corporation
By: _____________________________
Stephanie Hellman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk

SLEEPY HOLLOW FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT, an independent special district of
the State of California
By: _____________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________
Secretary
TOWN OF ROSS, a municipal corporation
By: _____________________________
Elizabeth Robbins, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk
ITEM 2.2 - ATTACHMENT 1
4 203
ITEM 2.2 - ATTACHMENT 2
Item 2.1

ROSS VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT
For the Meeting of October 11, 2023
To: Board Of Directors
From: Dan Mahoney, Interim Fire Chief
Subject: Receive Staff Report Presented to Labor Management Subcommittee and Consider Recommendation From Labor Management Subcommittee Relating to Increased Staffing per The "2022 Staffing/Deployment" Side Letter.

Recommendation Includes a Funding Plan and a Position Start Date.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Board receive the staff report (see below) presented to the “Labor Management Subcommittee” and consider the recommendation from the “Labor Management Subcommittee” relating to increased staffing per the "2022 Staffing/Deployment" side letter. The recommendation includes a funding plan and position start date.

At the October 5, 2023 “Labor Management Subcommittee” meeting, a motion was passed, by unanimous vote, to provide a recommendation to the Board.

The recommendation is as follows:

1. Funding Plan: Option 1 was chosen and states “Each Member agency will begin paying their respective “percentage share” from the position date of hire.”

2. Position Start Date: July 1, 2024
This recommendation was based on the following staff report presented at the October 5, 2023 Labor Management Subcommittee meeting.

BACKGROUND:

Since the creation of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in 1982, the Ross Valley Fire Department’s (Department) response model formerly relied on and was augmented by a large group of local volunteer firefighters who responded to incidents, such as structure or vegetation fires, to provide assistance to the Department’s two-person engine company deployment model. Additionally, many of our full-time personnel lived in the communities our department serves and they too would respond to incidents off-duty. The ability to use 204
Item 2.1