San Anselmo City Council
March 12, 2024

Eileen Burke
Mayor
Tarrell Kullaway
Vice Mayor
Steve Burdo
Council Member
Brian Colbert
Council Member
Alexis Fineman
Council Member
525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-4600 | www.townofsananselmo.org
March 12, 2023
The Honorable Senator Laphonza Butler
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Senator Alex Padilla
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Congressman Jared Huffman
United States House of Representatives
1527 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Subject: Letter of Support for the County of Marin’s $2,500,000 Congressionally Directed Spending Request for the Fairfax-San Anselmo Children’s Center, a low-income-serving childcare center
Dear Senator Butler, Senator Padilla, Congressmember Huffman, On behalf of the Town of San Anselmo, I would like to express our support for the County of Marin’s project request of $2.5 million for much-needed capital improvements for the Fairfax-San Anselmo Children’s Center, which provides subsidized childcare to more than 110 low-income children in Marin.

San Anselmo is a small town with a family-centered community. People move to San Anselmo for its friendly neighborhoods, great schools and charming downtown.

It is well-known how expensive the cost of living in the Bay Area is; especially in Marin County.

This is why safety-net, public assistance programs are essential to ensure that those in Marin’s service economy, education, nonprofits and other low-wage jobs are able to live in the communities they serve.

State-subsidized childcare slots for low-income families are a critical safety net. Marin County has the second highest cost of childcare in the state; $2,600/month for infant care and $2,315 for preschool. A state-subsidized childcare slot therefore provides essential support for parents who 165

may otherwise not be able to afford childcare; enabling them to continue employment, education, or pursue other opportunities while ensuring their children receive high-quality care and early childhood education. To qualify for a subsidized childcare slot, a family of four must earn less than $96,300; which is 47% lower than the Marin countywide household median income of $142,019.

The Fairfax-San Anselmo Children’s Center (FSACC) is the oldest standing state-subsidized childcare center in Marin County (operating since 1973), providing 110 children from 90 lowincome families with year-round childcare. More than 3 in 4 of the children served by the Children’s Center are children of color, compared with just 20% of residents countywide.

Children served by the FSACC come from the Ross Valley and other parts of central Marin; including the working-class Canal neighborhood in San Rafael. More than 90% of Canal residents are Hispanic – compared with 66% of all Marin residents who identify as White. The average household income in the Canal is roughly a third of the rest of the County.

Last year, the future of the Fairfax-San Anselmo Children’s Center faced a great deal of uncertainty. The Center, which does not own its property, but leases it from the Ross Valley School District – faced possible closure when the school district moved to terminate the Center’s lease. The property needs major renovations to address deferred maintenance, ensure future seismic and fire safety for long-term sustainability. Without an identified funding source for needed facility renovations, the School District voted to evict the Center from the property.

The community rallied around the Center, and to prevent closure and the loss of its 110 subsidized childcare slots, a deal was agreed to have the school district sell the property to an intermediary nonprofit, which will then lease it to the FSACC, to ensure its continued operation as a subsidized childcare center.

The project has broad local support, and the County of Marin, Marin Community Foundation, and the Towns of Fairfax and San Anselmo have contributed significant funding towards the purchase of the property and immediate repairs needed (Phase 1). However, funding is needed for Phase 2 renovations which include seismic retrofitting, HVAC, abatement and other upgrades which will ensure the Center can continue to serve thousands of children in Marin for years to come. Marin cannot afford to lose the Fairfax-San Anselmo Children’s Center, and the 110 subsidized slots it provides (12% of the 950 total slots in Marin). Especially when more than 900 eligible, low-income children in Marin remain on the waiting list for a subsidized slot.

We support this project and the $2.5 million in federal funds requested that would fill the Center’s critical funding gap for the second phase of needed renovations. I urge your full and fair consideration of the importance of this funding request. Please contact Town Manager David Donery at [email protected] if you need more information.

Sincerely,
Eileen Burke, Mayor
Town of San Anselmo, CA
166
Updated 3-4-2024
Fairfax-San Anselmo Children’s Center
$ 2 . 5 M C O N G R E S SI O N A L L Y D I R EC T E D S P E N DI N G R EQ U E S T F O R C E NT E R W HI C H S ER V E S 1 1 0 L O W- I NC O M E C HI L D C A R E S L O T S County of Marin
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
415 473 6358 T
www.marincounty.gov
Katie Rice

C O U N T Y S U P E R V I S O R ,
D I S T R I C T 2
Stephanie Hellman

P R O J E C T C O N S U L T A N T
Heidi Tomsky

D I R E C T O R , F A I R F A X - S A N
A N S E L M O C H I L D R E N ’S C E N T E R
Federal funding request
contact:

Talia Smith,
Principal Analyst
[email protected]
Serving Marin’s low-income
families for more than 50 years
Since 1973, the Fairfax San Anselmo
Children’s Center has been one of few
subsidized childcare centers in Marin,
currently serving 110, or 12% of the
County’s total subsidized childcare slots.

To qualify for a subsidized childcare slot, a
family of 4 must earn less than $96,300;
47% lower than the countywide median of
$142,019. More than 75% of those served
by the Center are children of color.

Subsidized slots critically enable lowerincome families to afford to stay in Marin and in the workforce, whereas otherwise,
childcare for them would be unaffordable.

Community effort to save Center
Last year, the future of the Center was in
peril. The Center leases the property from
the Ross Valley School District (RVSD).

Without funding for needed repairs, RVSD
issued a termination to the lease and in
early 2024 voted to evict the Center. Marin
cannot afford to lose the Center and its
110 subsidized childcare slots, when more
than 800 eligible, low-income children
are currently on the countywide waitlist.

After a long period of exploring alternative
sites and options, a group of community
members convened to develop a creative
funding and sale proposal. To prevent
closure, the RVSD and the Center agreed to
a path forward which includes selling the
property to an intermediary nonprofit, which
will then lease the facility to the Center to
allow it to continue its operations. The
County, Marin Community Foundation, Town
of Fairfax and other benefactors raised more
than $2M for the property purchase.

Facility renovations needed
There is a commitment that, after the
property transfer, the facility and campus
renovations will commence. The childcare
facility needs major renovations to address
deferred maintenance and ensure future
seismic and fire safety for long-term
sustainability.

The 50-year old facility needs major renovations.

From October 2023 to January 2024 the
Center had more than 15 site visits by
architects, engineers and construction
experts to design a renovations plan to
modernize the facility. This plan allows
continuous childcare operations without
relocating or use of temporary buildings;
renovations will prioritize safety and
accessibility work in two phases:

Phase 1 (2024-25): redesign of the
parking lot, fire access, ADA upgrades,
bathrooms and lower wing ($3M)
Phase 2 (2025-26): Upper wing and
multi-purpose room, including roof,
bathrooms, HVAC, abatement,
electrical and lighting ($3-5M)
$2.5M Federal funds requested
The project has broad local support, and
to date, funding contributed to it has all
been local dollars from the County, cities,
Community Foundation, and private
donations. However, there is a significant
funding gap for the needed renovations.
$2.5M of federal funding is respectfully
requested to support Phase 2:
$2,0M Acquisition (underway) Local
$3,0 Phase 1 renovations Local
$1,0 Phase 2 renovations Local
$2,5 Phase 2 renovations Federal
$8,5M TOTAL
167
168
From: Nicole Estrada
To: Town Council
Subject: Fairfax San Anselmo children’s center
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:29:33 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
I am writing in support of giving FSACC money towards acquiring the Deer Park property. I am a low income resident of San Anselmo and both our children have gone to RSVD schools during elementary and middle school.

They are now students at Archie Williams high school and both volunteer at FSACC during their summers and breaks.

Without FSACC I would have never been able to work or afford living in San Anselmo. They not only provide quality childcare but have provided us a culturally diverse safe space for us to feel a part of the Fairfax/San Anselmo community.

Thank you for your time and support of FSACC
The Estrada family: 458 Laurel Ave San Anselmo
Sent from my iPhone
169
From: Tiffany McElroy
To: Serge Avila
Subject: Re: Fairfax-San Anselmo Children"s Center
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:24:56 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Council Members of San Anselmo,
I am writing as a member of the San Anselmo Racial Equity Committee, to urge the council to pledge $25,000.00 to the Fairfax San Anselmo Children's Center to purchase the property, in order to keep the center open to local families.

There are few programs in the entire county, never mind in our immediate community, that serve and uplift marginalized families both racially and economically. This school is a space in our community where children are provided access to services that other preschools in the area do not provide. We believe this is the environment we all have the responsibility to cultivate in Marin.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tiffany McElroy
170
From: Larry Bragman
To: Town Council
Subject: Support Town of San Anselmo Grant for the Fairfax San Anselmo Children"s Center Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:20:53 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Mayor Burke and Council:

I am writing in support of the proposal to approve a $25,000 grant for the Fairfax San Anselmo Children's Center.

FSACC is in a critical stage of finalizing a purchase of the Deer Park Campus. One of its central goals is to begin safety and modernization improvements to the property.

The proposed grant would have a meaningful impact on the costs of the project.

More importantly, approval of the grant is an indispensable vote of confidence which underscores the widespread community support for the Children's Center. The center provides critical foundational benefits for the children it serves with early education, socialization and nutritional support. Your grant is really an investment in the future that will be repaid many times over by the enhanced health and academic outcomes of its students.

I hope you'll stand with us as we go forward with this exciting opportunity. Thanks, Larry Bragman
--
Law Office of Lawrence Bragman
912 Lootens Place, Second Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 459-6060
(415) 459-6067 (Fax)
***NOTE***
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for use by the individual or entity named above.

The message contains confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the original message. Thank you. 171
Item #: 2.1

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 2.1
MEETING DATE: March 12, 2024
AGENDA TITLE: Receive 2022 San Anselmo GHG Inventory Report and Presentation
FROM: Sean Youra, Climate Action Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the 2022 San Anselmo GHG Inventory report and presentation.

BACKGROUND
Each year, greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory reports are completed for all Marin Climate & Energy Partnership (MCEP) member jurisdictions including San Anselmo. These reports are prepared by Christine O’Rourke, Sustainability Coordinator for MCEP, with review and feedback from staff. Annual GHG inventories help the Town to monitor its progress in meeting its local GHG reduction goal to reduce emissions 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and meeting the statewide goal to reduce emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The inventories calculate individual GHGs (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) and convert each GHG emission to a standard metric, known as “carbon dioxide equivalents” or CO2e, to provide an apple-to-apples comparison among the various emissions. GHG emissions are reported as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e.

The inventories include emissions generated from the community that are categorized into seven sectors:
 Built Environment – Electricity
 Built Environment – Natural Gas
 Transportation
 Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment
 Waste
 Water
 Wastewater
Consumption-based emissions such as from air travel and the production of goods produced outside the Town are not included in the inventories. 172
Item #: 2.1

DISCUSSION
The latest San Anselmo GHG inventory report for which data is available for the year 2022 is attached (Attachment 1). The GHG inventory report shows that emissions decreased by 37 percent in 2022 compared to 2005 emissions levels, and 25 percent compared to 1990 levels. San Anselmo still needs to reduce emissions by 13,979 MTCO2e to meet its local target for 2030 and 10,330 MTCO2e to meet the State target for 2030. Table 2 in the report shows the emissions from each sector from 2005 through 2022. San Anselmo has been making steady progress in reducing emissions with an average two percent reduction per year over the past couple of years.

The largest emissions reductions have occurred in the Built Environment – Electricity sector and Transportation sector. Emissions from purchased electricity consumption have declined 88 percent since 2005 largely due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity as PG&E electricity was 95 percent GHG-free in 2022 and MCE Light Green electricity was 95 percent GHG-free in 2022. Reductions in transportation emissions have largely resulted from the steadily increasing proportion of registered zeroemissions vehicles (ZEVs) including in San Anselmo with about 9.3 percent of registered light-duty vehicles being ZEVs in 2022. The transportation sector continues to be the largest sector in terms of total emissions in San Anselmo, accounting for 58 percent of emissions, followed by the Built Environment – Natural Gas sector at 34 percent of total emissions.

To meet both the Town and State GHG reduction targets for 2030, the Town will need to prioritize actions that reduce emissions from both the Transportation and Built Environment – Natural Gas sectors.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s acceptance of the 2022 GHG inventory 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).

This report is consistent with the following measures of the adopted CAP:
 I-2: Update GHG Emissions Inventories: Update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for community emissions annually and every five years for government operations.
173
Item #: 2.1

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – 2022 GHG Inventory Report
Attachment 2 – Presentation Slides
174

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO

COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORY FOR THE YEAR 2022
January 2024
Prepared by the
Marin Climate & Energy Partnership
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
175

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 2
PURPOSE OF INVENTORY 2
GENERAL METHODOLOGY 2
COMMUNITY INVENTORY 4
COMMUNITY INVENTORY SUMMARY 4
PER CAPITA EMISSIONS 6
SIGNIFICANT SOURCES OF EMISSIONS 7
BUILT ENVIRONMENT - ELECTRICITY 7
BULT ENVIRONMENT - NATURAL GAS 8
TRANSPORTATION 9
WASTE DISPOSAL 9
WATER USE 10
WASTEWATER 11

APPENDIX A-1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
176

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
San Anselmo publishes annual community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates through the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership (MCEP). Annual inventories help the Town to monitor its progress in meeting its local GHG reduction goal to reduce community emissions to 54% below 2005 emissions by 2030 (45% below 1990 levels) and carbon neutrality by 2045 as well as the statewide goal to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In addition to the community inventories, MCEP periodically prepares inventories for government operations emissions. Municipal emissions accounted for less than 1% of community emissions when the municipal inventory was last conducted for year 2016.

This report reviews emissions generated from the community from 2005 through 2022, the most recent year data is available. The inventory shows that the San Anselmo community has reduced emissions 37% since 2005. Emissions dropped from about 80,119 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005 to 50,833 MTCO2e in 2022, which is equivalent to 25% below 1990 levels. The community emissions trend and targets are shown below in Figure

1. San Anselmo needs to reduce emissions another 13,979 MTCO2e to meet the Town’s Climate Action Plan target for 2030 and another 40,618 MTCO2e to meet the State’s net zero emissions target for 2045, which includes a GHG mitigation target of 85% below 1990 levels.

FIGURE 1: SAN ANSELMO GHG EMISSIONS AND TARGETS
Recognizing the need for a collaborative approach to greenhouse gas reductions, City, Town, and county leaders launched the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) in 2007. The Town of San Anselmo is a member of MCEP and works with representatives from the County of Marin and the other Marin cities and towns to address and streamline the implementation of a variety of greenhouse gas reduction measures. Funding for this inventory was provided by the Marin County Energy Watch Partnership, which administers public goods charges collected by PG&E.

Community inventories are available on the MCEP website at marinclimate.org and are used to update the Marin Sustainability Tracker.
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
MTCO2e
The Takeaway: San Anselmo
needs to accelerate
emissions reductions from
transportation and the built
environment. Though
community emissions are
down 37% from 2005, the
community still needs to
reduce emissions another

2030 State Goal
2030 Local Goal

2045 State Goal

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
177

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF INVENTORY
The objective of this greenhouse gas emissions inventory is to identify the sources and quantify the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the activities of the San Anselmo community in 2022. This inventory provides a comparison to 2005 and estimated 1990 emissions and identifies the sectors where significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have occurred. In some instances, previous year emissions were updated with new data and/or recalculated to ensure the same methodology was employed for all inventory years.

GENERAL METHODOLOGY
This inventory uses the national standard for the accounting and reporting of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.2 (July 2019). Quantification methodologies, emission factors, and activity and source data are detailed in the appendix.

Community emissions are categorized according to seven sectors:
 Built Environment - Electricity
 Built Environment – Natural Gas
 Transportation
 Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment
 Waste
 Water
 Wastewater

CALCULATING EMISSIONS
Emissions are quantified by multiplying the measurable activity data – e.g., kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, gallons of diesel or gasoline, etc. – by emissions factors specific to the greenhouse gas-generating source.

Most emissions factors are the same from year to year. Emission factors for electricity, however, change from year to year due to the specific sources that are used to produce electricity. For example, electricity that is produced from coal generates more greenhouse gases than electricity that is generated from natural gas and therefore has a higher emissions factor. Electricity that is produced solely from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind has an emissions factor of zero.

This inventory calculates individual greenhouse gases – i.e., carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – and converts each greenhouse gas emission to a standard metric, known as “carbon dioxide equivalents” or CO2e, to provide an apple-to-apples comparison among the various emissions. Table 1 shows the greenhouse gases identified in this inventory and their global warming potential (GWP), a measure of the amount of warming each gas causes when compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide over 100 years. Methane, for example, is 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide over 100 years; therefore, one metric ton of methane is equivalent to 28 metric tons of carbon Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
178
dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions are reported in this inventory as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e.

TABLE 1: GREENHOUSE GASES
Gas Chemical
Formula Emission Source Global Warming Potential
Carbon Dioxide CO2
Combustion of natural gas, gasoline,
diesel, and other fuels 1
Methane CH4
Combustion, anaerobic decomposition
of organic waste in landfills and
wastewater treatment
28 Nitrous Oxide N2O Combustion, wastewater treatment 265 Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014), 100-year values

TYPES OF EMISSIONS
Emissions from each of the greenhouse gases can come in a number of forms:
 Stationary or mobile combustion resulting from the on-site combustion of fuels (natural gas, diesel, gasoline, etc.) to generate heat or electricity, or to power vehicles and equipment.  Purchased electricity resulting from the generation of power from utilities outside the jurisdictional boundary.
 Fugitive emissions resulting from the unintentional release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, such as methane from waste decomposition.
 Process emissions from physical or chemical processing of a material, such as wastewater treatment.

UNDERSTANDING TOTALS
The totals listed in the tables and discussed in the report are a summation of emissions using available estimation methods. Each inventoried sector may have additional emissions sources associated with them that were unaccounted for due to a lack of data or robust quantification methods. For example, consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions associated with air travel and the production of goods outside the community’s boundary are not included in the inventory. Additionally, the community inventory does not include refrigerants released into the atmosphere from the use of air conditioning in cars and buildings.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
179

COMMUNITY INVENTORY

COMMUNITY INVENTORY SUMMARY
In 2005, activities in San Anselmo resulted in approximately 80,119 metric tons of CO2e.1 In 2022, those activities resulted in approximately 50,833 metric tons of CO2e, a reduction of 37% from 2005 levels, which is equivalent to 25% below 1990 levels.

The community inventory tracks emissions in seven sectors:
• The Built Environment – Electricity sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity in San Anselmo homes and commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities. • The Built Environment – Natural Gas sector represents emissions generated from the use of natural gas in San Anselmo homes and commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities. Propane used as a primary heating source is also included, although it represents less than 1% of emissions in this sector. • The Transportation sector includes tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicle trips originating and ending in San Anselmo, as well as a share of tailpipe emissions generated by medium and heavy-duty vehicles travelling on Marin County roads. The sector also includes emissions from Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit buses as these vehicles travel within San Anselmo’s boundaries. Electricity used to power electric vehicles is embedded in electricity consumption reported in the Built Environment - Electricity sector. • The Waste sector represents fugitive methane emissions that are generated over time as organic material decomposes in the landfill. Although most methane is captured or flared off at the landfill, approximately 25% escapes into the atmosphere.
• The Off-Road sector represents emissions from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel from the operation of off-road vehicles and equipment used for construction and landscape maintenance. • The Water sector represents emissions from energy used to pump, treat, and convey potable water from the water source to the San Anselmo water users.
• The Wastewater sector represents stationary, process and fugitive greenhouse gases that are created during the treatment of wastewater generated by the community as well as emissions created from electricity used to convey and treat wastewater.

Table 2 shows how emissions in each sector have changed since 2005. The greatest reductions have occurred in the Transportation sector (13,904 MTCO2e), followed by the Built Environment – Electricity sector (9,888 MTCO2e) and the Built Environment – Natural Gas sector (2,435 MTCO2e). The likely reasons for the largest emissions decreases are described in the remainder of this report.
1 Baseline and historical emissions are recalculated in the annual inventory to integrate new data and improved calculation methodologies and to ensure consistent comparison across each year. For this reason, emission levels may differ from levels reported in previous inventories.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
180
TABLE 2: EMISSIONS SUMMARY BY SECTOR (MTCO2E), 2005 THROUGH 2022 Year
Built Environment - ElectricityBuilt Environment– Natural Gas TransportationWasteOff-RoadWaterWastewaterTotal
%
Change
from
2005
%
Change
from
19902
1990 (est.)1 67,505
2005 11,185 19,621 43,244 4,101 1,174 510 284 80,119
2006 10,485 20,300 42,278 4,063 1,227 446 274 79,072 -1% 2007 14,266 19,329 41,776 3,653 1,453 599 344 81,420 2% 2008 14,311 20,108 39,705 3,041 1,191 552 351 79,260 -1% 2009 12,819 19,568 37,939 2,617 1,004 555 310 74,812 -7% 2010 9,698 19,801 35,247 2,566 897 318 254 68,781 -14%
2011 8,906 20,692 35,158 2,504 871 225 235 68,591 -14%
2012 9,264 19,428 35,821 2,602 855 243 251 68,464 -15%
2013 8,457 19,028 34,948 2,635 846 283 246 66,444 -17%
2014 7,555 15,823 34,226 2,665 841 255 212 61,576 -23%
2015 7,193 16,121 33,314 2,764 833 200 208 60,632 -24%
2016 5,895 16,840 32,465 3,253 821 149 190 59,613 -26%
2017 3,134 17,926 32,370 3,398 806 43 142 57,820 -28%
2018 3,287 17,922 31,966 3,019 786 0 127 57,106 -29%
2019 3,345 18,090 30,833 2,875 762 0 107 56,011 -30% -18% 2020 2,264 17,240 29,983 2,645 726 0 106 52,965 -34% -22% 2021 1,965 16,953 30,001 2,185 767 0 106 51,976 -35% -24% 2022 1,297 17,186 29,340 2,099 807 0 104 50,833 -37% -25% Change
from 2005 -9,888 -2,435 -13,904 -2,002 -366 -510 -180 -29,285 % Change
from 2005 -88% -12% -32% -49% -31% -100% -63% -37%
1 Per California Air Resources Board guidance, 1990 levels are estimated at 15% below 2005 levels. 2 In 2019, San Anselmo adopted a Climate Action Plan that established a goal to reduce emissions 45% below 1990 levels by 2030.

This column will track that progress over time.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
181
Figure 2 shows the relative contribution of emissions from these sectors in 2022. Transportation emissions represent the largest share of communitywide emissions (58%), while the use of natural gas and propane in the Built Environment accounts for 34% of emissions.

FIGURE 2: EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2022

PER CAPITA EMISSIONS
Per capita emissions can be a useful metric for measuring progress in reducing greenhouse gases and for comparing one community’s emissions with neighboring cities and against regional and national averages. That said, due to differences in emission inventory methods, it can be difficult to produce directly comparable per capita emissions numbers. Per capita emission rates may be compared among Marin jurisdictions, although some jurisdictions may have higher rates due to the presence of commercial and industrial uses.

Dividing the total communitywide GHG emissions by residents yields a result of 6.6 metric tons CO2e per capita in 2005. Per capita emissions decreased 39% between 2005 and 2022, falling to 4.1 metric tons per person. Figure 3 shows the trend in per capita emissions over time. It is important to understand that this number is not the same as the carbon footprint of the average individual living in San Anselmo, which would include consumption-based emissions resulting from air travel, the manufacturing and distribution of products and food, etc.

FIGURE 3: EMISSIONS PER CAPITA
Built Environment - Electricity
2%
Transportation
58%
Waste 4%
Water & Wastewater
<1%
Off-Road 1%
Built Environment -
Natural Gas 34%

6.6 6.5 6.7 6.5

6.1 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3

4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 MTCO2e Per Person
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
182

SIGNIFICANT SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
The following sections provide a year-by-year analysis of the changes in source GHG emissions in the Built Environment, Transportation, Waste, Water, and Wastewater sectors. Whenever possible, each section discusses the change in emissions from previous years and the likely influence of state and local programs or policies and external factors on reducing emissions.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT - ELECTRICITY
Purchased electricity use in homes and businesses in San Anselmo decreased 22% between 2005 and 2022. 2 Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity consumption decreased 88% since 2005, as shown in Figure 4. This is primarily due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity. PG&E has been steadily increasing the amount of renewable energy in its electricity mix. In 2022, PG&E electricity came from a mix of renewable (38%), large hydroelectric (8%), nuclear (49%), and natural gas (5%) energy sources and was 95% GHG-free.3 MCE Light Green electricity came primarily from renewable (60%) and hydroelectric (40%) sources and was 95% GHG-free.4 In 2022, about 5.9% of MCE electricity purchased by San Anselmo customers was 100% renewable Deep Green electricity, including electricty purchased by the Town government.

FIGURE 4: ELECTRICITY USE AND EMISSIONS
2 Due to California Public Utility Commission data privacy rules, PG&E-generated electricity usage by commercial customers was not reported in 2022. This artificially reduces the total amount of electricity purchased by the community, but most likely does not significantly affect the overall GHG emissions due to the high GHG-free content of PG&E electricity in 2022.
3 PG&E 2022 Power Content Label, https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/billing-andassistance/power-content-label.pdf. Nuclear and large hydro sources are considered GHG-free. 4 MCE 2022 Power Content Label, https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/energy-suppliers/ 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
0 10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 MTCO2e
kWh
Electricity Use Electricity Emissions
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
183

BUILT ENVIRONMENT - NATURAL GAS
Natural gas is used in residential, commercial, and industrial buildingsto provide space and water heating and power appliances. Use of natural gas is highly variable depending on the weather conditions. This variability has led natural gas use consumption in San Anselmo to fluctuate from year to year, from a high of 3.8 million therms in 2011 to a low of 2.9 million therms in 2014. Reduction in energy use may also be attributed to energy efficiency programs and rebates, local green building ordinances, and State building codes.

Natural gas consumption increased 1% between 2021 and 2022 and was 12% below the 2005 level in 2022. Unlike electricity emissions which reflect the power content mix, natural gas emissions track the amount of natural gas consumed (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5: NATURAL GAS USE AND EMISSIONS

TRANSPORTATION
Transportation activities accounted for approximately 58% of San Anselmo’s emissions in 2022. According to the transportation model and annual data the Town uses to calculate passenger and commercial vehicle miles, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have decreased approximately 14% since 2005 and were essentially flat between 2021 and 2022.

Transportation emissions decreased 32% since 2005 due to the reduction in VMT as well as more fuel-efficient and alternatively fueled cars (Figure 6). As shown in Figure 7, most transportation emissions come from passenger vehicles, accounting for 85% of transportation emissions in 2022. Marin County continues to be a leader in zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) – second only to Santa Clara County – with 15,449 ZEVs in Marin at the end of 2022, or about 7.5% of registered automobiles. ZEVs include battery electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and zero-emission motorcycles. San Anselmo had 1,107 ZEVs by the end of 2022 or 9.3% of registered lightduty vehicles. 5 San Anselmo’s Climate Action Plan targets 3,000 ZEVs registered to San Anselmo residents by 2030, and 25% of passenger vehicles registered in Marin and travelling in San Anselmo to be ZEVs by 2030. 5 764 EVs, 340 PHEVs, and 3 FCEVs.
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
0 500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 MTCO2e
Therms
Natural Gas Use Natural Gas Emissions
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
184
While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how each land use and transportation policy affects emissions, the Town has undertaken many efforts to reduce transportation emissions. The Town encourages workforce housing through its Housing Element and has made improvements to the transportation network to make it easier for residents to bicycle, walk, and take public transportation. The Town has also promoted electric vehicle adoption by installing publicly available EV charging stations and adopting green building codes that require more EV charging stations to be installed for new construction and remodels of existing buildings than State requirements.

FIGURE 6: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS FIGURE 7: TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY, 2022 Note: Public transportation represents emissions from Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit fixed-route buses.

WASTE DISPOSAL
Landfilled waste generated by the San Anselmo community decreased 4% between 2021 and 2022 as shown in Figure 8 (based on countywide disposal data). Total landfilled waste (including alternative daily cover)6 was 25% 6 Alternative daily cover is cover material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 MTCO2e
Million Miles
Vehicle Miles Traveled Transportation Emissions
Passenger Vehicles
85%
Commercial Vehicles
14%
Public Transportation
1%
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
185
below the 2005 baseline in 2022. Emissions from waste disposal decreased 49% due to the lower organic content of disposed waste and material used for alternative daily cover. Marin Sanitary Service, Zero Waste Marin, and the Town continue to provide outreach and education to residents and businesses on proper waste sorting and the Town continues to install more public multi-stream waste receptacles.

FIGURE 8: DISPOSED WASTE AND EMISSIONS

WATER USE
Per capita water use declined 30% since 2005, as shown in Figure 9 (based on Marin Water district-wide data).

Emissions, which are based on an estimate of energy used to pump, treat, and convey water from the water source to the Town limits, dropped 100% between 2005 and 2022 due to the water agencies’ use of carbon-free electricity.

Marin Water purchases MCE Deep Green for its electricity needs, and the Sonoma County Water Agency, which supplies approximately 25% of Marin Water’s water, uses renewable and carbon-free sources for its electricity.

FIGURE 9: PER CAPITA WATER USE
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 MTCO2e
Tons
Waste (tons) Waste (emissions)
142 144 145 146
132 126 124 130
139
117 112
101 106 110 107
116
101 100
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Gallons per Capita per Day
Source: Marin Water
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
186
FIGURE 10: WATER CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS
Marin Water provides rebates and programs to reduce water use. Rebates are available to replace fixtures with highefficiency clothes washers and to purchase cisterns and rain barrels. Marin Water provides free home and landscape water-use evaluations as well as free high-efficiency showerheads and faucet aerators. The Town promotes Resilient Neighborhoods Climate Action Workshops that teach residents how to conserve water among other climate actions.

WASTEWATER
The Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA), located in San Rafael, has two anaerobic digesters that process primary sludge, thickened waste-activated sludge, and organic waste to produce biogas. The biogas is used to generate heat and renewable electricity via the cogeneration system. CMSA normally produces 100% of the facility’s power needs, and, at times, exports renewable energy to the grid, which is procured by MCE. As a result, emissions from the use of energy in the wastewater treatment process have essentially been eliminated.

Greenhouse gas emissions are also created from the wastewater treatment process itself. These emissions have increased 9% since 2005 as San Anselmo’s population has increased. Overall, wastewater emissions have declined 63% since 2005.
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 MTCO2e
Million Gallons
Water Use (MG) Water (emissions)
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
187
APPENDIX: COMMUNITY INVENTORY
Community GHG Emissions Summary Table
Jurisdiction: Town of San Anselmo Inventory Year: 2022
Population: 12,515 (CA Department of Finance) Date Prepared: January 31, 2024 Number of Households: 5,246 (CA Department of Finance) Reporting Framework: Communitywide Activities ID
Emissions Type
Source
or
Activity
Included,
Required
Activities
Included,
Optional
Activities
Excluded
(IE, NA,
NO or NE) Notes
Emissions
(MTCO2e)

1.0 Built Environment

1.1 Use of fuel in residential and commercial stationary combustion equipment Both ● 17,186

1.2 Industrial stationary sources Source NE

1.3 Power generation in the community Source NO

1.4 Use of electricity in the community Activity ● Includes transmission and distribution losses 1,297

1.5 District heating/cooling facilities in the community Source NE

1.6 Use of district heating/cooling facilities in the community Activity NE

1.7 Industrial process emissions in the community Source NO

1.8 Refrigerant leakage in the community Source NE

2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources

2.1 On-road passenger vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activitybased method instead

2.2 On-road passenger vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 25,110

2.3 On-road freight and service vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activitybased method instead

2.4 On-road freight and service vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 4,019

2.5 On-road transit vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 211

2.6 Transit rail vehicles operating with the community boundary Source NO

2.7 Use of transit rail travel by the community Activity NE Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
188

2.8 Inter-city passenger rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NO

2.9 Freight rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NO

2.10 Marine vessels operating within the community boundary Source NE

2.11 Use of ferries by the community Activity NE

2.12 Off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment operating within the community boundary Source ● 807

2.13 Use of air travel by the community Activity NE

3.0 Solid Waste

3.1 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities in the community Source NE

3.2 Generation and disposal of solid waste by the community Activity ● Includes alternative daily cover 2,099

4.0 Water and Wastewater

4.1 Operation of water delivery facilities in the community Source IE Energy use is included in 1.1 and 1.4

4.2 Use of energy associated with use of potable water by the community Activity ● 0

4.3 Use of energy associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity ● 0

4.4 Process emissions from operation of wastewater treatment facilities located in the community Source NO

4.5 Process emissions associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity ● 104

4.6 Use of septic systems in the community Source NE

5.0 Agriculture

5.1 Domesticated animal production Source NE

5.2 Manure decomposition and treatment Source NE

6.0 Upstream Impacts of Communitywide Activities

6.1 Upstream impacts of fuels used in stationary applications by the community Activity NE

6.2 Upstream and transmission and distribution (T&D) impacts of purchased electricity used by the community Activity IE Transmission and distribution losses included in 1.4

6.3 Upstream impacts of fuels used by water and wastewater facilities for water used and wastewater generated within the community boundary
Activity IE

6.4 Upstream impacts of select materials (concrete, food, paper, carpets, etc.) sued by the whole community. Activity NE Legend
IE – Included Elsewhere: Emissions for this activity are estimated and presented in another category of the inventory. The category where these emissions are included should be noted in the explanation.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
189
NE – Not Estimated: Emissions occur but have not been estimate or reported (e.g., data unavailable, effort required not justifiable).

NA – Not Applicable: The activity occurs but does not cause emissions; explanation should be provided.

NO – Not Occurring: The source or activity does not occur or exist within the community.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
190
Community Emissions Data Sources and Calculation Methodologies Sector/ID Emissions Source Source and/or Activity Data Emission Factor and Methodology

1.0 Built Environment

1.1 Stationary
Combustion
Stationary Combustion
(CO2, CH4 & N2O)
Known fuel use (meter readings by PG&E) and estimated fuel use (American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, and U.S.

Energy Information Administration Household Site Fuel
Consumption data).

Default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type (U.S.

Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Tables B.1 and B.3). U.S.

Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.1.1 and BE.1.2.

1.4 Electricity Use
Electricity Use (CO2, CH4
& N2O)
Known electricity use (meter readings by PG&E and MCE) and estimated direct access electricity consumption. Commercial PG&E electricity consumption failed the CPUC 15/15 rule and was estimated in this report using alternative sources.

Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E and MCE) and eGrid subregion default emission factors. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.2.1.

Electric Power
Transmission and
Distribution Losses
(CO2, CH4 & N2O)
Estimated electricity grid loss for Western region from eGrid. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.4.1.

2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources

2.2 On-Road
Passenger
Vehicle
Operation
On-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated passenger vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, CAPVMT Data Portal 2.0 (mtcanalytics.org)).

CO2 for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2021 v.1.0.2 model. Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.1.A.

On-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, CAPVMT Data Portal 2.0 (mtcanalytics.org)).

CH4 and N2O for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2021 v.1.0.2 model. Passenger vehicle emissions
calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.1.A.

2.4 On-Road
Freight and
Service Truck
Freight
Operation
On-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the
boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing Plan Bay Area 2050).

CO2 for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the
EMFAC2021 v.1.0.2 model. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.2.A.

On-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the
boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing Plan Bay Area 2050).

CH4 and N2O for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2021 v.1.0.2 model. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.2.A.

2.5 On-Road
Transit
Operation
On-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit) and estimated diesel fuel efficiency for transit fleet (Golden Gate Transit). Fuel type provided by Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit.

Renewable diesel emission factor provided by NEXGEN. U.S.

Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.4.A.

On-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit) and estimated diesel fuel efficiency for transit fleet (Golden Gate Transit). Fuel type provided by Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit.

Renewable diesel emission factor provided by NEXGEN. U.S.

Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.4.B.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
191

2.12 Off-Road
Vehicles and
Equipment
Off-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD 2021 v.1.0.1 for Lawn and Garden and Construction equipment. All categories are
allocated by share of countywide households.

CO2 emissions calculated according U.S. Community Protocol v.

1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in Table TR.1.6.

Off-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD 2021 v.1.0.1 for Lawn and Garden and Construction equipment. All categories are
allocated by share of countywide households.

CH4 and N2O emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in the Local Government Operations Protocol Table G.11 and G.14.

3.0 Solid Waste

3.2 Solid Waste
Generation
and Disposal
Fugitive Emissions from
Landfilled Waste (CH4)
Estimated landfilled tons based on reporting to CalRecycle by Marin County Solid and Hazardous Waste JPA and allocated to jurisdiction based on share of countywide population. Waste characterization based on the Statewide Waste
Characterization Study (2008, 2014, 2018, and 2021) and Alternative Daily Cover by Jurisdiction of Origin and Material Type as reported to CalRecycle.

Emission factors calculated utilizing U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Report of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version

1.1, July 2013, Appendix E, Method SW.4.

4.0 Water and Wastewater

4.2 Water Supply
&
Conveyance,
Treatment
and
Distribution
Electricity Use (CO2) Water consumption data provided by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). Electricity consumption data provided by MMWD.

Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E, MCE and SCWA).

Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.14.

Electricity Use
(CH4 & N2O)
Water consumption data provided by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). Electricity consumption data provided by MMWD.
eGrid subregion default emission factors. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.14.

4.5 Treatment of
Wastewater
Stationary Emissions
from Combustion of
Digester Gas
(CH4)
Known amount of digester gas produced per day and known percent of methane in digester gas provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency.

Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.1.a.

Stationary Emissions
from Combustion of
Digester Gas
(N2O)
Known amount of digester gas produced per day and known percent of methane in digester gas provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency.

Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.2.a.

Process Emissions from
Wastewater Treatment
Plant without
Nitrification or
Denitrification
Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency.

Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.8.

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
192
Fugitive Emissions from
Effluent Discharge
(N2O)
Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Assumed
significant industrial or commercial input.

Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.12(alt).

Item 2.1 Attachment 1
Item 2.1 Attachment 1
193
Town of San Anselmo
2022 GHG Inventory Report March 12, 2024
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
194
Emissions by Source
Built Environment -
Electricity
2%
Transportation
58%
Waste 4%
Water &
Wastewater
<1%
Off-Road 1%
Built Environment
- Natural Gas 34%
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
195
Emissions Down 25% Since 1990
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1990
(est.)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 MTCO2e
2030 State Goal
2030 Local Goal
2045 State Goal
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
196
Sector Highlights
Since 2005…
 Electricity emissions down 88% due to lower carbon intensity of electricity  Natural gas emissions down 12%
 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) down 14%
 Transportation emissions down 32% due to better fuel efficiency and more ZEVs  7.5% ZEVs in Marin County in 2022
 9.3% ZEVs in San Anselmo in 2022
 Waste disposal in landfills down 25%
 Waste emissions down 49% due to lower organic content in landfilled waste Best opportunity to significantly reduce emissions further is to electrify everything – vehicles, hot water heaters, heating systems, and appliances Item 2.1 Attachment 2
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
197
Questions?
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
Item 2.1 Attachment 2
198
Item #: 2.2

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 2.2
MEETING DATE: March 12, 2024
AGENDA TITLE: Subcommittee for Sorich Commons
Partners/Memorial Park Recycled Water Proposal
FROM: William Messinger, Assistant Engineer
Sean Condry, Public Works Director
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council consider allowing the Mayor to appoint a subcommittee to examine the feasibility of the Sorich Commons recycled water proposal to supply irrigation water to Memorial Park.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Over the past two years Sorich Commons Partners (SCP) has been developing plans for a housing project adjacent to the Town Corporation Yard at 550 San Francisco Blvd.

The SCP project is in Marin County and will go through the County’s approval process.

Michael Folk who represents SCP has approached the Town to potentially acquire a portion of the Corporation Yard in exchange for providing the Town with the necessary infrastructure for recycled water and a supply of recycled water for use at Memorial Park.

On March 5th, 2024, Public Works staff met with Mike Folk from SCP and Drew Norton of Sherwood Engineers to further discuss the prospective Sorich Commons Recycled Water proposal. While the proposal can feasibly supply up to 50% of Memorial Park’s water there are logistics in terms of treatment and costs that need to be reviewed to determine if the proposal is viable. Currently the law requires the water to meet tertiary standards.

At the March 5th meeting, Drew Norton suggested there may be other alternatives to supply the Town water while the state recycled water use rules are under review and potentially may change allowing for less restrictive recycled water use. 199
Item #: 2.2
To facilitate further investigation of the feasibility of this proposal, staff recommends that the Mayor appoint an ad hoc subcommittee made up of less than a quorum of the Town Council to work with staff and to bring information back to the Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact is mostly staff time and some consultant time. Costs to cover consulting time come from the Engineering General Fund.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion and acceptance of this item 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).

The use of recycled water would be consistent with the Climate Action Plan goal of recycled water, Measure W-2: Municipal Water Use.
200
From: [email protected]
To: Town Council
Subject: Sorich Commons
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 6:22:23 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Councilmembers,
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but wanted to repeat the objection of the Sorich Park Area Residents, or SPAR, to selling part of the Town's Corp Yard to Mike Folk for his Sorich Commons development project. We are deeply concerned that the ninety units he is proposing will create major traffic problems on that narrow section of San Francisco Blvd, and even worsen the already terrible traffic at the Hub. Selling this land to Folk will facilitate this project without it having even started into the application process.

This proposal also reduces the amount of land available for the Town for its public works equipment and materials storage, as well as an area for the temporary storage of materials, debris, and equipment during an emergency. The "staging area" in Sorich Park should be landscaped and made available to the park, as is called for in the Master Plan for Sorich Park.

We are also concerned about Folk's plan to ship treated gray or black water to Memorial Park. This will require installing 3,000 feet of new water line and raises questions of water quality in a field used by children and dogs. Who would regularly monitor the water quality? Is the Town liable for installing and maintaining this extensive water line and ensuring the treated water is safe for a playing field? We urge you to wait at least until Folk presents detailed plans to the Planning Commission before taking any action on the proposal.

Brian Crawford, Chairperson, SPAR
415-407-5776
201
Item #: 2.3

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:2.3
MEETING DATE: March 12, 2024
AGENDA TITLE: Continued Discussion on Rent Stabilization FROM: Administration, Planning, Town Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Consider Rent Stabilization Ordinance policies and provide further direction to staff.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting on October 24, 2023, the Town Council reviewed the results of a community engagement process conducted during the fall of 2023 related to residential rental regulations. The staff report and related attachments from this meeting can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgranicus_production_attachment s.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fsananselmoca%2F627d61bd42d015fb67447e26f0b427a20.pdf&embedded=true Based on direction provided to staff following the October meeting, the Council received a report at their meeting on January 9, 2024 that outlined the components and decision points for a potential rent stabilization ordinance. The staff report and related attachments from this meeting can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgranicus_production_attachment s.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fsananselmoca%2F73b9507b0c2c43f601e93fb6699381ac0.pdf&embedded=true Staff now returns to the Council pursuant to its direction at the January meeting. Staff has revised a proposed draft Ordinance Template (attached) for the Council’s consideration, as further explained below. Staff seeks Council input regarding the draft Ordinance Template and direction regarding outstanding issues. Please note that for a more complete explanation of rent stabilization issues and applicable State laws, please refer to the previous staff reports linked above.
202
Item #: 2.3

DISCUSSION
A. Background.

As discussed at previous meetings, rent stabilization includes common terms and issues at a both the local and State level:

Rent Cap: The term “rent cap” refers to the maximum amount of rent a property owner may charge for residential property. State law (the California Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482) caps the maximum amount of rent throughout the State at 10% or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower, over 12 months. Local jurisdictions may adopt stricter rent caps for properties issued with a certificate of occupancy prior to 1995, consistent with State Costa Hawkins law. No local rent cap may be stricter than AB 1482 for post-1995 units. State law requires that rent may be increased to market rate upon a vacancy.

Base Rent: The term “base rent” refers to the reference point from which the lawful rent shall be determined and adjusted.

Fair Rate of Return Petition Process: Constitutional takings case law requires that property owners receive a “fair return” on property. Generally, allowable increases under both State law and local rent caps will provide a fair and reasonable return. However, to account for individual circumstances, local ordinances should contain a fair return petition process where a property owner may apply for an increased allowable rent.

Applicability: “Applicability” refers to what type of parcels/units are governed by a law.

B. Discussion Issues
The following is a summary of Council direction and points of consensus from the January 2024 meeting, and issues for further Council discussion and staff direction. • Annual Rent Cap
• Establishing “Base Rent” as of June 21, 2023, date of initial Council discussion • Fair Rate of Return Petition process
• Applicability (types of units subject to rent stabilization) • No Direct Charges for Utilities in Addition to Rent
• Consider Council adoption of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance or Ballot Measure for November 2024 General Election

1. Annual Rent Cap
The Town Council did not reach consensus on this issue. Staff seeks direction. 203
Item #: 2.3
Neighboring Jurisdictions
Locally, 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 has made the noted adjustment following community feedback they received. In Larkspur, the City Council has established a rent cap of 5% plus the annual CPI with a cap not to exceed 7%.

Both local examples are being challenged by referendum. The Larkspur ordinance will be decided by the time this report is presented on March 12th, and the Fairfax ordinance will be put to the voters in November of 2024. If these local rent stabilization ordinances are not upheld at the ballot, the rent cap would revert to the State rent cap contain in the Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482, which is 10% or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, whichever is lower.

Rent Cap Discussion for San Anselmo
At the October 24, 2023, meeting, the Council directed staff to return with options for a rent cap. Several Councilmembers were in favor of considering a cap of .75% of CPI while another advocated for a fixed cap of 5 or 6%.

For the purposes of discussion, staff has prepared the following information for a discussion of a potential rent cap in San Anselmo. The 30-year average CPI stands at

2.8%, the resulting rent cap, when calculated, would be 2.1%. (see Table 1) Table 1

1. Town of Fairfax Rent Cap (.75% of CPI)

2. Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers Bay Area

3. City of Oxnard and Ojai Rent Cap

4. City of Larkspur Rent Cap

5. AB 1482 Rent Cap
Staff seeks Council direction regarding a Rent Cap amount.

2. Base Rent
Noted above, base rent is the reference point from which the lawful rent shall be determined and adjusted. Counsel reached a consensus on this issue.

At the January 2024 meeting, Council directed that base rent be that rent in effect on June 21, 2023, which is the date of the Council’s initial rent stabilization discussion. This retroactive date prevents the effect of landlords raising rent after the Council discussion.

Base rent for tenancies commencing on or after June 21, 2023, shall be the initial rental rate. Staff has included language in the draft Ordinance Template. 75% of CPI 1 CPI 2 4% 3 5%+CPI, Max 7% 4 5%+CPI, Max 10% 5 Base Monthly Rent Example 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2025 2,605.00 2,640.00 2,600.00 2,675.00 2,750.00
2026 2,667.52 2,724.48 2,704.00 2,862.25 2,975.50
2027 2,702.20 2,770.80 2,812.16 3,054.02 3,174.86
2028 2,769.75 2,862.23 2,924.65 3,267.80 3,438.37
2029 2,850.08 2,973.86 3,041.63 3,496.55 3,744.39
204
Item #: 2.3

3. Fair Rate of Return Petition
The Town Council reached a consensus regarding most factors of the proposed Fair Return petition process as set forth in the draft Ordinance Template, summarized here. (Please see draft Ordinance Template for additional details.) In summary, the proposed process allows a property owner to file a petition that will be considered by the Planning Director or designee. The property owner has the burden of proof to rebut the presumption that the allowable rental amount per the Ordinance denies a fair rate of return. The Planning Director or designee decides the petition based on a list of factors including, but not limited to: the CPI; length of time since previous fair return appeal; capital improvements; and changes in property taxes. The tenant may submit materials and arguments to be considered. Either party may appeal the Planning Director’s/designee’s decision to the Planning Commission, which appeal will be considered based on the same factors. The Planning Commission’s decision will be a final administrative decision from the Town and may be appealed by a civil action in court.

Staff had initially proposed that the landlord pay the costs of petition. However, a majority of the Council directed staff to remove this provision. Staff has included a general provision in the draft Ordinance Template that the Council may establish a fee by Resolution at a future date.

Additionally, staff recommends a Rent Stabilization Fund be created to help cover costs associated with Fair Right of Return petitions and associated appeals. Revenue for this fund would come from registration fees from the proposed rental registry (detailed below) along with costs associated with the submission of a fair rate of return petition and the costs of associated appeals of the decision. The draft Ordinance Template provides that the Council may establish fees by Council Resolution at a future date. Staff also recommends that this format be piloted for 12 months to determine whether the funding levels can support the process.

4. Applicability (Types of Units Subject to Rent Stabilization) The Town Council discussed that any Rent Stabilization Ordinance should apply to residential properties containing 3 or 4 residential rental units or more. The draft Ordinance Template would be updated based on Council direction.

As applied to the Town, 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 owneroccupied 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. 205
Item #: 2.3
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 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 Tenants 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.

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.

5. No Direct Charges for Utilities in Addition to Rent
The Council directed that the draft Ordinance Template provide that a property owner may not charge direct utilities in addition to Rent. This has been included in the revised draft Ordinance Template. Please note that utility charges are part of the list of factors that may be considered in a Fair Return petition.

6. Council Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance or Ballot Measure The Council reached a consensus to move forward with adopting a Rent Stabilization Ordinance rather than preparing a ballot measure for the November 2024 General Election.

7. Rental Registry and Fees
Staff recommends that the Town also consider establishing a rental registry that would provide the Town with a localized database with a complete inventory of rental properties by projects, parcels, and units. The registry would create a secure online portal for property owners and tenants, available on mobile and web.

Property owners would be required to provide specific information such as rent amounts, utilities included, occupancy dates, and landlord contact information. Participation would be mandatory and there would be an annual registration fee. These funds would be deposited into a designated fund to help cover the costs of the registry along with costs associated with the fair right of return application and appeals process.

The proposed draft Ordinance Template allows the Town Manager to adopt procedures, (which would include a rental registry) to implement the provisions of the Ordinance and provides property owners are required to pay related fees as established by Town Council Resolution at a future date.

Staff seeks direction.
206
Item #: 2.3

RECOMMENDATION
Staff seeks direction and confirmation on the following items to be incorporated into the draft Ordinance Template (Attachment 1):

1. Establish Rent Cap.

2. Confirmation that “base rent” be set at June 21, 2023.

3. Confirmation of Fair Rate of Return petition process and fee to be established by Council Resolution at future date.

4. Establish provisions that allow a rental registry and associated fees to implement a Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

5. Determine the applicability of the types of units to be included in the Ordinance.

6. Confirmation that no direct charges for utilities in addition to rent are allowed.

7. Confirmation to establishing a Rent Stabilization Ordinance rather than submitting the issue to the voters pursuant to a ballot measure in November 2024.

Alternatively, the Council could direct staff to return to a future meeting with additional information for further discussion.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Conducting a discussion regarding potential residential rent stabilization 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: DRAFT Rent Stabilization Ordinance Template Attachment 2: Link to staff report and attachments from the October 24, 2023 Town Council meeting
Attachment 3: Link to staff report and attachments from the January 9, 2024 Town Council meeting
Attachment 4: Public Comment
Attachment 5: Staff Presentation
207
1 DRAFT Rent Stabilization Ordinance Template
X.XX.XXX Defini�ons.

A. “Annual Allowable Rent Increase” shall mean the allowable increase in Rent allowed within a twelve (12) month period as set forth in Sec�on X.XX.XXX.

B. “Base Rent” shall mean the reference point from which the lawful rent shall be determined and adjusted in accordance with this Chapter.

1. Base Rent for tenancies that commenced before June 21, 2023 shall be the Rent in effect on June 21, 2023.

2. Base Rent for tenancies commencing on or a�er June 21, 2023 shall be the ini�al rental rate charged upon the ini�al occupancy. For purposes of this Sec�on “ini�al rental rate” means only the amount of Rent actually paid by the tenant for the ini�al term of the tenancy.

C. “Fair rate of return pe��on” shall mean a pe��on made by an owner of residen�al real property for a Rent increase in excess of that provided in Sec�on XXX of this Chapter in order to obtain a fair and reasonable return on property.

D. “Fair rate of return” shall have the meaning assigned to the term by California and federal courts in preceden�al published opinions regarding rent stabiliza�on ordinances for residen�al tenancies. Generally, within the context of a rent stabiliza�on ordinance, the term refers to a rate of just and reasonable return on an owner’s property that is high enough to encourage and reward efficient management, discourage the flight of capital, maintain adequate services, and enable operators to maintain and support an owner’s credit status, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of curtailing excessive Rents and Rental increases.

E. “Rent” shall mean all periodic payments and all nonmonetary considera�on, including, but not limited to, the fair market value of goods and services rendered to or for the benefit of the owner under an agreement concerning the use or occupancy of residen�al real property, including, but not limited to, all payment and considera�on demanded or paid for parking, pets, furniture and suble�ng.

X.XX.XXX Stabiliza�on of Rent.

A. Upon the effec�ve date of this Chapter, no owner of residen�al real property shall charge Rent in an amount that exceeds the sum of the Base Rent plus any lawful Rent increases implemented pursuant to this Chapter.

B. Annual Allowable Rent Increase.

1. Upon the effec�ve date of this Chapter, no owner of residen�al 208
2 real property shall charge Rent in an amount that exceeds the sum of the Base Rent plus any lawful Rent increases implemented pursuant to this Chapter.

2. The Annual Allowable Rent increase shall be equal to sixty percent (60%) of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region, or any successor designa�on) rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percent, or 5%, whichever is lower.

3. More than one Rent increase within a twelve (12) month period is prohibited, unless approved pursuant to a fair rate of return pe��on pursuant to this Chapter or required by State law.

X.XX.XX No Direct Charge for U�li�es. A residen�al property owner may not charge a tenant for u�lity charges in addi�on to Rent. In order to be paid by a tenant, the u�lity service must be separately or individually metered and the u�lity account must be registered to the tenant and not the residen�al property owner.

X.XX.XX Fair Rate of Return. The Annual Allowable Rent increases allowed by this Chapter are found and determined to provide a fair and reasonable return on property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any owner of residen�al real property who contends that the Annual Allowable Rent increase prevents the owner from receiving a fair and reasonable return on property may file a fair rate of return pe��on to increase the amount of Rent pursuant to the provisions in this Chapter.

X.XX.XXX Fair Rate of Return Petition for Rent Increase.

A. An owner of residential real property may petition for a Rent increase in excess of the Annual Allowable Rent increase in order to obtain a fair and reasonable return on the owner’s property.

B. A fair rate of return petition shall be on a form prescribed by the Planning Director or designee. Within five (5) calendar days of submitting a fair rate of return petition to the Town, the owner shall send a copy of the petition to the applicable tenant(s) by first class U.S. mail and promptly provide proof of such mailing to the Town. The tenant(s) will then have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of mailing a copy of the petition to reply or provide additional materials to the Town in response to the fair rate of return petition. All fair rate of return petitions pertaining to tenants in the same building will be consolidated for hearing.

C. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Rent increase in the Annual Allowable Rent increase pursuant to Section X.XX.XXX of this Chapter provides owners with a fair and reasonable return on property. The owner has the burden of proof to rebut this presumption and show that a further increase in Rent is necessary to provide a fair and reasonable return on property. The owner shall provide at his/her/their sole cost and expense, all documentation reasonably requested by the Planning Director or designee to establish that the requested increase in Rent is necessary to provide a fair and reasonable return on property including, but 209
3 not limited to, an independent financial report and verified financial data.

D. The owner of residential property shall pay all applicable fees as established by Town Council resolution to file a fair rate of return petition.

E. In reviewing a fair rate of return petition, the Planning Director or designee shall consider relevant factors including but not limited to the following:

1. Changesin the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumersin the San Francisco Oakland-Hayward, CA Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2. The length of time since the last determination on a fair rate of return petition, or the last Rent increase if no previous Rent increase application has been made.

3. The completion of any capital improvements or rehabilitation work related to the residential real property specified in the fair rate of return petition, and the cost thereof, including materials, labor, construction interest, permit fees, and other items deemed appropriate.

4. Changes in property taxes or other taxes related to the subject residential real property.

5. Changesin the Rent paid by the ownerforthe lease ofthe residentialreal property.

6. Changes in the utility charges for the subject residential property paid by the owner, and the extent, if any, of reimbursement from the tenants.

7. Changesin reasonable operating and maintenance expenses.

8. The need for repairs caused by circumstances other than ordinary wear and tear.

9. The amount and quality of services provided by the owner to the affected tenant(s).

F. A fair rate of return petition shall be decided by the Planning Director or designee within sixty (60) calendar days from the date said petition has been deemed complete, including proof of service to tenant(s). The decision shall be emailed and sent by first class U.S. mail with proof of mailing to the property owner; the property owner’s designated representative(s) for the fair rate of return petition, if any; the applicable tenant(s); and the designated representative of the tenant(s), if any.

G. The property owner and/or affected tenant(s) may appeal the fair rate of return petition decision of the Planning Director or designee to the Planning Commission within thirty (30) calendar days of the mailing of the Planning Director or designee decision. The Planning Commission shall review the petition de novo pursuant to this Section. The Planning Commission may reverse, uphold, or modify the Planning Director’s or designee’s decision. The Planning Commission shall consider an appeal within sixty (60) calendar days of receiving such appeal and shall make a final decision in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the closing of the appeal hearing. The appellant shall pay a fee as established by the Town Council resolution.

Notwithstanding any provision contained in this Code, the decision of the Planning Commission shall be the final administrative decision of the Town with no right of review by the Town Council. 210
4 The party appealing the fair rate of return petition decision shall pay all applicable fees as established by Town Council resolution.

X.XX.XXX Exemp�ons. The provisions of this Chapter regula�ng the amount of Rent that a residen�al real property owner may charge shall not apply to the following:

A. Residen�al real property that has a cer�ficate of occupancy issued a�er February 1, 1995, pursuant to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Cal. Civil Code sec�ons 1954.50-1954.535) and any other provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act or other law addressing exemp�ons.

B. Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restric�on contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Cal. Health and Safety Code sec�on 50093 or comparable federal statutes.

C. Dormitories owned and operated by an ins�tu�on of higher educa�on or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.

D. Residen�al real property that is alienable, separate from the �tle to any other dwelling unit, including single-family residences, condominiums, and townhomes.

E. A unit in a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home, or rooming and boarding house which is rented primarily to transient guests for a period of less than 30 days, and other transient occupancies as defined in Cal. Civil Code sec�on 1940(b).

F. A unit in an ins�tu�onal facility, including a hospital, medical care facility, residen�al care facility, asylum, group home for seniors or the disabled; a rental unit in a transi�onal housing program that assists homeless persons as defined in Cal. Civil Code, Sec�on 1954.12; a convent or monastery owned and operated by a religious organiza�on; or a fraternity or sorority house affiliated with a college or university.

G. A unit that the owner or the owner’s immediate family occupied as their principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy so long asthe owner or the owner’s immediate family con�nues in occupancy.

H. A unit permited as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU).

I. XXXX or fewer residen�al rental units located on a parcel or lot, or con�guous parcels or lots, under common ownership.

X.XX.XXX Rent Increase Ineffective. No Rent increase shall be effec�ve if the owner:

A. Fails to substan�ally comply with all provisions of this Chapter, including but not limited to the failure to provide no�ces as required by this Chapter; B. Fails to maintain the residen�al real property in compliance with Cal. Civil Code sec�ons 1941.1 et seq. and Cal. Health and Safety Code sec�ons 17920.3 and 17920.10; or C. Fails to make repairs ordered by the Town or court of competent jurisdiction. 211
5 X.XX.XXX Notice Requirements.

A. An owner of any residen�al real property subject to this Chapter shall, on or before the date of commencement of a tenancy, give the tenant a writen no�ce that must include the following informa�on:

1. The existence and scope of this Chapter XX of the Town Municipal Code; and

2. The tenant’s right to respond to any fair rate of return pe��on filed with the Town by the owner pursuant to this Chapter.

B. No Rent increase shall take effect un�l the requirements of this Chapter have been met and a notice to increase Rent has been given to the tenant(s). As part of any no�ce to increase Rent, an owner must include the following:

1. No�ce of the existence of this Chapter XXX of the Town Code; and

2. The tenant’s right to respond to any fair rate of return pe��on filed with the Town by the owner, and the right to appeal the decision on a fair rate of return pe��on pursuant to the Planning Commission.

C. When the owner and tenant have entered into a writen lease, the owner must give no�ces to the tenant in the language used in the lease. When the owner and tenant have not entered into a writen lease, the owner must give no�ces to the tenant in the language that the owner and tenant used to nego�ate the terms of the tenancy.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner must give no�ces to the tenant in the primary language spoken by the tenant, if known to the owner.

X.XX.XXX Viola�ons.

A. It shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person or legal en�ty to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this Chapter. The Town may enforce and seek compliance with this Chapter using criminal, civil, and/or administra�ve remedies as set forth in Title 1 Chapter 2 of this Code, in addi�on to any other legal remedy available to the Town under State or Federal law. All remedies are cumula�ve.

B. Any property owner who inten�onally demands, accepts, or retains any payment of Rent in viola�on of this Chapter shall be liable in a civil ac�on to the tenant from whom such payment is demanded, accepted, or retained for damages in the sum of three (3) �mes the amount that exceeds the maximum that could be lawfully demanded, accepted, or retained together with reasonable atorneys’ fees and costs as determined by a court of competent jurisdic�on.

X.XX.XXX Fees and Administrative Regulations.
212
6 A. The Town Manager may adopt administrative procedures and regulations to implement the provisions of this Chapter.

B. Owners subject to this Chapter shall pay fees as established by Town Council resolution in order to fund the Town’s cost to implement and enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
213
Attachment 2
Link to staff report and attachments from the October 24, 2023 Town Council meeting 214
Attachment 3
Link to staff report and attachments from the January 9, 2024 Town Council meeting 215
From: Curt Ries
To: Town Council; Dave Donery; Heidi Scoble; Planning; Jeff Zuba Subject: Policy Arguments for 60% of CPI Rental Cap
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:06:08 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
To the San Anselmo Town Council and staff:

Looking ahead to the March 12th rent stabilization agenda item, I'd like to share the following three policy arguments for why 60% of CPI is the best rental cap.

1. It effectively stabilizes rents for low-income and fixed-income tenants.

Annual rent increases, based on 100% of CPI or an arbitrary 3-5% flat cap, can easily result in unsustainable rent increase when compounded over time. This excerpt from the a 2018 position paper put out by the Beverly Hills Renters Alliance provides a useful illustration:
"Consider how 100% of CPI affects the tenant with an average 2-bedroom tenant in Beverly Hills. With a starting monthly rent of $2,796 [which is very comparable to San Anselmo], and after 10 years of compounding increases, and using the past 10 years of CPI as a hypothetical, the rent on that apartment would be $3,480 if 60% of CPI is the formula. But at 100% of CPI, that same tenant will pay $4,014 in the tenth year — a difference of $535 every month.

Low-income tenants and fixed-income tenants—often seniors on social security—do not receive cost of living increases commensurate with annual rent increases equal to 100% of CPI. If the goal of rent stabilization is to stabilize rents for these vulnerable populations (and everyone else), then setting the rental cap at 100% of CPI or close to it simply does not achieve that goal. The same could be said for choosing a 3-5% arbitrary flat cap. Conversely, setting the rental cap at 60% of CPI, with 5% as the upper limit, provides true rental price stability.

2. It takes out the rapidly rising cost of housing from the overall CPI calculation.

A rental cap pegged at 60% of CPI is an attempt to extricate the cost of housing from the overall basket of prices that is being averaged in the CPI calculation. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics defines housing prices as their shelter index, which includes both (a) rent of primary residents and (b) owners’ equivalent rent of residences. As of December, 2023, shelter constituted 36.2% of total CPI, meaning 63.8% of CPI would give you an approximation of average prices without housing. This figure varies year-to-year, but we believe 60% is a fair and reasonable benchmark.

It is important to try and eliminate housing costs from the CPI calculation for two reasons.

First, because how much people are paying in rent does not reflect the actual increased operating costs of landlords, but merely what landlords are able to charge on the market.

Second, because housing prices generally rise much faster than most other consumer prices, meaning that the shelter index actually inflates overall CPI. Within the context of a rent stabilization policy, including the rapidly accelerating costs of housing to determine how much landlords can raise rents, essentially enables a positive feedback loop, where the current high costs of housing play an outsized role in determining how high rents can be in the future.

The solution to this conundrum is to place the standard for annual rent increases well below 216
100% of CPI, to approximate CPI without housing (shelter) included.

3. It takes into account that landlords are making a lot of money via appreciated equity.

First of all, it's worth remembering that all landlords are guaranteed to make a reasonable return on their investment (i.e., a profit) under California state law and that all rent stabilization ordinances, including the draft being considered by San Anselmo, enable that right. So there is no scenario where landlords operate at a loss because of a rent stabilization ordinance. Going beyond this point, it's important to recognize that landlords are not just making money off of their net revenue from rents after expenses are paid, but from their net revenue from rents and asset appreciation, which, in a rental market like Marin's, can be considerable. This means that the rental cap can be significantly lower than what it would be if we simply compared annual rents vs. annual operating expenses, because the landlord's return on investment is significantly augmented by the increased equity on their property. For more on this point, I strongly suggest reading the full position paper that I previously cited from the Beverly Hills Renters Alliance.

On behalf of the nearly 900 San Anselmo residents who have signed our petition explicitly calling on the town council to pass an inflation-based rent control ordinance, I urge the council to adopt a strong rental cap of 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is lower.

Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,
Curt Ries
San Anselmo Renter
Marin DSA Co-Chair
Marin DSA Rent Control Committee Co-Chair
217

SAN ANSELMO RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL POLICIES – RENT

STABILIZATION
March 12, 2024
1 218

OUTLINE

1. Background

2. Summary of January 9, 2024, Meeting

3. Elements of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance
• Rent Cap
• Base Rent
• Fair Return/Appeals Process
• Rental Registry
• Applicability

4. Enactment Options- Ordinance or Ballot?

5. Recommendation

6. Questions 2
219

BACKGROUND
• June 21, 2023, Town Council meeting- Update on
Rent Stabilization Efforts in Marin County
• Hosted two community discussions to receive input
from tenants and from landlords
• Recordings of meetings are available on the Town’s
rental policies website:
sananselmorentalpolicies.org
• October 24, 2024, Town Council meeting- Discuss
potential of implementing local rent regulations
• Directed staff to developing potential terms and
regulations
• January 9, 2024, Town Council meeting 3
220
SUMMARY OF JANUARY 9, 2024,

TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
• Discussed Rent Cap
• Discussed Base Rent
• Discussed Fair Rate of Return Appeals Process
• Discussed Applicability
• Discussed Enactment-Adopt an Ordinance or Ballot
Initiative
4 221

ELEMENTS OF THE RENT

STABILIZATION ORDINANCE
• Rent Cap
• Base Rent
• Fair Return Appeals Process
• Applicability
• No Direct Charges for Utilities
• Rental Registry
5 222

RENT CAP
• The term “rent cap” refers to the maximum amount of
rent a property owner may charge for residential property.

Rent caps can be imposed on both the State and local
level.
• California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, known also as AB1482.
• Under 1482, property owners cannot raise rent more than 10% total or 5% plus the change in the cost of living, whichever is lower a 12-month period.
• May be increased a maximum of two times per year not to exceed the total cap.
• Direction from Town Council for a draft ordinance at the October 24th and June 9th meeting was .75% of CPI.
6 223

BASE RENT
• Base Rent: Refers to the reference point from
which the lawful rent shall be determined and
adjusted.
• Consensus of the Council was to use June 21, 2023,
as the effective Base Rent date should regulations be
adopted.
• Draft Ordinance:
• Base Rent defined as the “initial rental rate”
charged upon initial occupancy on or after June 21,
2023.
• Initial Rental Rate defined as the amount of rent
actually paid for the initial term of the tenancy.
7 224

FAIR RATE OF RETURN
• Constitutional takings case law requires that property owners receive a “fair return” on property.
• Fair or Reasonable Rate of Return means a rate of just and reasonable return on an owner’s property that is
high enough to encourage and reward efficient
management, discourage the flight of capital, maintain
adequate services, and enable operators to maintain and support an owner’s credit status, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of curtailing excessive rents and
rental increases.
8 225

FAIR RATE OF RETURN APPEALS

PROCESS
• Like Larkspur and Ojai, staff is suggesting an appeals process as follows:
• Submit application to the Planning Director for consideration subject to prescribed criteria:
• Planning Director to render a Decision within 60-days of the submittal of the application
• Appeal to the Planning Commission
• 30-days to conduct a public meeting and render a decision. 9 • Changes to Consumer Price Index. • Length of time since the last petition. • Consideration of capital
improvements
• Changes to property taxes, utilities,
operating and maintenance expenses.
• Need for repairs caused by
circumstances other than wear and
tear.
• The amount and quality of services
provided by the owner to the affected
tenant(s).
226

RENTAL REGISTRY
• Consider establishing a Rental Registry and Rent
Stabilization Fund to cover cost of the administration
of the Rent Stabilization Regulations and the Fair
Rate of Return Appeals process.
• If supported, staff will return to the Town Council at a future date with a recommendation for the Rent
Registry, fee a Fair Rate of Return petition fee, and a Fair Rate of Return appeal fee.
10 227

APPLICABILITY
• Refers to what type of units are governed by a law.
• Both State and local rent stabilization ordinances can apply to different types of housing units, such as a single-family home, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), condominium, duplex, 3-plex building, 4-plex building, multiunit apartment building, etc. • Marin County Assessor’s Office data shows that 338 parcels totaling 1,276 units may be eligible for rent stabilization policies. • Council previously considered applying to either 3 or more units or 4 or more units.
• 117 parcels have 3 or more units totaling 839 units
• 84 parcels with 4 or more units totaling 733 units
• Staff seeking direction from the Council relative the draft Ordinance. 11 228

NO DIRECT CHARGES FOR

UTILITIES
• Council directed staff to include language to preclude a property owner from charging for direct utilities in
addition to rent.
• Proposed Draft language:
“No Direct Charge for Utilities. A residential
property owner may not charge a tenant for utility
charges in addition to Rent. In order to be paid by a
tenant, the utility service must be separately or
individually metered and the utility account must be
registered to the tenant and not the residential
property owner.”
12 229
ENACTMENT OPTIONSORDINANCE OR BALLOT
• Direct staff to bring a draft Ordinance back to the
Council for consideration at the meeting; or
• Direct staff to prepare a ballot measure for the
November 2024 General Election.
13 230

TOWN COUNCIL DECISION
POINTS
14 1. Establish a Rent Cap.

2. Confirm “Base Rent” to be set at June 21, 2023.

3. Confirm establishing a Fair Right of Return Appeals process to allow the property owner to exceed the rent cap subject to prescribed criteria.

4. Establish provisions to allow a rental registry and associated fees.

5. Determine the applicability of the types of units to be included in an ordinance.

6. Confirm that no direct charges for utilities in addition to rent would be allowed.

7. Confirm Council adoption of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance or placing a measure on the ballot for decision in the November 2024 General Election. 231

QUESTIONS
15 232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
From: Hennie Strydom
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent control
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 20:49:10
CAUTION: External Sender
Let us vote. Anything less will be overreach.

Hennie Strydom
71 Olive Avenue
Get Outlook for iOS
261
From: Robin Holway Abu-Aly
To: Town Council
Cc: Ahmed Aly
Subject: Rent Control - Rent increases should = CPI
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 09:46:20
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear San Anselmo Council Members,
For tonight’s vote, I implore you to vote in a manner which is fair to both landlords and tenants.

To be fair to landlords, rental increases should never be less than the CPI.

To be fair to tenants, rental increases should never be more than the CPI.

Therefore, the only reasonable and fair to everyone policy is rental increases capped at the CPI.

Rental increase caps of less than the CPI hurt both landlords and tenants. Landlords will not be able to afford maintenance and other upkeep of their property. And forget upgrades to the property. Firesafe, pest safe, mold safe, sufficient insurance, and many other important actions may not be taken due to lack of funds. The property may lose value as maintenance is deferred and the property goes into disrepair. If this occurs and the tenants complain, landlords may take units off the market, further hurting the tenant and the supply of housing for San Anselmo. All of these issues will make initial rental rates for new tenants exorbitant, thus making it harder for low and middle income renters to afford initial rent.

Thank you for taking these issues into consideration before your vote.

Sincerely,
Robin Holway
Resident of San Anselmo for 14 years.
262
From: nancy bennett
To: Town Council
Subject: Yes on Rent Control
Date: Saturday, March 9, 2024 07:26:31
CAUTION: External Sender
--
Nancy Lyle Bennett
Feng Shui/Energy Worker
Pianist, We Three Trio
(415) 456-7989
263
From: Peter Bloom
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 18:40:16
CAUTION: External Sender
PDear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you.
264
From: Eileen Brown
To: Town Council
Subject: Pass Strong Rent Control!
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 09:01:33
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote to pass STRONG rent control measures at your meeting tonight.

Please cap annual rent increases at 60% of CPI or 5%, whichever is less. This is a reasonable amount, and would allow most "mom and pop landlords" to keep up their historic practices of not gouging renters.

Housing is for people to live in, and we need people to live in our community to teach our kids, maintain our public spaces, nurse our wounds, and fight fires.

Housing should not be treated as a mere investment, or as something under the control of the "invisible hand of the free market." Please show courage by standing up to the deep-pocketed monied interests who seek to profit during this era of unprecedented homelessness and income inequality.

You are policy makers, and I urge you to pass policies which will stabilize our communities and keep non-wealthy folks in their homes, and in our community! Thank you for your service,
Eileen Brown
--
“
265
From: Ruth Donohugh
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent cap and rent control in San Anselmo
Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 19:58:19
CAUTION: External Sender
I have owned a small apartment complex in San Anselmo with very reasonably priced apartments for 20 years at 1512-1516 San Anselmo Avenue.

I have recently had to deal with reduced and unpaid rents due to Covid. I have now had my property for sale for almost a year and cannot sell it. Not only is insurance a huge problem in San Anselmo because (in my case) proximity to the creek and also fire in Marin. No buyer can get insurance. Interest rates are too high now for small time owners to get any financing. And buyers have cited this new legislation as a major reason they do not want to invest in San Anselmo.

Please don’t forget about those of us who invest in San Anselmo.

Sent from my iPhone
266
From: Liz Froneberger
To: Town Council
Subject: I am a housing provider living in Fairfax....

Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 17:05:55
CAUTION: External Sender
I urge you to let this go to a vote. My husband passed in 2018. We had some warning that he would not survive long and he was more worried about how I would be able to stay in our home of 30+ years (without his income) than he was about his own cancer. He talked me into saving my money and building a little apartment downstairs as soon as I had enough saved. I kept working (retired last year ER RN)until 2023 @ age 67. In 2020 I had enough money so I built a wonderful little ADU with a bedroom, a nice kitchen (no oven but a nice countertop Breville), full size fridge, soft-close cabinets, a little dishwasher. I stripped it down to the studs, put in new lighting...and it's own W/D. I was able to rent it out to traveling nurses for not quite two years and then my tenant left in September of 2023. By that time the fight in Fairfax was on about rent control. We had to fight like hell to get places like mine pulled out from under the DSA's rent control. I spent every cent – every cent of my savings.....$70,000.00 to build the ADU.

If I had known that extra rent control was coming to Fairfax, I never would have started the project. I won't make my $$ back. I could have put that $$ into something else.

I have elected to just "eat it." It'll just be a nice downstairs for my friends and family to visit.

Even though Fairfax TC eventually relented, it ruined my trust in them. I don't want to take a chance on tighter controls sneaking in. I didn't mind reasonable rent control (although a percentage of CPI is ridiculously low) but the JCE stuff was insane. Basically, if I had a tenant living downstairs and it wasn't a good match, it could take me years to get them out and at least $20,000 - that's what I was told by several attorneys and others who have experience in rent controlled areas.

DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE FAIRFAX TC DID!!!!!!! GIVE YOUR RESIDENTS A CHANCE TO VOTE.

And you owe it to anyone who is taking out a permit to build an ADU that rent control is being discussed. I haven't found a single person who wants to become a housing provider in Fairfax unless they HAVE to.

Liz Froneberger, RN
Fairfax
267
From: Lisa Gehm
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2024 13:01:25
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you,
Lisa Gehm
208 Brookside Drive
San Anselmo
268
From: Donald Herzog
To: Town Council
Subject: March 12 Rent Control Meeting
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2024 16:32:09
Attachments: San Anselmo City Council Rent Control Letter.doc CAUTION: External Sender
Please provide this to the Mayor and Council Members.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My wife and I will sell our fourplex at 859 San Anselmo Avenue the moment rent control makes other investments more attractive. We have owned the property for 50 years.

We have never evicted anyone, have meticulously maintained the property, have kept rents below market, and some of the tenants have lived there for many decades. We are now in our eighties and rely on cash flow from the property to pay our bills.

When rent control in San Francisco made it impossible to earn a fair return on a nice rental property, we sold the property to a religious order that evicted the tenants and converted the building into a tax-exempt facility. I hope San Anselmo doesn’t force us to sell to a corporate owner who has the staff and lawyers to deal with rent control.

San Anselmo cannot repeal the laws of economics. The problem with Socialism is that you will soon run out of other people’s money. What would happen to your Police and Firefighters if the City Council decided that their salary increases would only be 60% of CPI. The same thing will happen to San Anselmo’s housing stock if you choose to impose unfair rent control because ““There’s more renters than there are landlords in town”.

Rent subsidies are necessary 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 subsidizes 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.

Yours truly,
269
Donald and Gloria Herzog
270
From: Michael Leary
To: Town Council
Subject: San Anselmo Extra Rent Control Ordinance Discussion Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 10:55:19
CAUTION: External Sender
Hi,
Thank you for taking the time to listen to residents' views regarding San Anselmo's residential rental policies. It's appreciated.

Our situation is simple and, sadly, becoming more common. My wife and I are former San Anselmo landlords. We worked hard to save to purchase two small single family homes in San Anselmo, one in 1986 and later one in 1989. They required a great deal of our personal time and money to maintain and improve over the years, often at the expense of not addressing the deferred maintenance for our personal residence.

But now, in our 60's, we sold both within the past four years. Why? Increased costs of repairs and labor to maintain these homes was making it less feasible to keep them in fine condition. But more so, it was the
new and increased rental restrictions imposed upon us, the owners, with our long held rentals.

Like most small 'mom and pop' landlords, rental increases, when they did occur, were always well under 5%. That was never the issue. We, like other small property owners, wish to keep good tenants as long as possible for many reasons. The relationships we had built with former tenants continue to this day. However, the loss of control of our rentals is what concerns us to the greatest extent. The inability to terminate a lease without financial hardship is frightening.

Whether the need for an aging family member to be close to family or due to a problematic tenant, losing this flexibility with a property we've owned and cared for for over over thirty years became an untenable situation. The proposal to pay a tenant who makes a strong income, unlike us and many other senior landlords on a fixed income, two months of 'relocation fee' is inconceivable.

Sadly, we decided to sell both homes. We've lost the flexibility for retirement and for family members that we had worked hard to preserve. Also, sadly, two beautiful rental homes were lost to the San Anselmo community. Both were purchased by non-Marin parties who wished to relocate here.

We're not alone in selling our rentals. I know of four others in Marin who have recently done the same. The net result is a loss of rentals in our community. Gone. Rent control may assist those who currently rent, but the bigger picture is that it strips away rental inventory for everyone else. In that regard, it is self-serving to those who rent now. That is what I believe the discussion should be about going forward. Perhaps well meaning on the surface, pushing this agenda of even stricter rent control by the DSA and others is stripping away the rental housing inventory for those in the future.

Thank you again for your efforts in listening to everyone regarding this issue.

Best,
271
Michael Leary
51 Chipman Place
San Anselmo (43 year resident)
272
From: Suzanne Lindelli
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent control
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 15:07:49
CAUTION: External Sender
I think the voters should be allowed to vote on rent control Sent from my iPhone
273
From: Gerald Martin
To: Town Council
Subject: Extra rent control
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 06:27:51
CAUTION: External Sender
I am deeply against any additional rent controls on our units. We are deeply effected with insurance and taxes already. Any additional control would hamper our ability to continue rental properties. We would have to sell out.

AB1482 is all the restriction we need to protect renters' rights.

Gerald Martin and Susan Blair
274
From: Robert Nobili
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 08:56:14
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
275
From: dominic nobili
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 19:59:33
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you.
~Dominic Nobili
Sent from my iPhone
276
From: O D Parkinson
To: Town Council
Subject: NO on Rent control
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:16:35
CAUTION: External Sender
To the members of the San Anselmo Town Council:

We live in San Anselmo, own a home here and love the community.

We are strongly opposed to the proposed rent controls you are contemplating. If you vote for this, you will be responsible for decreasing property values of San Anselmo property owners.

Voters will not thank you for this.

You will decrease tax revenues which flow to our town, which will decrease town services and be of detriment to the beauty and enjoyment of all residents and visitors.

VOTE NO on the proposed rent control measure. Then you will be in accord with the town you are supposed to represent.

Thank you,
O D Parkinson
70 Elm Avenue
San Anselmo
277
From: David Rein
To: Town Council
Subject: San Anselmo Rent Stabilization - Against
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 14:33:22
CAUTION: External Sender
I am writing to urge you to vote against rent stabilization measures coming up at the March 12th town council meeting. I believe rent control hurts both the mom & pop landlords and becomes problematic for the community over time. It hurts the individual small renters to the point where they will leave the market and drives up initial rents for those seeking rental units. It also seriously impinges on the ability to maintain property over time. As stated on the Marin Residents website:

Will it create more housing affordability? – No, it works against this.

Will it help housing providers? – No, it will hurt their income and retirement savings.

Will it help renters wanting to move into the area? No, it results in higher initial rents.

Will it cost the residents of San Anselmo? Yes, like Fairfax, $100,000s a year.

Will hurt property values? Yes, it affects desirability of all property in resale.

Will it help long term tenants? Yes, it cheapens the rent, and No, it lessens the ability of the provider to care for the property.

Thank you for your consideration,
David Rein
278
From: Michael Roth
To: Town Council
Subject: Comment on Proposed Rent Control Ordinance
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2024 21:34:10
Attachments: Cato Institute - The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality.pdf CAUTION: External Sender
Dear San Anselmo Town Council,
I am the owner of a 4-unit rental property in San Anselmo and want to speak out against the proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance:

1. Rent stabilization is a form of price control. It's Economics 101 that price controls increase demand and reduce supply. While rent control benefits existing tenants in the short term, studies have shown that it reduces supply and thereby harms future tenants in the long term by increasing the starting rent for new tenants. Supply is reduced by landlords withdrawing units from the rental market, for example by way of condo conversions. Rent control incentivizes landlords to substitute away from an older rental housing stock towards new high-end construction rentals (exempt from rent control) and conversion to owner-occupied condos. This increases rent levels for future tenants and contributes to gentrification in the long run.
(See: Cato Institute: The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality, Research Brief in Economic Policy, Number 109, April 18, 2018.) (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/rb-109.pdf, copy attached for reference)

2. The proposed Registry with onerous reporting requirements and additional fees for landlords is an example of Government overreach that will be an additional incentive for landlords, especially smaller landlords such as those with in-law units, to withdraw from the rental market altogether. Instead of relying on tenants to hold landlords accountable – which has been standard for most jurisdictions with rent control - the proposal would create a huge and costly bureaucracy for micromanaging an imagined compliance issue without any proof that such a bloated enforcement mechanism is cost effective or even necessary. The additional fee for landlords is also another reason why the starting rent for future tenants is going to increase as the cost will be passed on to tenants in the long run.

3. The proposed provision of “No Direct Charge for Utilities” (“A residential property owner may not charge a tenant for utility charges in addition to Rent.”) should not be applied to lease agreements in effect prior to the proposed Ordinance since this would be in violation of the contract clause of the U. S. constitution. In addition, this provision is redundant since direct utility charges are already implicitly included in the broad definition for “Rent” in the draft Ordinance.
279

4. The definition for “Base Rent”, currently proposed to be set at June 21, 2023, should take into account for how many years prior to that date the respective rent level has not been increased, since the proposed rent cap is supposed to apply annually. If the actual rent has not been increased for several years in a row, the rent increase should be annualized over the time since the last increase, which may be several years ago, when verifying rent cap compliance. The proposed “Base Rent” starting date for June 21, 2023 should take this into account.

5. If the Town Council really wants to make housing more affordable in San Anselmo, it should take meaningful actions that increase the housing supply. The proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance does exactly the opposite. One effective way would be to relax the restrictive Density rules back to where they were decades ago. My San Anselmo property was approved for 5 units in the early 1980s. When I converted a basement to a legal unit in 2014, the Density requirements allowed no more than 4 units on the property. More rental units increase competition and lead to lower rent levels. Fewer rental units lower competition and lead to higher rent levels. It's really that simple.

Sincerely,
Michael Roth
[email protected]
280
From: Monica Schmiede
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent Control in San Anselmo
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2024 20:39:31
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Council Members,
We are writing to oppose the Rent Stabilization Ordinance Template Draft which would be detrimental to the current and future residents of San Anselmo.

The majority of Rental Housing Providers providing rental units in San Anselmo are individual owners, many of them young families and seniors, rather than corporations. The cost of taxes,insurance, repairs and maintenance, has increased dramatically, resulting in rental housing providers often operating at a loss or barely breaking even to cover costs associated with rental housing. Increasing the artificial cap on rents will make rental housing not financially viable for rental housing providers, causing a decrease in rental units. Annual increase in property taxes and utilities increasing by 38% are a few of many factors contributing to the high cost of most goods and services in our town. Studies have shown that rental housing providers affected by rent control decreased housing by 15%, choosing to sell or redevelop housing to owner-occupied residents (American Economic Review, 2019). Rent control may appear to support short term affordability for current tenants, but in the long term will decrease affordability and availability of rental housing. (Brookings, 2019).

We agree that we must protect our most vulnerable residents, including both rental housing providers and residents who rent properties. The State of California already has some of the strongest tenant protection regulations in the country via the statewide California Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. This has already resulted in negative consequences for people who rent with an increase in demand for rental housing and a decrease in supply (The Hill, 2019). Over the last year, the California governor strengthened the existing antieviction law (SB 567) and security deposit limits under (AB 12), further protecting tenants.

The Marin DSA Rent Control Committee, a new organization established in 2022, references a Beverly Hills Renters Alliance opinion piece advocating for additional rent control ordinances in Beverly Hills. This is not an accurate comparison given the vastly different economic, climate and geographic differences across Beverly Hills and San Anselmo, including the average sale price of a property in Beverly Hills 6x higher ($8.2M) to San Anselmo. The Marin DSA Rent Control Committe letter sent to the San Anselmo Town Council dated March 6, 2024 also does not contain the referenced petition signed by 900 San Anselmo residents requesting additional rental regulations. The organization dismisses 281
decades of data demonstrating the detrimental effects of increased rent control as having “no empirical evidence to back them up”.

There are long term implications to a San Anselmo rental stabilization ordinance which should be democratically voted on by all residents on a ballot.

Best Regards,
Monica Schmiede
282
From: MICHAEL SEXTON
To: Town Council
Subject: Extra Rent Control Pitfalls
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 12:07:15
CAUTION: External Sender
San Anselmo Town Council,
As you discuss extra rent control regulations, it is important to reiterate a few basic points about rent control.

1. San Anselmo already has comprehensive rent control via California statewide ‘renter protections’, AB 1482. Any additional rent control would be considered EXTRA rent control.

2. Numerous studies have concluded that rent control does nothing to contribute to ‘housing affordability’. In fact, new renters and renters in transition to another unit, end up paying MORE under extra rent control.

3. Rental prices for available units are solely determined by the supply and demand, not by housing provider greed, wishful thinking of the DSA, owner expenses, or artificial price caps.

4. Rent control serves as the biggest disincentive to increasing the supply of rental housing. The less rental housing there is, the greater the cost of that housing.

5. The most vulnerable people that depend on a consistent, adequate rental income are seniors who invested in housing long ago as their retirement, and young families using rental income to be able to afford to live here.

6. As evidenced on their site, large political groups like the DSA have made it their mission to get ALL units, including single family homes, ADUs, Duplexes, 4- plexes and larger complexes, to be restricted to a 40% below inflation rental cap. If they are not successful tonight, they will try again and again, by whatever way they can, to get every single unit restricted.

7. As seen in Fairfax, an attempt by their Town Council to not allow the residents to have a vote on this policy which negatively affects homeowners, housing providers and renters alike, results in a referendum, a ballot measure and potentially a recall by enraged residents.

Consider an example stated in a previous DSA email by DSA Chair:
"Consider how 100% of CPI affects the tenant with an average 2-bedroom tenant in Beverly Hills. With a starting monthly rent of $2,796 [which is very comparable to San Anselmo], and after 10 years of compounding increases, and using the past 10 years of 3.6% CPI as a hypothetical, the rent on that apartment would be $3,480 if 60% of CPI is the formula. But at 100% of 3.6% CPI, that same tenant will pay $4,014 in the tenth year — a difference of $535 every month.”
So in 2024, at 2-bedroom unit would be ~$2800 with let’s say owner’s cost (mortgage- $1600, taxes, insurance, electric, trash, water, monthly repair ~$1000 ) being ~$2600, a net profit of $200/mo. With utility costs, insurance etc rising at 7- 15% (low at 7%) (as recently evidenced by PGE, Marin Sanitary, MMWD etc) a 283
$1000/mo (non mortgage) expense would be $2000/mo after 10 years. $2000+ $1600= $3600/mo exp Meaning a profit of $400/mo in 2034. (That’s $275 in 2024 dollars). So after 10 years, the owner is making $75 more a month. Not a great achievement, just a minimal expectation for a long term investment.

However if we use the 60% of CPI (2.16%) we get a rental price of ~$3500 with expenses of $3600, a loss of $100/mo. Clearly, no small housing provider can afford to lose money every month and would exit the business if she can - ASAP.

That is why property values drop for rental housing with extra rent control, which leaves only government buyers or gov subsidized (corporate) buyers for rental properties. As quoted on the DSA’s own site: marinrentcontrol.org/sananselmo “And more and more, small local landlords are selling their buildings to large out-of-town corporate landlords who only care about extracting as much profit from their tenants as possible.” The small local landlords, who respect their tenants, see the writing on the wall (the demise of their business) if rent control takes effect.

The economics for rental units simply don’t work under extra rent control. There are numerous reports which support this conclusion. (see MarinResidents.org/resources ) Fixed income housing providers—often seniors on social security—do not receive cost of rent increases commensurate with annual expense increases equal to 125% of CPI. If the goal of rent stabilization is to stabilize rents for tenants, then setting the rental cap at 5% + CPI or close to it, simply helps renters and housing providers maintain their property, incentivizes the building of new units, brings down the cost of initial rents and provides a good tax base. That was the goal and effect of California’s statewide ‘rent stabilization’ regulations passed in 2019.

Setting the rental cap at 60% of CPI, with 5% as the ceiling, not norm, leads to a drop in value of rental units, non-upkeep of rented units, and higher initial rents for available units.

I urge you not to take the same dark path as Fairfax and save the small local housing provider community so they don’t have to sell to corporate buyers. I urge you to listen to the residents and either simply choose to not go down this path, or, if you do, if you actually think that extra rent control is a great idea, simply present it to the voters in November and let them have a choice.

That is what I respectfully ask of you.

Thank you.

Michael Sexton
Director - Marin Residents
MarinResidents.org and FairfaxResidents.org
[email protected]
284
From: suzan stringari-murray
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 17:43:31
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council, I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit. There currently exists state laws that regulate tenant and owner agreements. These ADDITIONAL rent control regulations are unnecessary and do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town.

Please think this through before you bring this to the voters. Thank you. 285
From: Lisa Gehm
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2024 1:01:25 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you,
Lisa Gehm
208 Brookside Drive
San Anselmo
286

HOUSING INDEX TRACKER version 0.02
“Housing Index Tracker” or “HIT” for short. An alternative to other escalation methods that do not accurately track housing costs.

Executive Summary: HIT could automate the landlord petition process for determination of landlord reasonable right of return.

Purpose: Rather than clogging the appeal process with an extraordinary number of petitions for landlordʼs right of reasonable return, use of HIT streamlines the process as an initial step, reducing town costs to administer the implementation of rental protections by using a public online calculator. HIT use could be limited to an automated petition process.

This is a preliminary draft of a sample Housing Index Tracker design specification:

Best published as an online calculator (the simplest version is an Excel spreadsheet with a reference database growing from past transactions) for the staff hearing officeʼs use, with a printable result. Base month has default date (the date can be edited forward in time), town, base dollar rate, check boxes for options, result to be displayed.

The HIT is expressed as an adjustment factor plus a CPI-U adjusted rate of return and the result after multiplying the base rent by this factor. Only the rate of return on investment is subject to a COLA (cost of living adjustment). By doing so, the ownerʼs income is adjusted to keep up with a COLA. Operating costs are entered as current dollar amounts for an annual adjustment, not as percentages. With HIT, a core defect of applying a COLA to the entire rental amount is corrected.

Use the cumulative rate change since base month. The base rent for the ordinance is March 2022. By using a cumulative rate change, landlords who did not increase annually do not get behind.

The Fairfax ordinance would have allowed a rental increase of 2.52% for a new monthly rent of $3,383 with the following sample rental base rent of $3,300/mo. 287

Factors being considered for input:

1. Actual split between owner unit and tenant unit based on square footage of dwelling space**

2. Base rental rate**

3. Placed in service date**

4. Property tax base assessment *

5. Property tax special assessments *

6. Homeownerʼs insurance *

7. Water / MMWD (if applicable) *

8. Trash service (if applicable) *

9. PG&E (if applicable) *

10. Reasonable right of return (CPI times 20% of base rental rate) The above list is easily quantifiable.

11. Common property element maintenance (portion used by tenant) Requires additional documentation and is being excluded from a semi-automated process and referred to a case worker when warranted.
** Entry on a form
* Indicates default value is sourced from a database of a representative sample (initially a typical housing mix) that can be overridden manually on entry form.

Letʼs run the HIT numbers for the composited example as an asymmetrical owneroccupied duplex located in Fairfax

GIVEN: Owner portion 1720 SF and rental portion 680 SF. Split is 72%/28%.

Insurance + $7,000 and property tax (2022 was $15,049 and 2023 was $15,282 for a difference of + $233. Subtotal $7,233.

Rental share is 28% or $2,025 per year or $169/month. Base rent of $3,300+169+$28 = $3,497 an increase of $197.

This is 5.9% compared to our ordinance amount of $3,383. A difference of:

A) + $114/month; and
B) Little confusion among small time landlords; AND
C) NO FURTHER STEPS FOR A PETITION FOR REASONABLE RIGHT OF RETURN.

AB1482 would have allowed 5%+4.2% or $303. HIT method result is still well under the AB1482 method result is less by $106 or 35%.

The above math was for the extreme cases recently brought before the TC of the onetime $7,000 increase in homeownerʼs insurance. For that landlord facing a more normal 20% increase in costs, the calculated rent increase may be much closer to our current

2.52% (prorated insurance of $38+$28=$66 which is only 2.0%). For simplicity, the utilities were left out of the example, and they would have been left out if they were metered and charged separately as is allowed in our ordinance. 288
From: R Hamer
To: Town Council
Subject: Item 2.3, Town Council Meeting of March 12, 2024 public comment Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 1:11:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Housing Index Tracker SA.pdf
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town of San Anselmo,
Fairfax recently implemented rental protections. The landlord’s right of fair return is the true cap of rental increases, not AB1482 or any local ordinance. I attached a draft version of a methodology known as “Housing Index Tracker”, or “HIT” for short. The draft attached uses an example of the scale of a property insurance rate hike that is becoming more and more common.

I would not suggest rental increase caps be indexed to the CPI at all. The CPI does not track a landlord’s costs of providing housing, nor does it account for variation between housing expenses and the CPI generally. Rather, I would suggest the council look into a dynamic methodology to ensure to most affordable rental rates possible whilst ensuring housing providers will not risk operating at a loss. Any fixed rent increase cap of zero to __?__% would be fair and compatible with this methodology.

Please See the BLS table. CPI is 339.915 (green freehand lasso). Rental of primary residence index is 503.443 (red freehand arrow). Housing is presently 148% of CPI. This ratio varies. On the left end of the charts, it was 143%; 2017 152%; and 1983 100%! Look at the trend charts below. Note that two both have the same base year and visually do not always track with each other. One chart image is stretched here to emphasize that its Y-Axis scale is twice as steep as the other chart.

Image
289
A graph with a red line

Description automatically generated
Image
290
Source: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_sanfrancisco.htm I was a resident of San Anselmo for over 15 years before I moved to Fairfax. I may wind up back in San Anselmo once my current home in Fairfax commences its redevelopment (as part of our housing element). If and when I do, I will rent. Rental protections concern me as I imagine they would for several former Fairfax residents that subsequently found or will find housing in San Anselmo.

Sincerely,
Rick Hamer
former San Anselmo resident
291
From: [email protected]
To: Town Council
Subject: I am a landlord sharing my opinion on the rent control initiatives to be discussed this evening Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 1:29:41 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Kathleen Doyle. I have been a housing provider in San Anselmo since 2010. I understand the city council meeting today will be discussing additional rent control measures. I want to share my thoughts on the proposed changes.

First & foremost, I am currently renting to wonderful families who are teachers, grocery store employees, government workers none of whom are wealthy. I understand what it is like to be a tenant and this informs how I care for my properties. As a tenant what was most important to me was to live in a safe community, have a good landlord that maintained the property, have good neighbors and not have big rent increases.

Since purchasing the property I have invested over $150,000 in improvements from a new driveway, double pane windows & sliding glass doors, new furnaces, water heaters, upgraded laundry room, kitchens, bathrooms, landscaping, improved drainage around the property, new water service from the main to the building changing from galvanized to copper plumbing. I am currently budgeting & saving to upgrade electric and install new roofs. None of these costs are low and prices are ever increasing. As an example in 2013 a new water heater cost $1,300 this time last year I replaced a water heater for $2,522 a 94% increase in cost!! I spend more on this property than on my own home!!
I am not for additional rent control. I believe that the state rules are well thought out with each group having their input and it is a fair and reasonable law that takes into consideration the high costs of housing as well as the high cost of maintaining properties. It stops housing providers from price gouging and provides an ample return for housing providers to maintain their property and earn a living (yes housing providers like everyone else have the right to earn a living to support themselves and their families). It would not be fair for housing providers to shoulder the burden for significantly increasing costs thereby subsidizing tenants living expenses. The result of this law would most likely deter housing providers from upgrading/maintaining their properties thus making the landlord/tenant relationship worse rather than better.

My tenants appreciate I don’t raise rents annually. If this law were passed I would be forced to raise rents every year the maximum allowed not only to keep up with increasing costs but also in fear that the town does not have my back and god only knows what they will do next. I pay taxes & cooperate with all rules. I would also seriously consider selling the property and moving to a more friendly community that appreciates & respects people who ARE providing affordable & safe housing.You will be left with housing providers who do not care. When housing providers do not care communities suffer.

I also understand that there is discussion of changing rules around subletting. This would be a disaster.

I am an strong advocate for knowing my tenants and currently have great tenants who appreciate me as a landlord because I have created a place where tenants can feel safe and the building is well maintained with problems address promptly. Dictating to a property owner who can live in their property is pure & simple government overreach. A property owner must be entitled to decide who can live on THEIR property. If governments were to pass laws allowing third parties to 292
determine who can live on their property you will find that many housing providers will sell their property and invest in a friendlier community that appreciates & respects people who ARE providing affordable & safe housing. You will be left with housing providers who do not care. When housing providers do not care communities suffer.

While there are always bad actors who try and take whatever they can without regard to anyone else (this applies to both renters & housing providers), I don’t want to live in a society where everyone is presumed guilty and rules are made for the bad actors. In order for our society to function well we all need to be treated fairly and honestly. Our current society seems to want villains. Currently housing providers are being vilified.I know many housing providers and we are not villains we live in the community & are hardworking members of society. We enjoy being housing providers & like tenants, we want safe communities & tenants who get along with their neighbors, take care of the property and pay the rent on time.

Until such time that everyone is treated the same our society will only continue to decline.

I am more than happy to discuss further.

Kindly,
Kathleen Doyle
293
From: Jenny Silva
To: Town Council
Subject: Tenant protections
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 1:38:27 PM
Attachments: 2024-03-12-San Anselmo tenant.pdf
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
The Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative (MEHC) advocates for projects and policies that advance affordable housing, environmental sustainability, and social justice. We are writing you to urge you to vote “Yes” on a strong rent stabilization/anti-displacement measures this evening.

MEHC advocates for more affordable housing in Marin. At this point, there are very few affordable housing projects that are in the pipeline in Marin, and no multi-family projects currently proposed in San Anselmo. Marin has underbuilt housing for decades, causing the extreme housing shortage we currently face. A number of our multifamily housing developments have been purchased over the past five years, with tenants evicted. It is extremely difficult for these evicted tenants to find homes in Marin County, and many of them ultimately move out of County and become part of the commuting workforce to Marin. Each eviction is a humanitarian and environmental tragedy.

Tenant displacement in Marin is happening at a rapid rate. The longer San Anselmo waits, the more the damage that occurs. Further delays will cause harm. We urge San Anselmo to act now.

At MEHC, we believe that we need to produce far more housing. However, it will be years before we have sufficient housing. This is a landlord friendly market, and so we must protect renters.

Sincerely,
Jenny Silva
MEHC Board Chair
294
From: STIAN
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent Control - From a lifelong renter
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 3:32:36 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello San Anselmo,
I will not be able to attend this evening's town meeting, but I would love to add my voice to the issue of Rent Control in San Anselmo. I'm a lifelong renter, so renter's rights are something I identify strongly with.

If you would please consider the challenges renters face, I urge you to vote in favor of strong rent control. Living expenses seem to rise every year, while wages stagnate. I firmly believe that in a civilized society there should be safeguards to prohibit the abuse of renters. I could go on a tangent on this issue, but the simple side of it is, as somebody born and raised, and still living in Marin county I support strong rent control.

We need a strong rent stabilization law in San Anselmo to keep working families, seniors, and people with disabilities in their homes.

Please adopt a rent stabilization ordinance that caps annual rent increases at 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or 5%, whichever is less.

I am disappointed the council has chosen to exclude duplexes and ADUs from rent control. But if that is your decision, then you must at least ensure that the larger buildings that are still included have a strong rental cap that provides real housing stability for tenants.

San Anselmo has the opportunity to set a standard of compassion for the working class, and not simply bow to the pressures of the 'owning class' who often have more free time and ability to fight against the pleas of their less-financially-padded neighbors.

Thank you for listening.

Stian
--
Stian Rasmussen
415-844-0984
295
From: Massimo Pacchione
To: Town Council; Meagan Keane
Subject: Rent Control Vote
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 3:48:32 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Hi, Town Council -
I am writing as a San Anselmo resident who is very much in favor of rent control.

We need to make sure our community is affordable for individuals and families to be able to rent without fear of sudden and extreme cost increases. The stabilization ordinance seems incredibly fair - with a 5% raise or 60% of CPI being sizable enough to fluctuate with the greater economy without harming the ability of renters to afford to pay.

I understand that being a landlord can be very hard, and that tenants have a lot of rights that should be evaluated or reconsidered - that being said, tenants who pay their rent on time and are well behaved should not be kicked out of their homes just so landlords can make more money.

We are already a community that is highly skewed towards wealthy individuals. We should be supporting our tenants to make sure we continue to have a diversity of people who can afford to live and work in our town.

Thank you.

Massimo A Pacchione
--
/// Massimo Pacchione ///
/// [email protected] ///
296
[Type here]
Tax deductible donations made payable to MEHC will be administered by MarinLink, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes and sponsors community-based projects.

Town Council
San Anselmo
Via email: [email protected]
March 12, 2024
Subject: Tenant protections/anti-displacement measures
Dear San Anselmo Council Members, Mayor and Vice-Mayor, The Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative (MEHC) advocates for projects and policies that advance affordable housing, environmental sustainability, and social justice. We are writing you to urge you to vote “Yes” on a strong rent stabilization/anti-displacement measures this evening.

MEHC advocates for more affordable housing in Marin. At this point, there are very few affordable housing projects that are in the pipeline in Marin, and no multifamily projects currently proposed in San Anselmo. Marin has underbuilt housing for decades, causing the extreme housing shortage we currently face. A number of our multi-family housing developments have been purchased over the past five years, with tenants evicted. It is extremely difficult for these evicted tenants to find homes in Marin County, and many of them ultimately move out of County and become part of the commuting workforce to Marin. Each eviction is a humanitarian and environmental tragedy.

Tenant displacement in Marin is happening at a rapid rate. The longer San Anselmo waits, the more the damage that occurs. Further delays will cause harm.

We urge San Anselmo to act now.

At MEHC, we believe that we need to produce far more housing. However, it will be years before we have sufficient housing. This is a landlord friendly market, and so we must protect renters.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Silva
Board Chair
Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative
BOARD
Jennifer Silva, Chair
Aaron Brunett
Betsey Cutler
Lucie Hollingsworth
Paul Jensen
Larry Kennings
David Levin
Claire McAuliffe
Steven Saxe
Chantel Walker
Warren Wells

ADVISORY BOARD
Ron Albert
Paula Allen
Margot Biehle
Greg Brockbank
Katherine Crecelius
John Eller
Casey Epp
Kathleen Foote
Mayme Hubert
Linda Jackson
Cesar Lagleva
Stacey Laumann
Stephanie Lovette
Robert Pendoley
Scott Quinn
Michele Rodriguez
Annette Rose
Colin Russell
Ethan Strull
Mary Kay Sweeney
Joe Walsh
Joanne Webster
Steve Willis
Sallyanne Wilson
Tom Wilson
Kiki LaPorta,
Communications
P.O. Box 9633
San Rafael CA 94912
www.MarinMEHC.org
[email protected]
297
[email protected]
(415) 609-4671
298
From: Becky Brudniak
To: Town Council
Subject: Please support rent control! (Letter from San Anselmo resident) Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 6:38:02 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Re: In Support of Fair Rent Control in San AnselmoDate: March 12, 2024 Dear Wise and Wonderful San Anselmo Town Council Members, As a 29-year resident of beautiful San Anselmo, I wholeheartedly urge you to support measures to ensure reasonable rent control in our town.

Please stand up to encroaching corporate ownership/management! Here at Parkside Apartments (a 70-unit complex in Red Hill, built in 1975), we had a wonderful onsite manager for decades, and life in San Anselmo was idyllic.

However, in 2018, a new owner hired a corporate management firm (Avenue 5 Residential), and my rent increased by 13% in 2018 (before the state ordinance) and by almost 10% the following year.

Unfortunately, the 2019 California Tenant Protection Act (10% cap) does not offer adequate rental protection—virtually no working person’s income rises by 10% per year.

In the ensuing years, I have seen many beloved neighbors forced out by the skyrocketing increases. When my lease renewed this past November, I noticed that once again Avenue 5 raised rent by the maximum amount allowable under state law for Marin County for 2023: 9.2%.

However, in addition our manager told us that, at the time of lease renewal, we would also be charged an additional $25/month for “Valet Living” trash valet service. This is an obvious scam whereby you are required to purchase specific types of single-use plastic bags (they are immediately ripped open and discarded by the “valet,” since they cannot be placed in recycling bins), sort everything, and place these small bags in a small receptacle outside your door (thereby attracting unwanted bugs and animals) according to a specific, enforced in-and-out timetable, and someone else picks up the trash and walks it to the dumpster, approximately 15 feet away. No one here uses it (as it takes us 5 seconds to take out our own trash), but we cannot opt out of the billing. The extra charge brings the true rental increase to 10.5%, exceeding the California limit.

I mention this just to spread awareness that Corporate Management is finding ways to skirt the California law—this scam "service,” while not technically “rent,” is part of the rent bill due on the first of the month that must be paid to live here. In addition, Avenue 5 also tacks on a questionable (the units are not individually metered) monthly “Conservice” bill that includes water, sewer, and trash (it’s $170+/month for a single person in a small 700-sq-ft apartment, in my case!).

So, ANY help from the Good Town of San Anselmo is so very deeply appreciated! I have always LOVED living in San Anselmo, especially the access to trails and all the beautiful 299
nature that surrounds us.

At 65, I am also approaching the end of my working career (spent in the teaching and copyediting fields), and I had so looked forward to spending more time in nature.

However, in considering the reality of a “fixed income” scenario, it is clear that, at 10% per year, rent DOUBLES in 8 years and more than TRIPLES by year 13.

I cannot express to you how grateful I would be to be able to continue to call San Anselmo home.

Corporate Management has taken advantage of renters for long enough. You may have seen that Avenue 5 (Better Business Bureau rating: F) is among those facing class action lawsuits in many states (including California) for acting like a cartel and using RealPage software to keep rental rates artificially high. When I asked our first manager in 2018 (we’ve had six managers so far) how she determined how much to hike rates, she said she made sure the rates were “competitively” high — “but of course we don’t want to be the VERY highest,” she said.

Please help protect San Anselmo from corporate forces so that longtime residents of the town can continue to enjoy and to contribute to the peace and happiness of living here.

Thank you so very much.

Sincerely,
Becky Brudniak
300
From: Christopher Braun
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent Stabilizationn
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 2:48:58 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello.

I attended and spoke at your meeting tonight in favor of rent stabilization abslutely.

I chose to cite the overview of examples like the long function of the open space committee and its incredible fight in keeping San Anselmo in it’'s natural beauty, by years of fighting developers, and the Town plan also emphasizing keeping San ansemo in it's current character. despite the changes i have seen growing up herre from 1953,moving back east thet in 1970 and living in new york til 1989 when i had to leave for recovery reasons from being hit in the head with the barrel of a sawed off shot gun in 1973, and which led near death by 1989.

In 1995I got my Section 8 Housing because of the severity of my injury, and got thhe apartment I live in now since 1995 til the present. all this time was spent recovering and playing music whiich is what i did in NY as well as thongs like teach at the brain injury network taking care of my older brother and constantly and slowly recovering against western odds.

My apartment landlord i had known as a child and all those years was very very settled. i lived and developed close friendships with all my neighbors. i was and am allowed to play my drums . and they are and have been always enthusiastically accepted by everybody.

In 2021 my landlod died and the building was sold to Tom Garbarino, and a huge management company put in charge of the building.

This has changed everything and they have acted illegally and i have had to hire legal assistance including one of my neighbors who helped me. Things have been better but there is always pressure.

What i have to say to you about rent stabilization is)1 a small landlord has to he aware of his business and the changes in the town. just because rent stabilization might cost a small landlord money in rent increases , the Tenants also have additional expenses in this society ,
As a disabiled person you have to be responsible and requires many things just like a regular working person . my credit score is 815 because i am so resonsible though i do not make an income but my benefits. i have almost died several times over the years, and I have only my doctor of Chinese medicine and myself to thank for for this recovery though I have had 2 good doctoors in the 30 years.

The question is what will happen if rent stabilization is not adopted. That is pretty obvious especially with big management companies. landlords will raise rents. tenants will have additional expense and everybody will be effected by raising costs. despite the state laws. It could be a disaster for the Town. Empty housing etc.

The figures show their are more renters than owners in san anselmo. families starting out in my neigborhood invest everything in their house. Who loses out the most . the tenant or the landlord. it is obvious its the tenant . not only here but everywhere,. prices of everything are just going up…!! San Anselmo San Anselmo.

You all know my brother Jonathan has run the open space commitee his whole life and they recentluy purchased Mt Baldy for $100,000,000.

What does that have to do with rent stabilization? it preserves San Anselmo , just like the town plan !!!!!!! If a landlord invests alot like the sunnyside person did , that is not being aware of his business. San Anselmo has room for new people with means but also in it’s town plan to maintain it’s beauty and character. as it is. rent stabilization assures that it does lose it’s essence and the people who have lived here for so long do not lose not only the the character and reason they moved here in the first plave like my father 90 years ago, but what dean anselmo is now.

I see the changes and have since i came back in 1989 near death, and was accepted by open and caring people through most with means who as houses changed hands in my neighborhood that was unfailing.

Recently, a new kind of person from the tec industry there is an element of people who just don’t care about anything but themselves and there money.

Thet have a whole different feeling, idea and though cannot disrespect me , obviously have some new frame of 301
mind.

The huge management company who manages this building realized when they illegally tried to get me to move and also sign a faulty lease that they cannot walk on people at least in our building.

There is a balance but you have to know how many mom and pop landlords there are and what there real goals are.

You can’t make an honest decision until those facts are known. There are more renters than owners and many people i know work very hard. The question of the direction of San Anselmo I is think clear what is always been needed to be preserved. It has been changed enough. Your laws also say that. You know that and what plans or greed intent for this town is stopped cold in the laws as in the town plan. That is why rent stabilization is a positive positive move, it allows the town to remain itself. if This is an important enough a cross roads that I took this time and I hope you appreciat th and understand what i have pointed out here. Thank you Sincerely, Chris Braun 302
From: Wendy Lang
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 10:14:01 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extra rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
303
From: ConnieBorter
To: Town Council
Subject: Rent Stabilization
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 9:04:40 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
My name is Connie Borter and I am in support of rent stabilization 60 % of CPA or 5% whichever is lower.

Please support our community.

Thank you,
Connie Borter
26 Elm Ave
San Anselmo, California
94960
Sent from my iPhone
304
From: Robert Nobili
To: Town Council
Subject: I am concerned about Rent Control
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 5:10:05 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I am concerned about having extrastuff rent control enacted in our town. I believe that the negative financial consequences to all residents - homeowners, housing providers and renters, far out weighs any perceived benefit.

Also, these regulations do nothing to increase housing affordability, the main concern of our town. Please think this through before you bring this to the voters.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
305