Thank you.

Good evening, welcome to the Nevada City Council meeting for Tuesday, August 26th, 2025.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.

For which it stands.

One name.

Understanding Laura, if you please call roll.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Here.

Councilmember Milberg.

Present.

Mayor Pertem Farak.

Present.

Mayor O'Connor.

Present.

And Councilmember Eklund is on Zoom.

Councilmember Eklund, are you present?

Um yes, I am present, and I've requested that I be on to uh uh to help healing a uh fractured shoulder.

And can you disclose if there is anyone else in the room with you over the age of 18?

There's no one else in the room with me that's over the age of 18.

I I do have a eight-year-old kitty that sometimes comes in.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

The City Council did meet in closed session before this evening's meeting.

I'll turn to City Attorney Bell in case there's anything to report out.

Yeah, thank you.

The council did vote 5-0 to initiate litigation.

The particulars are available upon request if that action is commenced.

That's it.

Thank you very much.

And now I'd like to invite council to join me at the front of the room for a proclamation recognizing Gosha Woodfin for 17 years of service with the City of Nevada.

Hi Gosha.

Hello.

Oh, you have to stand here.

This is for you.

We're celebrating the retirement of a very special person today.

Uh Goshus Goodfin were for her 17 years of service.

Whereas Gosha Woodfin started working for the City of Nevada on September 29th, 2008, and whereas Gosha has served as an engineer and project manager in the public works department and has worked on a project on project development and construction management for almost 60 capital improvement projects with a total budget of over 42 million.

And whereas most projects were concerned with streets, transportation and drainage, and a bridge, if I'm not mistaken, very recently, and a few involved parks and facilities improvements.

For each and every project, Gosha made sure that this capital improvement project objectives were met and ensured compatibility with approved program principles, goals, and objectives.

And whereas Gosha knows every step of the project process from conception, budgeting, planning, and permitting design and construction through completion, and has independently delivered challenging projects on time and within budget.

And whereas she has an in-depth knowledge of the public bidding process and outsourcing has a successful history attracting and selecting reputable consultant experts, contractors, and service providers, not easy work, and her attention to detail has not only yielded quality products, but has also helped identify and mitigate potential problems.

And whereas her other responsibilities included managing the Novato Pavement Management Program, administering federal funded projects, identifying and applying for grant funding, enacting a staff liaison for the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee and the street improvement oversight committee, just to name a few things.

And whereas over the years, GOSHA has always maintained a positive, can-do attitude regardless of the situation, and was always willing to put in the extra effort required to resolve any issue.

And whereas Gosha has lived in Novato for over 25 years and is proud to have served the community, applying her experience and knowledge to help her maintain the help maintain the quality of life in Nevada.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Novato, on behalf of the residents of Nevada, does hereby offer its heartfelt appreciation to Gosha Whitfan for her service to the Nevada community for the past 17 years and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Please join me in congratulating and thank you.

As stated in the proclamation, I've lived here in Nevada for over 25 years, and um I laughed as the residents.

Um that I was able to serve my community.

Um working for over 17 years as an engineer for the city of Nevada has been a privilege.

Um every time I drive bike or walk, I always bond with it to one of those six projects.

And it just feels so good.

I I just it just makes me proud.

And um but before I go, um I would really like to give uh loud shout out to all my co-workers.

It has been a great privilege working with each and every one of you.

Thank you.

All right.

The next item on our agenda is approval of the final agenda.

I make a motion we approve the final agenda.

And I'll second motion.

Thanks.

And Laura, if you'd call the vote, please.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg.

Aye.

Mayor Pertem Frack.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Hi, passes five zero.

Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is public comment.

So this is public comment for items that are not on the agenda or for items that are listed on the consent calendar.

Unfortunately, due to the large amount of requests to speak and the expected amount of public engagement regarding our just cause ordinance workshop.

We'll have to limit comments this evening to one and a half minutes per speaker.

Please respect the time limit and limit any show of solidarity or support to silent gestures in order to f in order for the next speaker to have uninterrupted time to speak.

Our first speaker is Alan Gunn.

Pardon me?

Oh, sure.

I have the cards.

All right, I'll put you.

I see.

Are those the numbers that are written in the top right-hand corner by any chance?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, give me a minute.

Jay, you don't have a number.

Are you willing to go first?

Jay Sheffer?

No.

All right.

No problem, guys.

All right.

So our first speaker this evening will be Serena Fisher.

Does that work?

Hello, Serena.

You're already here.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

All right, good evening.

I just want to remind the council and the greater community that no public funds have ever been used to sustain Marin Valley Mobile Country Club.

Residents have paid for everything since 1997, including close to 18 million in loans and bonds and interests, with the understanding that the land would ultimately be ours in 2027.

The 20 million offer that the park acquisition board presented to the council in June is in a detailed 120 plus per page proposal focused on affordability, security, and sustainability.

Goals supposedly aligned with the city c city's publicly stated priorities.

However, the city's response was an ultimatum for 26 million while keeping all our 7.5 million enterprise reserves as well as additional hidden conditions.

Can you honestly say that this is good faith negotiations?

So much work went into putting that proposal for you for your consideration.

This is certainly not a win-win that you have talked about.

We're asking the city to change course.

Stop the ultimatums, commit to fair, transparent and respectful negotiations.

With CCCD and ROC USA support, residents are ready to forge a new path as a successful cooperative senior housing community.

Let's build a solution together that protects affordable senior housing in perpetuity in Novato and honors and respects the independence this community deserves.

Thank you.

Thank you, Serena.

Our next speaker is David Gray.

Welcome, David.

Thank you.

Thank you, City Council, for the opportunity to speak.

And my name is David Gray.

I'm a resident of some nine years of the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club.

I'm also a member of the Marin Valley Cooperative.

I'm here to speak about the security of our predominantly low-income residents to not be priced out of their homes.

The city leadership says that affordability, security, and sustainability are priorities.

Yet uses an appraiser from a non-expert in mobile home parks based upon a for-profit valuation model to reach a price tag of $26 million plus other undisclosed terms.

And it is crafted with expert advice to provide affordability, security, and sustainability and perpetuity, insulated from the changing priorities of our current idol holder.

We residents of the MBC call on the city to please reconsider the merits of our initial $20 million offer.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, David.

Our next speaker is Janine Bradley.

Welcome, Janine.

Hi.

Not that many pages, just one.

When I looked over the agenda today and read the public comments, I was taken with the scope of your responsibilities for the city of Novato.

Resident homeowners, renters, employees, and even squatters rely on you for their representation to monitor, direct, and regulate many of our daily activities.

Thank you.

My observation is that in the last 25 years or so, the City of Novato has gone from a business from a doing business with a handshake to a professionally regulated city with a capital C.

That's a dramatic change and not without a number of growing pains.

Some actions from the past still impact us today.

Marin Valley Mobile Country Club has 313 households, of which 82% have paid membership to join our community nonprofit co-op seeking park seeking park self-ownership.

How often do you find a community or 82% to agree on anything, much less pay to agree on it?

We recognize that we need to be responsible for our own future and not rely on a handshake agreement.

We cannot rely on the city to keep our best interests a priority.

Public officials change.

We've done our homework.

We've enlisted professional guidance and legal counsel to help us ensure we are successful as a self-owned community.

I remind the council of the city's current strategic plan, goal number one, living well together.

Support facilities, support facilities and design programs and services that create a healthy, caring, and interconnected community that is safe and secure.

That's our goal too.

Support our unity and commitments to self-ownership.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Janine.

Our next speaker is Susan Hoff.

And then after Susan will be Judy Monsum.

Welcome, Susan.

Hi.

First off, I apologize if you don't mind speaking into the microphone.

That'd be great.

First off, thank you so much.

I so appreciate your hard work, your diligence.

Novato is a great place to live, so thank you.

Three small points for you.

Did you all know that 91% of our community qualifies as acutely low income, extremely low income, very low income, plain vanilla low income.

91%.

That's before trying to reach for a $26 million loan.

Second point.

In our little hood in our valley, we have $124 households that cannot reach the 31% requirement for only paying their rent 31%.

They are paying way more of their income just to get bought.

Before a $66 million loan.

Last point, and I'm really proud of this one.

Since 1997, we have paid $18 million for the bond, the loan, the interest.

We've paid it like clockwork every month.

We never missed a payment.

I'm so proud of us.

So my question for you all tonight just to consider this little community, this 91% low-income community.

Is it reasonable to expect us to afford a $26 million loan?

I want you all to think on that one.

And again, thank you for your hard work tonight.

Thank you very much, Susan.

Our next speaker is Judy Monson, followed by Gail Atkinson.

Welcome, Julie.

Thank you.

Julie Manson, 7 Club View Drive, Marin Valley Mobile Country Club.

The determination of the majority of Marin Valley residents to take charge of our own affordable, secure, and sustainable future is so strong that we are consenting to pay for the park twice.

Our original $20 million offer ensured that increases in rent would continue to follow the historical and minimal increases in CPI.

Marin Valley is poised for success in park ownership with experience and expertise from resident-owned communities USA and California community cooperative development cooperative development, plus our own abundant leadership and management skills and abilities.

The City of Novato claims to support affordable housing for seniors on March 18, 2017.

Then mayor of Novato, Denise Athis wrote to the World Health Organization requesting membership for Novato in the global network of age-friendly cities and communities.

She wrote, quote, the City of Novato recognizes the importance of encouraging and promoting age-friendly policies to address changing demographics and to enhance independent living for our older adults.

We are committed to a process of continual improvement in support of active and healthy aging and sustaining economic and social vitality.

By contrast, today, the city's counter-demand of $26 million with hidden conditions, puts hundreds of seniors at risk for housing insecurity.

We're asking the city to be reasonable and fair so that our community will remain affordable.

It's the right thing to do.

Thank you, Julie.

Our next speaker is Gail Atkinson, followed by Sherry Smith.

Welcome, Gail.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you in person.

It is conceivable that when you were first elected to the Novato City Council, you did not know our park's history.

That in 1998, the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club residents formed the Park Acquisition Corporation to purchase the land through financing through the Novato Financing Authority.

In 2012, the city became guarantor of our loans when the Novato Finance Authority was dissolved, and the NFA transferred the title to the City of Novato.

It is not correct to state that the city bought the park because that implies that the city paid for the property.

And as you know, Mill Valley Mobile Country Club's rents have paid all the bond payments, upgrades, repairs, our parts management company, the Helsing Group, as well as the additional management fees built to us by the City of Novato.

We have been excellent stewards of the property, and we have saved $4.4 million in the enterprise fund, which is legally earmarked for the future needs of our park.

Justice will be truly served, in my opinion, when title to Mill Valley Mobile Country Club is transferred to our park acquisition corporation when the final bond payment is made with no further funds to be paid to the City of Novato.

This is the requisite legal procedure for any bank guarantor or mortgage company when its customer loans are paid in full.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Gail.

Our next speaker is Sherry Smith, followed by Greg Smith.

Welcome, Sherry.

I'm Sherry Smith, and I'm also a resident of the Marin Valley Country Club.

My career was as a risk advisor in insurance, where my job was identifying dangerous large loss exposures for clients regarding the properties.

I have been quite taken aback at the extent of repairs and capital improvements that have been neglected in our park that create large potential loss exposures for the city.

What's even more concerning is that the city has allowed these to emerge while holding over 4.5 million dollars in reserves, which was 100% collected from the residents' rents and designated exclusively to rectify these types of needs for the Marin Valley community.

To date, the city has done absolutely nothing to ameliorate the potential risk exposures caused by these much needed repairs and infrastructure improvements.

In my opinion, as a risk advisor, what we're seeing here is a blatant disregard for the possibility of a large loss to the community, whether structural or human.

And what is even more disconcerting is the city's blatant disregard for the residents' well-being.

But now we are offering the city a simple way to be free from all these liability exposures.

Turn the park over to its residents.

We have developed our plans on how to address the various issues, and the city can facilitate that by agreeing to hand over those reserve funds for us to address those various liability exposures and make those much needed capital improvements.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sherry.

Our next speaker is Greg Smith, followed by Bill Davis.

Welcome, Greg.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Greg Smith.

I'm a resident of Marin Valley.

I'm one of those that helped spend hundreds of hours putting together short-term and long-term plans to help us take ownership and self-manage Marin Valley with incredibly detailed budgets, cash flow plans, action plans, schedules for repairs, and long-delayed capital improvements, all driven by expert inputs.

And once we were drawn, then truly feeling prepared to take on our future.

The work wasn't just about budgets or coming up with a price to quote to the city.

We genuinely sought a win-win strategy that would benefit the city of Navado while also advancing our ability to protect our low-income senior residents.

I mean, our proposal paid off a loan that the city had helped us obtain years ago to eventually gain ownership.

It only used a portion of the millions of dollars held in reserves, and then we plan we said we'll give the city the back the rest of the balance there.

And then our residents would give the city five hundred thousand dollars a year for 35 years that the city could use unrestricted in any way they sought.

And unbelievably, we'd only had to increase resident rents annually by the CPI, which is one of our most critical factors in keeping the park affordable.

I was just so proud that we accomplished all of our goals in the proposal, and our total 20 million dollar offer came within 94% of that appraised value you heard about by the highly experienced Mowlone Park appraiser.

So I am respectfully asking you.

Please reconsider our original good faith offer in all its detail.

And demonstrate to our city's citizens your commitment to effectively caring for Navado's low-income senior residents.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Greg.

Our next speaker is Bill Davis, followed by Alan Gump.

Welcome, Bill.

Good evening, City Council.

I'm Bill Davis.

And I want to draw your attention to deferred maintenance at Marin Valley.

The city has received and banked $4.6 million in capital reserves from the residents for maintenance and repairs.

For many years, the city's been informed of multiple situations and done little to essentially nothing.

Labor costs are up.

Materials are much more expensive.

The net result is the cost of replacement of almost anything today has doubled.

I think you could have done a better job.

We would have done a better job.

Funding for the fire safety was drastically reduced three years ago.

We are now working very hard to catch up.

This is a serious health and safety issue for vulnerable senior citizens.

Deferred maintenance is no way to manage your property, your automobile, or your health.

It's not what a responsible person would do or a responsible landlord.

We could and will do a better job.

So it's simple.

Let us very competent seniors do it.

We can do a better job today and in the future.

I'm talking about a win-win situation.

With the offer in front of you at this critical time.

Take the 20 million.

Everyone wins.

Have the attorneys paper it up.

And you can get back to city business.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bill.

Our next speaker is Alan Gump, followed by Jay Shelfer.

Welcome, Alan.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Alan Gump and live in Marin Valley.

We submitted a detailed thorough proposal to you folks, which I'm sure you've seen.

What we got back from the city was a very cordial demand for a full and unconditional surrender.

Meet your price, forfeit our reserves, and then you will sit down with us and give us other conditions that we will have to meet in order for you to sell the park to us.

Is this the way you want to start a win-win good faith set of negotiations?

Because frankly, it felt more like a shakedown.

And I hope I'm wrong.

Sincerely, but I'll tell you, we're watching.

Now, when it comes to negotiations, it's time to move beyond the post office and sit down at a real table in real chairs, eyeball to eyeball, armpit to armpit, and work this out.

We are Marin Valley.

This is not the Gaza Strip or the Donbass region.

It can't be that hard for two parties who want to find a solution.

I know we can do it if the will is there.

Now let's talk a minute about status quo.

Some people in our community think status quo is great.

The city's doing a great job.

You've just heard from a few people here where we don't feel like this has been a happy dance.

But the more important issue is security.

You five may be predisposed to like us and support us, but what happens when you're gone?

That's that's going to be pretty soon.

We have no idea what the next city council will do when they step in here.

They could look at us as the fatted calf ready for the market, particularly if you're facing a serious fiscal crisis like you were two years ago.

Now, we have the jobs.

We've demonstrated that we have the skills, the leadership, and very importantly, the mandate of our community to run ourselves as an affordable senior housing community that meets all of your goals and we and that meet and that is guided by the strategic partnerships that we have with Rock USA and C C C D.

There has never been a better time.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Let's seize it.

And I will just say one thing in closing.

So this is a great opportunity.

Motivate us.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Alan.

Our next speaker is Jay Shelfer, followed by Carol Joy Harris.

No.

No.

Sorry.

Welcome, Jay.

Hi.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I actually signed on to speak on G9-1, and I'll reserve my comments until then.

I'm sorry, one more time.

I want to speak on G9-1, not uh on this.

This is the consent calendar.

So that item is on consent calendar, so if you've if you've commented on the consent calendar items, this would be the time to provide this.

Okay.

So my comments are the uh the PAC and Helsing group have been uh working very diligently with the architects and with the engineering group, and we fully support uh G9 as it stands.

Perfect.

Thank you, J.

And then our next speaker is Carol Joy Harris, followed by Robert Belichick.

Welcome, Carol Joe.

Thank you.

Um this is about the clubhouse roof and HVAC, which uh is one of the deferred maintenance items that has been referred to.

Um for years we have begged because our roof was in such bad condition, and you will see from the staff report that the original estimate was 350,000, now it's up to almost a million.

It was put in the budget years ago, but public works said, oh, sorry, we're short staffed, we just don't have time to oversee the project.

So it got put off and put off put off.

And now we're facing three times almost three times the amount.

Why?

And I will just add that um there was an architect uh several months ago, but no movement on it until there was a KPIX story the other night that looked pretty good for Marin Valley and not so good for the city council, and the next morning, somebody from Public Works came out and said, Oh, I didn't even know this was on the list.

But suddenly, miraculously it's on the agenda for tonight.

Coincidence.

Thank you, Carol Joy.

Our next speaker is Robert Belichick, followed by Calvin Willette.

Welcome, Robert.

Hello, hello, hello.

I know a few people that I've um had three tours of Hamilton homeless encampments.

With Mark with Ms.

Farrett with Ms.

Part Oh, sorry, sorry, Ms.

Farack and Pat Eklund.

I'm gonna comment on what I've seen over my entire residency in Hamilton, which is 20 years.

Hard to believe.

Bayside and now in Sunny Cove for the past 14 years.

And I've got two dogs, well, three sometimes, and have walked the whole area around Ammo Hill skate park, all around.

And I've looked at the encampments grow.

And this morning, as I drove by it on the way to the gym, Susan, who I've not seen for a while, uh I saw a white car that's usually parked in the skate park parking lot, parked by a huge tent on the far south side of the railroad bridge.

Called the police right away.

After they're driving across the grass to get over there.

But I want to talk about um since I've gone with three of you.

It's in this period that I've been here, about 10 years, three bodies have been found.

I found one myself about seven years ago, laying on the road behind Ammo Hill, and then a week ago, this past weekend.

Police were down.

I walked the dogs down along Pacheco Creek and the Trestle Bridge crossing the creek, blocked off it.

What happened?

The next day I walked over and I looked at the trestles and the spray painted in the on the wood, rest in peace, dawn.

So that's another person.

The other person that was dead was someone who's found in a tree behind where the city has put out washstands and porta bodies, and huge trash containers where the people can put in their trash, throwing it away.

Uh what I've seen the fires, I've walked around all the camps, I've been assaulted a couple of times.

I've had people scream about the dogs.

Like you can't be here, and I'm thinking, I can't be here, but you can.

It's that kind of anyhow.

That's that's personal.

And the biggest thing I've seen though is the change in the wildlife.

Because of all those people living in those vegetated areas all around what I call it's called the flat lands and the wetlands, and the city's cleaned those up over the past 14 years.

They go in and clean all this stuff out.

Now I are we getting the Binford Roads fill over?

I'm sorry, Robert, I'm afraid you're at time.

Sure.

And I've talked to the merchants.

My partner happens to manage both uh Pet Food Express at Hamilton and Terrellinda.

And so he deals firsthand on what happens with the abuse of the businesses here.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Robert.

Our next speaker is Calvin Willette, followed by Brian Skinner.

Welcome, Calvin.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council.

I live about a hundred yards from the skate park area in Newport Development.

My request tonight is very simple.

I am requesting that the council direct the chief of police to enforce section 1720 of the Novato Code of Ordinances at the skate park.

Approximately 20 years ago, I came to one of these meetings, and we had a problem just to the west of my house on Newport Landing.

Redneck guys in their four-wheel drive pickup trucks were doing donuts and doing side shows out there.

Of all the council members, it was Pat Eklund who picked up the ball.

And she met with the Army.

The Army brought in all those big boulders and all that traffic control stuff, as well as helped with the gate.

I am in I am eternally indebted to Council Member Eklund for her actions.

And I do ask, you have this section 1720.

And if you're not going to enforce it, why even have it?

So the now Novato Code of Ordinances is built on all the reasons that the people will tell you why this is a bad situation.

I appreciate your attention and thank you again, Council Member Eckland.

Thank you very much, Calvin.

Our next speaker is Brian Skinner, followed by John Hansen.

Welcome, Brian.

Homeless encampments have long existed in Hamilton.

I'm here today to discuss the recent negative changes in circumstances.

In April, a group of tents first appeared near the skate park.

This is separate from the existing encampment that's farther back from the road in the marsh.

Instead, these tents set up in a new location with a direct line of sight to the skate park, and it has only grown since.

Over 60 residents have shown support and shared their personal experiences, which I have submitted to the council, but I'd like to read just a few.

Unfortunately, we won't be allowing the kids to use that skate park.

Quote two.

I've seen them having campfires under the trees.

Quote three.

A homeless woman was lifting her top and asking the boys to touch her.

I called the police and was told it's not a crime to be homeless.

I told them that indecent exposure is a crime.

They investigated and removed her, but she's back.

Now, unlike other sites in Novato, like League Arnold Park, there's been no action regarding the situation in the skate park.

Instead, the opposite.

People appear to be displaced to this location, which is closer to homes and has more tall dry vegetation fire risk.

It's an unsafe location for people to reside, especially as we enter peak fire season.

We request immediate action on the encampments within line of sight of the skate park.

Again, these are all new as of April.

They have the greatest impact on our community and risk.

We would also like to be placed on the agenda for next council meeting to discuss the progress made and plan for the encampments in the marsh area.

Those in attendance, if you support this request, please raise your hands.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brian.

Our next speaker is John Hanson, followed by Stan Ipologist Lapin.

Welcome, John.

Good evening, Mayor Connor and the uh uh council of uh the city of Novato.

Yeah, I want to uh just speak to uh item G9.

Uh and I just want to express my gratitude for actually getting around to this.

Finally, it's been years in the in the making.

And uh hopefully uh we can get this thing done before the winter storms come in.

And uh I wanted to uh let you know that we have some assistance in that respect, and that the uh Pacific uh uh northern oscillation is working with the La Niña, uh Southern Oscillation and the uh what that means for the Bay Area weather is that uh the storms are gonna the winter storms are gonna be delayed this year.

So that gives us plenty of opportunity, I think, to finish this job.

I can't, I don't think you'll allow me to get out there with my roofing hammer to help on this.

Uh, but at least I can uh uh I can let you know that the weather's on our site.

So thank you very much for getting along with this project.

And I hope we can get it done uh uh this uh this winter before the rains.

The other part of the of the forecast for the rains is that when they do come, they're gonna be nasty.

They're gonna be nasty, short, squally kinds of storms.

Uh the kind that the that the clubhouse doesn't do very well with.

So uh let's get this job done.

Let's do whatever we can to get it done.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, John.

And then our next speaker is John, sorry, Stan Lapin, followed by Margaret Siegfried.

Welcome, Stan.

Good evening.

Um you know, I've been here over a variety of years talking about the problem of the homeless.

We've had the pleasure of taking Pat Eklin on a tour, which I know was enlightening if you remember that.

Yeah.

Um I am also speaking about the problem that's now ensued since April when Lee Gurga was shut down.

I don't know whether the city moved these residents or it was another effort.

It was controversial.

I don't know.

It ended up being about six people or six tents.

Now it's the entire fridge.

And now we're having a problem in the city is putting the residents at real risk, particularly children, because of the because of the nature of the people and how they are disregarding our residents.

In addition to that, there is also clearly fire safety.

We don't we've seen that enough, and I've seen it out in my back door.

Um, and also um, you know, the other issue is how it's impacting businesses.

I've talked to Gary Satin uh Satin, who is a great guy from Tariaki in the new plaza, and he said it's been a real problem since he's been there.

Uh he's talked to the manager manager who was even going to come here tonight.

We've talked to Mike uh from the courtyard.

I'm sure if I went to every single merchant, they all would stand up and come here if they knew we were organizing.

So we're trying to come here in a very civil way, in a constructive way, and say, guys, now's the time.

We have to take action.

We've been kicking this down way too long, and it's just gonna get worse.

The other last thing I'm gonna say is, and I've said this to uh Eric Lucan, this is not just a city problem.

This is a county problem.

And the county has to accept responsibility financially and not have the situation where uh homeless in southern Marin find themselves not there and over here.

And I've talked to the police and they tell me that happens.

So we can't allow that to happen.

This is a county problem that has to be solved, and Novato can take the lead, and we have a great financial opportunity to help us in southern Nevada.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Stan.

Our next speaker is Margaret Siegfried, followed by Joan.

Welcome, Margaret.

Thank you.

In 97 when the city got the loan.

We were promised when the loan was paid.

The park would be our own.

So if you promise you would keep, then we could finally get some sleep, and once again feel safe and happy in our home.

Marine Valley.

Talking about Marine Valley, talking about the ring of talking about Marin Valley.

That's our home.

That's our home.

That's our home.

Very well sung, and you guys put in a lot of practice.

Our next speaker is Joan.

And Joan, I apologize that you have to follow Margaret today.

Good evening, council.

Like some of my other neighbors, I am here because I want to express my concerns about the urgent need for the city to address homeless encampments near the skate park in Hamilton.

There's been a long-standing problem with people camping in the wooded area behind the skate park.

And now in recent months, a new evergrowing camp beside the skate park, which is visible from the street has formed.

These two areas are not set up for camping and put both housed and unhoused residents at great risk of fire health and safety.

There's already been several large fires in the area, and it seems illogical that the city is asking people to move vegetation five feet away from their homes for fire risk, and yet at the same time is not sufficiently addressing the serious fire risk, these encampments pose.

For example, just this morning a car was parked by the camp, having driven about a block across highly flammable tall grass.

This happens on a regular basis.

The new safe team does not appear to be making any attributable difference.

We don't have months and years to address this dangerous situation.

If a large fire occurs, campers could be trapped in their tents, and several hundred adjacent homes could be engulfed.

The city could be held liable following uh for allowing this situation to continue.

When residents have contacted the city to express concerns, there's been no communication other than emails saying the city appreciates hearing from you and is aware of the situation.

The city went through a great deal of effort to uh pass this new ordinance against camping on public property.

So why isn't it being enforced?

The city needs to treat the situation as an urgent safety risk that it is, and put in place a plan to move the campers to a safe area before there is a tragedy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Joan.

And then our final speaker is Bryce Armbruster.

Welcome, Bryce.

Take your time.

I'm here to talk about the homeless encampment that everyone has referenced.

Um I'm kind of in shock and awe, they didn't even know some of those stories that some of my neighbors had shared shared earlier.

Um we moved to Hamilton uh in early 2020, priorities the pandemic was kicking off as a safe place for our kids.

Um I'm absolutely appalled by what's happened there over the last several months and how it's really grown before a a small collection of people.

Um to really just kind of an uncontrollable group.

It's uh from the outside.

Um I think we've all seen what same has happened in San Francisco.

I don't think any of us want that to happen to our community.

Um and I'm urging uh city council, the mayor to take immediate steps to rectify that.

Um I have personally seen drunken people uh surrounded by the police.

I've seen someone at night while running that another runner has confirmed they've seen multiple times who was either high on some sort of meth drug, I don't know, or as it grows a schizophrenic.

We've seen cars driving back there, um, unbelievable amounts of trash that would look like it's on some beach in a third world country that's washed up like the Great Pacific garbage patch.

Um I've had a neighbor who's had their child verbally assaulted and followed um there.

I had no idea that a potty was found back there.

I found that unbelievable that none of us know about this.

Um I'm just shocked by what's been allowed to happen.

Um so I come up here with mostly sadness and regret in addition to shock.

So thank you.

Thank you, Bryce.

Okay.

That concludes in-person public comment for this item.

Uh we'll go to we'll go to uh Zoom for public comment.

If you'd like to speak, please use the raise hand feature on your computer.

Laura, if anyone looking to speak.

There are no raised hands on Zoom.

Okay, that concludes public comment.

So we'll move on to approval of the consent calendar.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second motion.

Thank you, Laura.

If you please call the vote.

And can I clarify that includes the um revised attachment for item G8 attachment two?

Thank you.

Yes, it does.

Thank you.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg.

Aye.

Mayor Pertemp Farak.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Hi.

Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you.

Our next uh we're gonna take a brief recess in a moment, but um for the translators in the room.

If you wouldn't mind sharing what I'm about to say, I'd appreciate it.

I'm sorry, folks.

As you're leaving the room, if you could leave silently, so we do that'd be great.

Thank you.

And Laura, they have a microphone.

Oh, okay.

Laura's gonna bring a microphone over to you just so you can share.

And we're in recess until seven PM.

Okay, thank you.

We're going to reconvene.

So the next item on our agenda is receive a presentation, conduct a study session, and consider providing direction to staff to inform the preparation of a local just cause tenants protections ordinance as a follow-up to the direction already provided by City Council on May twentieth, twenty twenty five.

Before I hand this over to staff, I just want to remind everybody that if you do any translation services, they're available on the right hand side of the room.

I'll wait for you.

So today isn't about adopting an ordinance or making a change.

It's about staff helping make an informed choice in terms of drafting the next ordinance to be considered.

Thank you very much.

With that, I'm going to call on Claire Hartman, the community development director to present the item.

Welcome, Claire.

Thank you.

So this slide covers what we're going to talk about tonight, and thank you for the introduction that this is a study session, not an action item.

First, we'll go over the background of just cause and tenant protection and how it relates to city policy and state law.

We'll talk about key provisions or key elements that would be in a just cause ordinance.

And then we'll also go over the public outreach that related to the key provisions and that I learned along my journey in terms of what I heard from the community in community workshops.

And then lastly, we'll wrap up with the key policy questions that I would like to ask the council before we go back and draft a draft ordinance for consideration.

So what brought us here tonight with this topic is our city's housing element.

It covers production, preservation, and protection of housing.

It was adopted in May of 2024.

But we've been actually working on it since 2023.

We're in our second year implementing its programs.

If you want to follow along our progress, you can go to the city's website, Novado.com/slash housing element.

And one of the initiatives in our program was to do a educational and engagement effort that we participated with the county.

So it was a countywide effort called Rooted in Marin.

And the culmination of that effort was presented to the council on May 13th.

And we followed up that session with a study session on anti-displacement and tenant protections at the council, the very next meeting.

So the city's housing element addresses tenant protections in goal five.

There's several goals, but goal five addresses tenant protections.

Policy 5.4 covers tenant protections, and it says, as it says here, cities will stay up to date on statewide tenant protections, but we'll also educate tenants and we'll educate landlords on their respective rights.

Program five I is more specific.

This is your action item.

And the title is called Expand Just Cause Eviction Protections to All Tenants.

But when you look at the text of the housing element, it's a little broader than that title.

It's to consider a local just cause ordinance.

But to remain to retain grounds for eviction where it's matches at fault and state protections.

So the exercise or the action item is exactly what we're doing.

We're exploring this topic for consideration of a just cause local ordinance.

It doesn't guarantee we will adopt one.

We are exercising this action item by even doing what we're doing tonight.

Doing our outreach, doing our understanding of it, and deciding if this is something we want to do.

This slide summarizes what we learned and rooted in Marin in terms of policy ideas that came out of that.

One of them was just cause evictions.

We looked at case studies for that.

That was already in our housing element, as I just mentioned.

But what we also learned is some other ideas that the city could explore.

And the two that really piqued the council's interest at the time was relocation assistance and right of return.

So they weren't already in our housing element, but because of our experience in the city and because of what we learned in Rudin and Marin, that became of interest.

And so when I embarked on this outreach, we included those principles.

This slide summarizes state laws at a very high level that relate to just cause ordinances.

It's called the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

We've also referred to it as AB 1482, and we also sometimes call it TPA.

So forgive us with the acronyms and the multiple names, but we're talking about the same law.

So this is a state law that sets minimum statewide standards for rent control and for just cause.

So we're looking at the state law, how it relates to just cause.

So in summary, these are the considerations that we put into this effort.

We looked at our own housing element as it was written and adopted.

We expanded that exploration to include relocation assistance and right of return.

And we are always mindful of what is in state law and what isn't in state law, and what are the parameters upon which we would adopt a local ordinance in compliance with state law.

We held some public workshops.

Some other considerations to keep in mind, we're trying to sort of land or benchmark or create a foundation upon which we could draft some key provisions of an ordinance and upon which we would, I guess, set sail into the public workshops to start set up what this might look like.

We created a foundation that we would set it in context of our local area.

So we looked to the city of Petaluma, the city of San Rafael, and the county of Marin.

But we also looked statewide.

We were looking at best practices and how we fit in with those best practices.

In fact, we set this draft framework up that it would not require fees or a full program or a request for staffing, that it would set the provisions for protections of all stakeholders, the city, landlords, and renters, but that enforcement would be through through the courts through civil action.

We're here as an educator.

We can set up websites and FAQs and help with interpretations, but not as a active staffed enforced enforcement center.

And really, we were focusing as the council directed on no fault evictions, specifically what happens when a building gets so bad that it's red tagged and deemed unsafe, as the city has recently experienced, or when landlords are updating their property and making remodels, and it's those circumstances where it's such a substantial remodel that you actually can't stay in the building while it's being done.

So this is the framework of an ordinance, but we don't have a draft ordinance for you to review.

So I'm going to talk about this framework at a high level.

But these are the components that you might see in one.

Purpose and applicability.

This is where we talk about what is subject to the ordinance and what isn't.

So it's very clear, a lot of discussion about exemptions.

Clarity on at fault justifications versus no fault justifications.

Notices, what's required for notices, and then we want to cover relocation assistance.

We looked at temporary, we looked at permanent, and then we understood that there's might be some alternatives to that.

And then another ad or provision would be right of return.

And then in conclusion, just what are the remedies when it doesn't work out or there's discrepancies or disagreements, how are those managed, handled, and enforced.

Okay, so let's talk about applicability.

So I talked about how the Tenant Protections Act is really the crux of just cause statewide, but we have the ability as a local jurisdiction, and not all jurisdictions choose to do so, but we have the ability, and it's in our housing element to consider adopting a local ordinance.

If you adopt a local ordinance, it supersedes the Tenant Protections Act.

It becomes the provisions that are regulate this relationship between landlord and tenants.

But the finding is that of the council, so it's it's how you define being more protective of tenants.

So it's it's it's layered, uh it's layered work because you may you may have entertain elements where it increases applicability and other elements where it provides exemptions that are strategically a fit for the city, and that's the complexity of these ordinances.

In general, uh, in terms of our proposal that we vetted with the community, uh we were trying to be quite clear on what the additional protections for tenants would be, and uh the next slides go into those details and more with more specificity.

But the idea is to have these rules apply to more tenants and more homes than the state law requires to add language requirements and noticing requirements that would be more expansive than what the state law requires to allow provisions like relocation assistance and right of return, way more than what the state law would require.

So those would be clear expansions.

Um then in addition, there's a balancing act.

You know, you're trying to thread the needles of incentivizing people to invest in properties, to offer up their additional units for rentals, and so providing provisions in here that support property owners.

So, in terms of those uh areas, we would look to making sure that the ordinance supports their rights to honor rental agreements.

So, does this have the provision would this have the provisions that support property owners to exercise their rights to get to address uh particularly at fault evictions?

Um, and so what we vetted with the community was keeping all 11 at fault causes for eviction, and I'll talk about how that went.

Uh supporting the right to rent their property for temporary tenancies and supporting their right to withdraw from the housing market.

So we took this framework to the community and received quite a lot of feedback, so I love to see that we have so much participation again tonight.

This is a dense slide, and I'm not going to go over all of this, but the point of this slide is that this summarizes all the exemptions that aren't in the protected area of the state law for tenants.

So one is tenants that have been in place for less than 12 months.

In fact, that increases if you have additional adult tenants added.

Then now it's up to 24 months.

So if you are a tenant less than that, you're not protected by the state law.

Another one is with new housing.

New housing is exempt from the TPA.

So one of the exemptions is housing's that housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years.

And Novato has seen its share of rental housing.

Another exemption is deed restricted affordable housing.

So we looked at areas where where could we tighten up to make it more protective to tenants because that is the exercise is looking for ways to expand protections.

And even in applicability.

So what we vetted with the community are these.

And this is the one where related to if there's domestic violence on the property associated with either the landlord or the tenant or the tenant to another tenant.

Just keeping in mind, again, we're looking to our neighbors and being in context, Petaluma kept all 11, and we didn't see direction or housing element to reduce, and we didn't receive that yet from the council.

So what we vetted with the community is to keep all 11.

Now, in terms of no fault, there's uh several categories here.

One, we talked about withdrawal from the rental market.

What happens, what's the process, where are the protections, when that happens, or when the owner or their family member wants to move back in, uh setting up that scenario.

And then there's others that could be temporary or could lead into permanent, but vacations due to government action, so like a red tag, like deeming the building is deemed unsafe, whether it was from natural occurrence or neglect that spectrum, but being deemed unsafe, where something needs to be done before people can stay in the building.

The last category here is vacation due to demolition, but probably much more commonly is a temporary vacation of the unit due to a substantial remodel.

So, you know, sometimes it's there's no water, and they have to redo the entirety of the plumbing system and to make it safe, and they just temporarily need to move out of the unit, or it could be very substantial where it could take several months to uh retrofit a building due to excessive uh interior, exterior damage.

This slide is about the noticing around no fault.

So one of the things that we would look to add in a local ordinance would be a notice of tenant rights.

So this would be required at lease signing, lease renewal, increase in rent, any change of the terms of the lease is an opportunity to notify a tenant about their rights.

That's what that we also think that would be an expansion of tenant protection.

Uh one thing that would be new, and what I heard a lot about through our community workshops, is to have these really important documents to be in English and Spanish, period, and then if the lease was in a different language, to have it to be this notice of tenant rights in that language, but at a minimum English and Spanish, and this is a very sought-after one, and I we've learned a lot about that.

In terms of notice of termination, uh I wasn't here when we wrote the housing element, but uh that that was very specific in our housing element uh action item.

It wanted to add that when there was a notice of termination, um, a copy would be provided to the city.

And I think it was a way to track evictions for the city, um, and so that was added into our framework.

And again, English and Spanish always.

All right, this slide this slide shows how we would further expand noticing when it is around substantial renovation projects, and this is because there needs to be a lot of accountability when a landlord comes in and does a renovation.

You might have heard the term renoviction.

Um, we want to be really careful that it's a legitimate uh renovation that's needed if you're going to be evicting or pushing out even temporarily a tenant.

And so we took care to expand the noticing for the situation.

So it can't just be a proposed building renovation, it needs to be a real legit one with a building permit that's issued and you're ready to go, you have a construction schedule, and you provide that information to the tenant.

Uh and if it's approved as part of a framework of the ordinance, if there are uh relocation assistance offered to provide information about that, and really important if there's opportunity for right of return, again, whether it's a day, two weeks, two months, or two years, whatever the uh information is about right of return.

All right, so this slide is about it's a comparison of what the state allows for relocation assistance currently, and then where we would expand it locally.

So where the state law comes in for a current requirement is a landlord can withdraw from the market or can move in or can do a substantial renovation, and what they have to do is provide one month's rent, or they can waive the final month's rent.

That's state law.

So that's for those situations for government action or a red tag, so again, deeming the building unsafe, immediate displacement.

Um there's a health and safety code section that talks about dangerous buildings and immediate displacement, and that provides two months of HUD fair market rent and utility service departments, and it actually provides a very specific timeline within 10 days.

So that is state law for no fault, where we would potentially expand.

Um, and this is probably the most robust area of expansion to do a local ordinance for to really address substantial renovation and relocation assistance.

So, what we vetted with the community is that for a substantial renovation, you the tenant would have options, and this is one thing to think about is do you want a menu that's tenant-oriented, where the tenant has to decide what options they go in, or do you want it to be more prescribed, where it's more objective, or it runs a certain predictable way, um, is one way to do it.

And the basic options are like do they continue to pay rent or do they suspend rent during the renovation?

So those are things to think about, and I'll I'll talk about scenarios.

Um, also there could be opportunity, especially a larger property manager, they may have other units, you know, they need to do a remodel in the kitchen area, and you're out for I don't know, a couple weeks or a month, and you can stay at their comparable unit.

Comparable in our framework would be nothing smaller.

So if you had a one bedroom, you got a one-bedroom comparable unit.

Um it could be bigger, it just can't be smaller.

And there's alternatives out there.

You could buy the tenant out, you could have some sort of alternative agreement, and there's a stipulations for that.

For a red tag, um, you would have all those options, and in addition, you would get that health and safety code, uh, two months of fair market rent, plus utility service deposit.

So I'll run through these scenarios.

It looks as complicated as it as it felt, but I'll do my best to explain it.

All right, I'll go through options A through D at a high level, and mostly I'll take your questions later.

So option A is you continue to pay rent and you just need a per diem.

That's probably perfectly normal scenario if it's very short term and you're going to you can stay at a local hotel while they do the renovation.

Um so you're getting a per diem, and we vetted these amounts, um, things that we had learned in this last year about uh how much it costs to stay at a hotel uh in this area, uh people have pets, so you might have to board them.

Not all hotels take them, things like that.

Um again, for substantial remodel, um this would this could add up if you were at a hotel for a while.

So as part of this framework, we suggested that there'd be a cap.

Because again, we're balancing predictability for the landlord as well.

And so we proposed a maximum cap of three times the fair market rent.

Option B is really just a different version of A, where you don't pay the rent while the renovation is going on, and you you get if you pay less than the fair market rent, you get what we call a rent differential.

So you get the difference.

So you would eventually even out with those both of those scenarios.

If they maxed out, they'd have the same cap.

Three months of fair market rent.

For red tag, you would get this, and you would get the health and safety code.

So potentially, if you're red tagged and you maxed out for your temporary relocation assistance at three months, you would get three months fair market rent, and you would get two months fair market rent through the health and safety code.

So that's five months of fair market rent.

So if it's $3,000 for fair market rent, that's $15,000.

And the reason why I even do this scenario for you to that extent is because one of the things we heard about was well, Alameda County, they have a fixed rate.

They just pay you out $15,000.

Well, this scenario would get you there as well in terms of it's maxed out.

So these other options, um, these are more on the landlord side.

So again, this framework has some options for the tenant based on whether they want to continue paying rent or not.

The other options are more, I would say, in the favor of the landlord.

So again, trying to provide a menu here.

So again, if the landlord does have a comparable unit, uh, and again, similar size or at least same size or bigger, then you can move your tenant over, they don't pay any extra, they could just move into that other.

And in our framework, we would suggest that there be some moving costs because we don't, you know, depending on how extensive that uh time is.

Option D is the buyout options.

Now, with these alternative agreements, these are more legal contracts, it's a lot to decide, it's unique, it's special.

So it would be really important to put in time frames that give a tenant um to go get advice.

Most tenants don't come equipped with their own lawyer, so they might have to go check out legal aid of Marin to get advice, might take time.

So one provision is to give them the time to make that decision, and even to give them a cooling off period.

So after they sign something, and then they get advice that says, Oh, that you should probably rethink that that's a common provision.

Uh and then we get to permanent no-fall evictions.

So again, uh let's say it's a we know it's just a substantial remodel, or I mean it's gonna take years, it's or they're demo demolishing the building, or it's permanent because they're moving in and they're withdrawing from the market.

Uh again, we set it at three months' rent.

So that would be an expansion of state law.

And we like the idea of an objective standard for how you define um fair market rent, and so we would use HUD standard because everybody can look that up.

That's not something that we would make up in an office.

You go to the state's website, they do the math for our area, and then they identify it.

And everyone would know that in advance or at the time that you needed it.

Okay, now moving on to our last provision here for tenant rights, and that's right of return.

So this slide compares what you currently get with state law, and then where we could head with a local ordinance.

With this, the state law only provides a right of return if there's failure of certain circumstances for the owners or for the landlords.

Where we would head is just by right, just to offer them the first right of refusal to come back.

So if it got fixed, it could come back, whether it's after a day, a week, or maybe even up to six months or two years.

So we would put that into the policy, and that's what we vetted with the community.

And then you have to give some notice and opportunity for them to consider that.

Most policies had 30 days to consider that.

And so there was mention of maintaining a business license if you rent a room.

But I have learned since the workshops is that we do require a business license for people who rent rooms.

And business license is out of our finance code section, not the housing section.

So it business licenses is to is to track and to collect revenue.

But for landlords, if it's three or fewer, you do need to get the license, but you don't, there's an exemption you can qualify for, so you're not taxed or you're not paying paying for that license.

And then obviously the provisions would include lots of protections that you would expect, no retaliation for complaining or filing complaints against the landlord.

You have the right to enjoy quiet use of your property, things that protect the use.

Okay, for enforcement and remedies, again, we focused on an ordinance that kept it light on the city administration side.

And really just set the rules and the foundation and give everybody teeth.

So these rules are for all stakeholders.

Whether you are a landlord, this is what we'd adhere to.

So you have all the causes for eviction to have local and state protections on.

If you're a tenant, obviously I just went over quite a few expanded protections for you.

And then if you are the city, you have the right and authority, but not the duty to enforce.

And so at times we stand up as a city and we get involved, but we don't have to.

We can do that when we think it's the right time to do that.

And we all use the same provisions in the ordinance.

And everybody would have three-year statute of limitations.

So I held a series of workshops the last I don't know, 30, 45 days.

Anybody could come.

I did some Zoom and some in person.

I did target and promote to certain representative groups because I really wanted to dive deeper into their perspective.

So we had a workshop that was promoted to landlords, realtors, and property owners.

Tenant advocacy organizations.

We did a special meeting that we wanted to do in person and in Spanish.

We have a lot of Spanish monolingual tenants in our community.

And the recent Romar apartment residents were interested in having that meeting, that conversation.

So we held it entirely in Spanish.

The translator was for me.

So I could understand everything.

But we we uh workshopped with them.

Uh and not just displaced, but the all the tenants of that neighborhood.

We met with the League of Women Voters, and we also met with the city's uh housing and homeless committee to get their feedback.

Uh I've tried to integrate the feedback that we received kind of through my presentation.

Um I know we've had a number of uh letters that have been submitted since the agenda posted.

I'm happy to go through those in more detail if you have questions or comments about that.

But here's the slide to give us a compass for tonight's study session, some key policy questions.

Um again, the first question this is your decision.

This is your discretion to have a local ordinance or not, and if you do, there are some findings we have to make.

Um then there's a public process to adopt that.

In terms of uh provisions, uh we're really looking for direction on exemptions.

Uh we're looking for whether you want us to include all the at-fault, or if you want to pull back, like County of Marin and San Rafael.

And then we are looking for feedback on what we're proposing for temporary relocation assistance and permanent relocation assistance, because that is definitely a change locally.

And then any comments or direction on right of return as we've suggested.

So we'll hold the study session tonight.

Um we'll receive your direction, we hope.

And uh if we receive the direction to go draft an ordinance, we will certainly go do that.

It's a draft, um, but we need to get more specific than these high levels.

Uh everyone's gonna want to know the details of every word in this ordinance.

Um, and so we'll go ahead and vet that with the community and bring all that back to you for decision.

And that's it, that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much, Claire.

Okay.

Uh we'll bring it back to council for questions.

Um so just in terms of format, the way we're going to be handling this is council asks questions, questions only at this time.

After council questions, we'll move on to public comment, and then we'll bring it back to council for any further discussion and for direction.

So if you have any questions in relation to the the cut conversation, please use the raise hand button.

Uh first is Councilmember Jacobs.

Thank you.

Uh thanks for your presentation.

That uh was quite a bit of work.

Thank you.

Um so one uh first question is the withdrawal from the market for the owner move in.

Does that only include rent and no utilities, or does would that include rent and utilities?

Might be able to jump in.

Are we talking about the red tag relocation or other reasons?

No, the withdrawal from market for the owner to move in.

Yeah, go ahead.

Go ahead, Claire, if you've got it.

On slide 19, we talk about that.

Um it only says month's rent, at least in terms of my slide.

Yeah, and the state law provides for a utility payment to for the red tag, and your local ordinance can also provide for additional things.

So if you were to adopt an ordinance, you could include what you're referring to as a utility payment.

Okay.

Some other combination of what was on the slide.

Okay.

Um expand the relocation assistance for permanent no-fault evictions.

Um what was my question?

And we're talking about substantial renovation exceeding certain number of days.

Talking about options for that.

Our option A, your paying pay the rent and receive temporary assistance per day, 250 per tenant household, $50 per occupant for meals, $30 for cat, $50 for a dog.

Um thinking about a limit on number of occupants, number of dogs, number of cats, and those are per day, correct?

That's on the slide 21 covers option A, and that's the uh option where the tenant pays rent.

Right.

But get gets a per diem intended really to yeah.

Um yes, per tenant household, uh the 250 dollars per tenant household is for who's on the lease.

Yeah.

Okay, so we limit it based on number of people on the lease.

Well, that's how we've vetted it with the community, but again, this is this is where we would get feedback if you want to get to that level.

Right.

And limit it to number of dogs, number of cats.

It's yeah, $50 a dog, $30 a cat.

Per day.

Yeah, because we're trying to match local lodging and pet boarding.

Okay.

Um suspend the rent and receive uh um sorry.

Page 12.

I'm going backwards here a little bit, sorry.

Um local exemptions.

You have temporary tenancies uh for leases less than 12 months where the owner will reoccupy the unit.

So basically you're saying you could they could rent out the unit for less than 12 months if the owner is going to reoccupy it.

Do we have any type of limit on how long the owner has to stay in that unit?

Meaning can they rent it out for 11 months?

Can they move in it for two months and turn around and rent it up for another 11 months and get that local exemption?

Just something to bring up.

Yeah, I don't I those are good, that's a good question.

Um you can see how complicated this gets really.

No, I know that's why I just wanted to bring it up.

At a high level, this exemption would allow somebody who is you know, they're gonna go over to a different state to work and they just want to when they come back, they want to be able to use their their home.

Um that's what we were thinking with this, but yes, it could get complicated about that.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, that's it for now.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

And remember Temp Frak.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um wanted to clarify.

So the three or more units, is that for the local ordinance that we would, or is that state?

Oops.

Yeah, that would be local only.

Um so that exemption shows up in County of Marin, San Rafael, and Peluma.

Um it also fits in with our business license threshold and also fits in with our multifamily inspection program threshold.

That's why we picked it.

And then is that like one like if I live in a house but I have three rental units, or is it with that time as four?

I think the intention is um you have yeah, your fourth is that you is not included because you're not renting it.

I believe that's the case.

You ask that question one more time just so I make sure what you should.

Yeah, so I'm trying to understand.

So the three or more units, how is that calculated?

So if I live in a house and then my fellow council members are my renters, is that a total of four, or would that be considered three?

Um, if they are separate dwelling units, right?

So just the fact that you're all living in one unit wouldn't be enough.

So you'd have to think about a duplex or possibly having an ADU there or one of the other quote unquote dwelling units that are allowed under state law in order to reach the three.

And the way there's two ways of thinking about this.

Um there's what state law exempts from this process.

That's a separate question.

But what you put in your ordinance can be as you choose for what the exception is.

So some local jurisdictions will say has to be three units on the same parcel.

Some will say three units anywhere in the jurisdiction.

So if you own three single family homes, you would be triggered by the ordinance for all of those rentals.

It really depends on how you all want to frame that issue.

And what's your recommendation today?

Uh what we vetted with the community was if you if you are renting three rental units in the city in the city limits.

So it doesn't matter.

So someone distinct units, not three people, but three district distinct units right in the city.

So if someone owns two duplexes, that would be considered four units, correct?

Okay.

Yes.

Um and then as far as the renovations, um for like the you know, showing the building permits and stuff like that.

Is the city gonna be tracking that and approving that process or overseeing it?

Uh the city would do its job in processing building permits.

Um the landlord's job to provide this notification to their tenants.

Okay.

And then do you think it would be beneficial to put in like a notice?

Like thir you need to let them know 30 days before you're gonna give them the building permits or like that sort of time frame.

I don't know.

I know you mentioned time frame in here, but just to kind of be more proactive with the communication.

There should be, I don't have a proposal here.

We didn't get to that level of detail, but the noticing should have a timeline.

Okay.

And then you keep mentioning um like mom and pop operators.

Would you define that as three or two units and less i that would be our definition to just decide?

I think what I meant by mom and pop is that it's not a commercial property manager company.

Okay.

Um then as far as just like you know, enforcement and things like that, is that the rental renter's responsibility to flag that and then find resources?

And what are we doing to kind of support both I guess renters and landlords in this new process?

It's possible.

That's a great question.

So this ordinance would rely on the resources available to them outside of the city.

So the larger companies often have resources to represent themselves.

But if you included mom and pop, uh I'm not sure where they go for discounted legal advice.

Okay.

Council member?

Yes.

If I could also just add a little bit more on that process too.

So under current state law for the Tenant Protection Act, there's a very long statute.

We've summarized it here, but it includes just cause.

Um and that's the only reason why a tenant can be evicted, and it has to fall into one of those very specific statutory bases.

So if, for example, under your current situation here in Navado, if a landlord uh were to try to evict and it wasn't based on one of those things, that would be a defense in in court for an unlawful detainer action.

If you were to adopt an ordinance, it would be the same thing.

So you'd have these local just causes you define them, um, and then the same process would apply.

Landlords would need to follow them.

If an unlawful detainer action were brought to evict a tenant, the ordinance would be um the defense to it.

So and that would include if I wanted to move into the unit or redo it.

Um yes, the LSAC would continue to apply.

Um that the community development director reference, but there are other additional protections you could put into your ordinance, yes.

And do you think that would deter uh landlords not to like renovate their properties at all?

Like if they want if the kitchen's in really bad shape, but then they have to pay for their um renter to go stay there.

I might not be, I might be like, oh well, I don't have that we that week space, so you're gonna just deal with it.

I I just want high high living standards and yeah, I mean, I I think it's certainly true that the ordinance is going to create some incentives and some disincentives, yes.

Okay, I think I mean ultimate ultimately I want to hold bad landlords accountable and protect the people, but then I also don't want people that own a property to you know, and trying to you know offer a good space, um to be at a huge disadvantage either.

So that's just I'm trying to think of it from both sides.

I think uh city attorney mentioned there's gonna be disadvantages and or incentives and disincentives.

Uh one thing I can think of is because that is a real concern that you've disincentivize um remodels along the way, but the worst case scenario is the government takes action and is red tagged your building, and now you're talking potentially five months' rent and under you know distressing circumstances for all involved.

So the idea is conduct your inspections, have a program, noticing uh, and encourage however we can for them to do the improvements along the way so it doesn't get so bad that a tenant actually has to leave the unit to to make a repair.

And then what if um a tenant like floods the pro property or is like negligent?

Is that included in um or maybe they just accidentally flood it and then would that would the landlord be liable to pay because they have to temporarily I guess evict them to redo the house?

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um I've seen a lot uh local ordinances include a provision that if it's the fault of the tenant that you don't have to uh pay the relocation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Eckland, do you have any questions?

Uh yeah, my hand's been up for a while.

Um so um I have questions almost on every page, and I I'm I'm concerned about the process that we're using tonight.

Um because there's um uh a lot more issues than what is identified on on the on the slides.

And the staff is only really look uh according to page five, um, really focusing on three of the of the issues that are listed in there as possible areas where we might want to have some discussion about.

So I mean, I I could go through and ask my questions on every single page and plus others, um, but I I really think uh that there are some larger issues, I think that we really need to talk about.

And I think um uh first and foremost, there's some other um if information that we should have before we actually ask any more questions, in my opinion.

Um, and I think we need to hear from um the community um action morand as well as the other speakers as well, because a lot of their issues um and suggestions there um are not even in this in this staff report.

And so plus also too, um ABAG has um developed a um uh and was published in April of 2025, um, a uh a guidance to cities on preventing displacement from substandard conditions and associated code enforcement activities, which um is actually something that staff should also consider too.

So, Mayor, I'm not sure how you want to do it.

I can start going through my questions on each of the slides.

Um, but um I I really think that um you know, since it's eight o'clock, yeah, and we haven't even heard from the public.

I am really confused about the the way this is being handled.

Sure.

So I can I can speak to that a little bit.

My my my thought was uh what we're doing right now is just a starting point for high level questions.

Tonight's conversation is just the one the first of what I expect to be several.

So if there's any pressing questions right now, I'd encourage you to ask them.

If you do have a significant amount, it would be better to follow up with staff separately because you'll get more detailed answers.

No, I I'm not gonna do it separately.

I'll do it publicly.

Okay, and then what I would suggest then is if you have anything you'd like to address tonight, us right now.

Otherwise, what we do after uh after the questions is we'll go to public comment, provide direction as a counsel, but it's gonna come back to us for further conversation and review.

And and I think we need to have actually a working environment, like on a Saturday where some of the people that don't have to work during that that do have to work during the week can actually participate in that kind of an event, especially um uh folks that um uh are subject to um the issues that we're discussing here.

And and as a preliminary point, I wanted to comment that um when I um was uh uh drawn to um care uh uh from for my mom, um I had to hire caregivers.

And um one of the things that I've quickly learned in Moran County is that um a lot of folks that uh do not make a lot of money um uh are uh living in apartments, for an example, in a two-bedroom apartments, there's at least six adults, if not additional kids, um, because they can't afford the rent.

Um, and so I I think there's a lot of issues that I think we need to add to this list that's not here.

Um and for example on page five, I think we need to have a lot of people.

I apologize.

If if if we'll we'll get to direction after public comment right now.

I know that, but my question is to staff why isn't rent stabilization, rental assistance, tenants' right to counsel, landlord and tenant dispute resolution and mediation.

Um to me, uh Romar Cart Court just opened up my eyes um in Novato.

And I did I don't want to see something like that happening again.

Um a rental registry.

I mean, there's a lot of situations where so why why can't we discuss some of those issues as well?

Um and I don't know why well I I believe that one of the reasons that staff didn't highlight that as something that they were proposing to include in this was because of the amount of resources that might take to implement uh such a um such an ordinance.

Um but uh given what we're dealing with, I think it's really important for us to um have this discussion.

So uh can staff just ask uh answer why why aren't we dealing with some of these other issues like uh rental assistance, um rent stabilization, or like with Romar Court, um you know, expanding, uh I mean I could go down my list here, expanding the uh the time when landlords need to pay uh for um their tenants for other venues um while their um apartment is being renovated.

I I mean I could go down my list here, expanding the uh the time when landlords need to pay for um their tenants for other venues while their um apartment is being renovated.

I mean, yeah, there's a there's a whole list of issues that um I think are really important for us to have that discussion.

So why why isn't that on the list for us to discuss uh on the staff report?

Thank you for the question.

Yeah, there's a number of other topics that we aren't discussing tonight.

I agree.

Um but the focus of tonight is as council directed on May 20th.

Uh and again, the core of what we're doing tonight is addressing one of our um housing element action items, which was specific to just cause.

But the ad from May 20th was to while we are looking at just cause to add relocation and right of return.

We have other housing element programs that are going to take us much longer to get to them, and some of them aren't on this list.

The city's housing element does not include rent registry, does not include a look at rent control or stabilization.

Those would have to be implemented uh by the council and set direction for, but that's not on our current work plan or housing element.

Right.

But since we're discussing this, I think that it's important for us to include all this in providing direction to staff so that you'll know that that's something that we want to do, and where it fits in is um is is your responsibility because if we don't identify them as part of this, um it could get lost very easily.

I just wanted to provide a brief comment to you.

Um some recent code enforcement matters are currently going through the process and would be appealed, and those things might reach the council here.

So out of respect for that process, I would recommend that you all focus on this ordinance and not on um any specific case.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Milbury.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you so much, Claire.

This is really a lot of work and moving in the direction I'd like to see.

I just had a couple quick questions.

So the option D on page 22, the buyout options.

Can you explain that to me a little bit better?

What that really entails and has that ever actually been done.

Well, I I'll be honest, I don't know much about that.

I don't think it's the most regular option that's executed.

Um but I understand that it's a form of alternative resolution.

So perhaps, for example, it's just mutually negotiated that instead of doing the temporary that might lead up to a map uh the cap at permanent, just for the predictability, uh mutually agreed uh parting of ways, if you will, um, and that would be why you would use that.

But it would only be because it's mutually agreeable.

Okay.

And my other question really is around just I guess I'm still the curious the emails and the feedback we got from certain of our uh partners was talking about uh stopping or suggesting that we don't go beyond state.

We don't do uh deviate to my laws, we don't deviate from state.

So when we are deciding to do the three or under, or I'm sorry, three or more, right?

I guess I'm still curious because if the state was is state saying you know, you don't have to do that, it's for single uh single residences and ADUs.

Do you think that with your comment about the mom and pops being a smaller subset of that?

That we can still take advantage of what I believe our uh part community partners are asking for us in expanding this protection.

I guess I'm still a bit confused as to why it just seems like we're a little bit off from what they were recommending, but I'm I'm not 100% clear that I'm I'm understanding that maybe we'll hear about it in public comment.

But that is true.

You will hear about it tonight from them.

Um but just in summary, yes, there you we do need to make a finding that the local ordinance is more protective.

Um, and so I was trying to um show that there is a semi-complex to do that because you're doing it comprehensively.

Clearly, we have added right of return, relocation assistance, those are clear, but in terms of applicability, that's where it gets more nuanced.

So we go up and some will go down, and it is semi-qualitative because I don't have that statistics.

Um it's not an exact science.

But cumulatively and qualitatively, you're looking to expand to more tenants and more units.

And staff feels like this framework would.

But we can have points of disagreement.

Okay.

One of them, for example, is any house that's been issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years.

So all new construction last 15 years is exempt from all the current state laws currently.

That's currently not being discussed or proposed by staff.

So when you're thinking about the finding that you would eventually need to make about something being more protective, you're expanding protections to all homes, including the ones in the last 15 years, and then also carving out, you know, um, landlords who have two or three units, for example, you'd still be able to, I believe, make a finding that it's more protective.

Ultimately, though, we would have to afraid up those findings and look at the data.

And that's what I understand.

In order for us to be able to do this, we have to be more protective than our than state law.

Um because I also was thinking if I read the what their what their concerns were that they were I don't know.

My question was only seeking the AB 1482 exemptions.

That's what I kind of read from their work.

So I I I guess I'm fine with where we're at right now.

I know there's gonna be a lot more discussion.

Um I really do appreciate the complexity of this and on all your work on this.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um ready, so I just have one that didn't come up.

Um deed restricted affordable units are exempt.

I believe either exempted or proposed to be exempted.

We're obviously expecting a significant amount of these in Novato.

And we already have quite a lot.

I was just wondering, is there any r reason or logic behind offering them the exemption?

Or in my opinion, it looks like they should have equal protection under the law.

I'm just wondering if they're exempted for some reason I'm not aware of.

Well, state law currently exempts affordable housing deed restricted units.

And so the proposal locally would be to remove that exemption.

So they so yes, our affordable deed restricted units would be protected under the local ordinance.

That would be the expansion.

Thank you.

Okay.

So that concludes council member questions.

We're gonna take a five-minute recess, and then when we restart, we'll take public comment.

If you do wish to speak, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city clerk Laura on my left.

Um so we're gonna take a brief recess, we'll reconvene at eight eighteen.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna move on to public comment on this item if you'd like to speak this for the yellow card and just declare.

Welcome Arizona.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alarceli Florian.

I mean and I'm here to talk about my apartment.

I asked my landlord to fix the roof of or the ceiling of my bathroom.

That is falling off.

I have little kids.

And the day I asked him, and he said that he will come to fix the roof or the ceiling, I'm sorry.

He didn't come.

I have a three-year-old girl, a two-month-old baby.

And my three-year-old girl was in the bottom when the ceiling started started falling off.

My husband went to complain about the repair that they did prior.

And the owner notified my husband that the person that he hired, he had a license for 25 years, and there were professionals.

But how could that be if the ceiling was funny?

Also, the at the entrance of our apartment, part of the wall had a big hole in the infected.

Also we are infested of uh cucaraches.

That's all.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Charlotte Ganella.

Here it doesn't matter.

Welcome, Charlotte.

Thank you.

Hello and hola.

I am the director of case management and housing at North Marine Community Services.

And I thank the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Omar and my staff and the community at large.

We thank Claire for rallying the troops and engaging community-based organizations all around Novato and Marin.

These tenants were just given five days notice to relocate.

They're stuffed animals their whole life.

While we are celebrated for housing 42 of the 44 tenants, the cost that it's had on my department and other residents is continuing to be felt.

And it is our job to help, but to shift to one subpopulation when we're already full is something we cannot take on again as an organization.

We ask you to please protect us with better policies and protections.

So we do not need to come in and protect these people from losing their schools, their house, and a place to sleep.

There's four other units on that property that will go down.

We see this every day in our offices.

These tenants see this every day.

It is not an anomaly.

And I implore you to please consider the goodness and the humanity of our community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Kira Shaner.

Thank you.

Welcome, Ciara.

Thank you.

I was hoping to speak after a few more tenants had a chance to speak because their stories are shocking if you haven't heard them before.

But I will take the opportunity instead to say my piece, and you can let their stories fill in.

So my name is Ciara.

I work here in Novato.

Several of my friends and co-workers work and well, they obviously they work in Novato, but they rent here.

Many more of them do not rent in Novato.

Instead, they commute from Pataluma, Santa Rosa, Richmond, and even Hercules due to the high rents and cost of living in Marin.

I myself have the supreme luxury of living at my parents' house, and that's how I've been able to stay in this county and even save some of my own earnings and build my wealth here.

I recently had the opportunity to listen to the stories of the all Latino tenants and families who have been deeply affected by the negligent landlord practices at the Romar Court apartments, and many more tenants around Marin.

Experiences that they relay tell the story of a system failure.

I saw photos as well and understand that these families and individual individuals have been dealing with conditions truly hazardous to their health, such as mold, rats, cockroaches, plumbing issues, apparently the roof and walls falling apart, fire safety issues, and serious structural issues for years, all while paying the majority of their wages into their rent.

And as it was pointed out, many are sharing apartments.

So not everyone will be represented on the lease that needs help.

So I'm grateful to the city for opening up this study session for this just cause ordinance, and at the same time, I urge all decision makers to make sure that we construct and enact an ordinance that offers real protection and reflects real life situations that so many vulnerable renters find themselves in.

Please ensure that this ordinance includes protections for all renters, including subtenants in some way.

All tenants should be empowered to report health and safety hazards and landlord negligence and endangerment.

This can only be truly achieved by including displaced tenant right of return in this ordinance that will deter landlords from using building neglect and misuse of red tag situations, renovations for their financial gain.

All tenants, including subletters, need significantly higher relocation payments.

It is very hard to relocate entire families on short notice in Marin, as happens with the red tagging where tenants have just five days to leave.

These payments should be available until a suitable new living space is found and must also reflect additional costs of moving, which can include lost wages, lengthened commute times, new tolls and travel fares, long-term storage rent, replacing furniture ruined by mold, and so much more.

And I'll end there because I see my time is over, but please consider the stories of the people here today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Kira.

Our next speaker is Jason Saras.

Thank you.

I guess so.

Right.

Welcome, Jason.

Hi, y'all.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I am here tonight as a housing and homeless advocate, someone who was experienced homeless for 12 years, and someone deeply concerned about the proposed ordinance.

This proposal to remove just cause protections for tenants in smaller buildings would strip hundreds of renters of basic uh protections against arbitrary eviction.

That's unacceptable.

Your 2023 housing element promise to consider expanding just cause protections, not narrowing them.

Walking back on that commitment betrays families who depend on stable housing to live and work in this community.

Every renter deserves protection, stability, and dignity in their homes.

The experience of tenants at Romar Court shows why this ordinance fails.

They were red tagged and given only five days to leave.

Short-term relocation supported lasted six weeks.

Then they were forced into couches, overcrowded units, or out of the county altogether.

Some still lack stable housing today.

What does that tell you?

Tells you that short-term cat relocation payments are not enough.

It tells you that five days' notice and one to two months of support won't cut it in today's rental market.

If we want a just system, tenants must be allowed to keep their tenancy and return to their homes at the same rent once repairs are made.

That's the only way to prevent red tagging from becoming a backdoor to permanent displacement.

Furthermore, high location high relocation payments and the right to return also act as a deterrent.

They discourage landlords from neglecting their properties or using remodels as a loophole to raise rents and displace low income tenants.

At Romar Court, the landlord ignored repair requests for years while increasing rents.

That can't become the status quo for the city of Novato.

As someone who was homeless for twelve years, I know what it's like to fall through the cracks.

Weakening tenant protections will only feed the growing number of people on the streets.

Remember, you have banned camping.

It's illegal to camp.

That's the last thing I want to see as a formerly homeless person, and I hope it's the last thing you want to see too.

So tonight I ask you, learn from Romore Court, ensure that kind of displacement never happens again.

Align with state law or do better.

Don't gut protections.

Honor your own housing element commitments to protect vulnerable vulnerable renters.

Make relocation assess uh assistance real, extend the time and increase the support, add a strong enforceable enforceable right to return for red tags and major renovations.

Hold landlords accountable when they neglect their properties.

Please do the right thing.

People's lives, homes, and futures are on the line.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Jason.

Our next speaker is Aaron Hawkin.

Welcome, Aaron.

Thank you, everyone.

My name is Aaron Hawkins.

I'm the Vice President of Community Action Marin.

Our agency is the largest nonprofit provider of human services in Marin County, and we see firsthand the real life effects that Marin's housing crisis has on families across our community.

Community Action Marin stands in strong support for justice for the tenants displaced from Romar Court and for all tenants.

We appreciate the council's attention to their case and the efforts that city staff have taken in partnership with many community agencies and residents to address the hardships created for tenants due to landlord negligence.

The bottom line is that protection, tenant protections are about basic fairness.

All Novado tenants deserve safe, habitable and fair housing.

Housing stability is foundational for children's healthy development and educational success.

It supports family well-being and economic growth, and it is essential for a vibrant community, and we all benefit from it.

As you move forward with this ordinance, we urge your action on the following.

One, strengthen local protections beyond state law.

State law did not protect the residents of Romar Court, and Navado residents are facing further displacement risk.

There are five other buildings on the Romore property with the same landlord facing significant habitability issues.

In our work at CAM, we see properties across the county that are in similar conditions.

This is not a one-time thing.

Without changes to protect tenants, it's just a matter of time before Navado experiences another displacement.

Two, ensure realistic and meaningful relocation protections.

Given Marin's extremely tight rental market and high cost of housing, finding a new rental unit is difficult under the best of circumstances.

Tenants who are displaced deserve adequate time and compensation to find new housing.

Extending the time frames and relocation reimbursement makes it much more realistic for displaced families to find new homes and resettle their lives.

Three, protect tenants and red tag displacement.

In situations where tenants are displaced due to a red tag or substantial remodel, the displacement should be temporary and not a permanent eviction.

Tenants should be given a right to return to their homes at the same rent they paid before the displacement.

And finally, ensure protections for all tenants.

Regardless of what type of unit or what size of building they live in, all tenants deserve the basic fairness that tenant protections provide.

Extending exemptions beyond state law will remove existing just cause protections for thousands of Novato tenants.

Novato has an opportunity to take the lessons learned from Romore Court and from the leadership of these tenants here that they have shown we can prevent this from happening to others in our community.

We urge you to act now to extract strong and meaningful tenant protections for all Novato residents.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Erin.

Our next speaker is Lucy Hollingsworth.

Welcome, Lucy.

Good evening.

I'm Lucy Hollingsworth.

Director of policy for legal aid of Marin.

We appreciate the city's initial is this echoing?

Should I turn it off?

You turn it off.

Sorry.

We appreciate the city's initial response to Romar Court and your willingness to consider long-term tenant protections, but some policies before you today would not strengthen protections.

It would weaken them by rolling back rights under California law, violate commitments made in Novato's housing element, and leave tenants in substandard housing with no real protections from permanent displacement.

There is a lot of information missing in the presentation.

One of the most troubling provisions is the expanded.

This would strip protections from hundreds of Novato renters, many of them low income.

We cannot resolve displacement by rolling back rights.

The city's housing element committed to expand just cost protections and maintains at the very least AB 1482 exemptions.

Passing the ordinance with increased exemptions undermines that commitment.

Enforcement is another problem with no database of rental ownership, tenants and ADUs, duplexes, and triplex triplexes cannot know whether their home is protected until they are already in eviction court.

But by then it's too late to put on a meaningful defense.

Finally, relocation assistance must reflect the reality of our housing market.

Families cannot secure safe housing in one or two months on a capped payout.

Tenants displaced by red tags or substantial remodels must have the right to return once repairs are complete.

So temporary displacement doesn't become a permanent eviction.

I want to quickly respond to the suggestion that Penaluma and Merton County represent best practices.

First off, Marin County ordinance was passed in 2018.

The Tenant Protection Act hadn't even been written yet.

As an attorney that defends evictions, the fact that they have a three-unit or less exemption has been highly problematic for tenants.

Penoluma, I was also involved in the passage of their ordinance.

And I have to say that the three units or less was inserted at the last minute, and tenants and tenant advocates felt betrayed because there was no time to discuss that.

They had no opportunity to provide their concerns with expanding exemptions.

If the direction of staff is to cap relocation at two to three months, if and or ending the right to return, expanding the number of exempted units, then it'd probably be better at this point to do nothing at all.

The tenants in Novada would be losing way too much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lucy.

Our next speaker is Regina Biannucci Russ.

Welcome, Regina.

Good evening.

Yeah, at least he's a little hard to act to follow.

So I'm gonna just keep it light and say I have two concerns, the exemption for under three.

I don't know how a tenant knows that if there's no rental registry, and I'm very heartened to hear that maybe council will bring that up as a priority because I do think a rental registry is very important.

That will allow tenants to have access to that information.

And I want to point out that the cap on temporary assistance being limited to the permanent amount.

You reach that under a month.

If you do the math.

A two-bedroom, the example was 3200 a month for per head, two bedroom.

Three months is 9600.

And if you divide that by 400, which is 250 plus three tenants in that unit, it's 24 days.

I don't want a temporary vacation for renovations to become a permanent eviction and no right to return.

So I just want to make sure that that isn't going to be part of any our ordinance that Nevada does.

Thank you.

Thank you, Regina.

Our next speaker is Bambi Kleis.

Welcome, Babby.

Good evening, Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I apologize.

Because I do appreciate the opportunity to be heard.

Remark court are 63 years old, those apartments there.

Shouldn't we have every 25 year checkup in place or something?

As a homeless union representative, I am compelled to say to the council that it is your duty to take care, take reasonable measures to ensure the basic safety of your residents by making enforcing and keeping stringent policies and fines to the homeowners and builders, etc.

The city has ordinance against homelessness, yet by not taking serious action on this, you're adding to the number of the outdoor community members.

And lastly, at night when you cannot sleep, count your blessings instead of sheep.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Pambi.

And we should have a translator for everybody up here tonight.

Same.

Our next speaker is Ethan Strell.

Welcome, Ethan.

Good evening.

My name is Ethan Stroll.

I work as a housing policy advocate at Legal Aid of Marin.

And I'm here to support a strong just cause law in Novato.

So what comprises of a strong just cause ordinance.

Number one, everyone currently covered by just cause ordinance continues to be covered.

Or nobody should lose protections due to your actions with this ordinance.

If you exempted owners who own three units or less, this would happen.

If you make an exemption based on ownership, and I love trying to figure out who owns what, uh, but this would be incredibly difficult to determine who's covered and who's not covered.

It would look like our office at Legal Aid of Marin having to serve extra discovery requests, trying to understand what this owner looks like, which we do not have the capacity to do.

Number two, uh, that when you're evicted for no fault of your own, you have the ability to stay in Novato.

That's the goal.

This means higher relocation payments that cover the real costs of displacement.

Finding new housing is incredibly difficult in Novato.

And all the tenants wearing white shirts know this so well.

Daily relocation payments should last for a long time, much longer than Remark Court tenants had in their hotel.

They should last until the owner makes repairs and the tenant can return.

This is predictability.

This is the incentive for landlords to make the repairs rather than appealing.

A decision to red tag.

Number three, a right to return.

So let's say the owner of Remark Court follows through on their building permits and they renovate the other buildings.

This is called, if they under current law, this would be called a renaviction.

And this has happened across Marin.

To prevent this, tenants deserve a right to return under the same tenancy with the same or similar rent, having received relocation assistance up until their return.

Well, you will have heard.

I was also assuming I'd go after.

These tenants deeply understand that their owner will only make repairs if they are forced to make repairs.

And you all understand this from dealing with the owner at Remar Court.

Please make the incentive making code enforcement super easy and accessible for these tenants and strongly enforcing these building codes, not renoviction.

I also just want to say that we as a community and as a public community are beginning to truly grasp what Novato renters truly face.

Just a few years ago in the city's housing element, it was written that generally, quote generally, property owners are motivated to keep housing in good condition.

But we have learned quite clearly that this is not the case for many tenants.

So I look forward to working more with you all to ensure that Novato tenants live in safe dignified housing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ethan.

Our next speaker is Norma Laura.

Good evening.

My name is Norma Lang.

I'm here to talk to you and to ask you to pass this act.

They or the new ordinance.

As I am a resident of Novato.

I'm here to support all these people that are here.

I come to represent the uh voices, the padders, father voices, and I'm here to support everybody.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lillian Lozaro.

Lilian.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Amarantha Silva.

The name again.

Pardon me?

She's right behind you.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Okay, good evening.

My name is Samaranta Silva, and I'm gonna read it because if not then, I gonna get a little emotional.

Um I'm the community organizer for invoices.

Um Maureen.

And at Par Invoices, we believe that the people closest to the problem also are the ones that they are closest to the solution.

Um that's why we joined legal aid, normal income united services, um, community action marine to support the family's displaced from um from Romar Court.

We didn't do this um work just because we believe housing is a human right.

We did it because it reflects our values.

That's why we were helping them to get organized and we helped them to be here and move this far.

Um I live in the city.

I'm a resident of Novato, and I couldn't sleep knowing that my neighbors were forced out of their homes, living in fear and unsafe conditions.

And I could not sleep knowing that my neighbors were forced out of their homes, living in fear and unsafe conditions.

Knowing how bad the conditions were there.

Romer is just one example of what happens when landlords don't take care of their properties.

And when tenants are too scared to complain because they don't want to lose their homes.

But we have to be honest.

Real accountability for the landlords, they must be consequenced when landlords are allowed on safe and unlivable conditions of housing.

Higher relocation payments for affected families.

Between Roman court, the West Marine Ranch affected families, the fires in San Rafael.

It is clear.

And you can be the first ones to take a step forward, not just for Novato, but for the county and be an example.

So I ask you again.

Novato requiere un ordinanza de vivienda que se ajusta y se alinee a la ley statal y canuscubra y se fortalezca.

Gracias.

Novato requires a new urgent.

And to be aligned to the state law and to cover and to protect everybody.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Antonio Gramajo.

Welcome, Antonio.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for being with us and supporting us with this problem.

I emigrated to the US.

And I felt God gave me this city to live in.

I've already gone through a one recession.

The pandemic.

And some people say that it's expensive to live here in Marin.

But I want to say that it is a privilege to live here in Marin.

I don't know how this has been happening.

And I continue living there to this day.

And I don't know what happened.

Because the problem of Roman courtesy meses at six months ago.

Because I believe there are authorities that see the problems before that they become our problems.

With people that are specialized to do these inspections.

When the city comes to check the problems outside of the complex buildings, but they don't go inside to check.

So Madre Soltera Vivo Comiga Jocelyne de 10.

Soyuna del Group del Inquilinous Affectados de Roma Cor.

Good afternoon.

My name is Vilma Monzon.

I am a single mother that lives with my daughter Jocelyn.

She is 10 years old.

I am a member of a group of the affected tenants in Romar Park, and I want to appreciate and thank you for this space to share our experiences.

Today I am here to ask you to help us find a worthy home that is stable and accessible for me and my daughter.

In fact, many times I repaired or fixed my home or my rented home with my own money because the building had many problems, problems with the filtration of the water, mold, the lack of maintenance, and even so I did what was possible to live in a worthy home that was safe for us both.

And it was not because I was not paying on time or because I was not taking care of the unit.

They ask that I demonstrate enough income that is way higher than what one person can make to prove, even though I was paying the rent for so many years on time.

And that's why I feel sad, frustrated, deceptive with this process.

We had a home and you took it because of a decision to take us out because of security or safety reasons.

But now we don't have our own space.

After renting a room, no, after that I had to go rent a room that is not an ideal space to raise my daughter.

We have no privacy.

We have to spend a lot of our time outside of that house because we don't want to have be a burden to the person that's renting a room for us.

And now I have to rent a storage unit to keep all of my belongings, which has generated emotional chaos and economic burden in our lives.

That's why I'm here to ask for your support.

My daughter and I need a new home.

So what will be the steps that you all will take to demonstrate to us that we can restore a new home for us?

What will work with me to find a new solution to meet our necessities, our needs?

Which will be the processes that will be implemented so that in our future this situation will not be repeated for other families.

So I don't want privileges, I only want justice.

We are we are demanding demanding dignity because no one should lose their home for doing the right thing.

Our next speaker is Jesus Portillo.

Yeah.

I used to live in Romar Court for 15 years.

Yeah, seeamo Panela etiqueta roja la puerta.

On a Wednesday night, early Wednesday, they arrived and they left the red tag.

Okay, supastamenta para salir.

They gave us five days to vacate.

Sabado no Avilas Domingo de la noche.

Saturday and Sunday we don't work, so we have to leave by Sunday midnight.

Not only me.

So then we went to a hotel for three weeks.

The only thing we want you to do is to help us.

That's all thank you very much.

Hi Jocelyn.

Hi, my name.

Hi, my name is Jocelyn.

I'm 10 years old.

I'm 10 years old and I have my mom and my mom is a single mom.

My father left us when I was five years old.

I'm very grateful that you are supporting us and that you are listening to us.

And I didn't really believe that we have to leave our home.

We left with a couple of suitcases in few boxes.

The rest we have to store that in a garage.

That's all we had.

I couldn't take with me everything that I wanted to.

I couldn't take my toys, my books, everything that I had.

I planted a little tree, so I had that little tree for so many years.

I believe that that tree is gonna grow big and strong.

I wanna thank each of you to be here in hearing us.

I know that sometimes things happen to us, but it's hard to just leave our home.

We used to have so much money to pay our rent, but also you know my mom lost her job.

She does house cleaning, so she makes enough money to pay one room.

We are only in one room, small room.

We can only use the kitchen, the bathroom, and we go back to our bedroom.

It's small.

And so I can't play, I can't do whatever I want.

I don't have all my toys, so I just spent time with my mom.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Veronica Hernandez.

Veronica Veronica Duarte.

Duarte Hernandez.

So quite interpretal persona quien said.

Um I just gonna read it on Spanish because um she couldn't be here.

Um I just gonna start by saying that she couldn't be here because um as some of you know, um she just got diagnosed with cancer stage two.

So she asked me to read it, and I will try to do my best.

We have a lot of conditions deplorables, humanity, and the message was clear.

Necessitamos inspections frequent, sanctions reales and mechanism of participation community.

What happened to us was no accident or a misunderstanding.

It was a result of this failing system to protect the most vulnerable.

What happened in Romer Court was devastating.

One day, without a previous warning, we received an order to relocate, to leave our home, and they only gave us five days to pack up our things, pack up our lives, and leave.

Five days to leave behind years of our thing we did to leave our community, our roots.

And what's worse, without a worthy option of where to go.

That was a moment in where we know we uh we came to understand that being renters in this country many times is living in constant insecurity, even if we pay our rent on time, and we do every one of the requirements and our responsibilities.

Humidity, mold, roaches, rats, a lack of basic maintenance.

We made the reports, we asked for help, and instead of giving us solutions, what we received was a letter to relocate to leave our home.

And so the message, sorry, the message was clear when the conditions become impossible instead of repairing or fixing, simply get rid of the people.

As a mother, I felt a mixture of sadness, frustration, and a profound dissolution.

My children were raised there.

We had our own routines, our schools, our community.

And having us not live there anymore marked us profoundly.

And it wasn't just us as a family.

There were so many other families, workers, Latinas, children that lived this same experience.

I know that there are programs that can help, and organizations and the city did what they could to support us, but that was not enough.

What we needed were not just temporary patches, but strong ordinances that are permanent, that recognize our dignity and our humanity.

First, indemnization that is fair and adequate.

What we were offered was not enough to cover the costs of moving, the deposits, the new rent, the trauma of instability.

We know that in the county of Alameda, the renters receive at least 15,000 to relocate in Marin, where the cost of living is even higher.

That quantity should be the minimum that we would receive.

So we request to know the true cost of being displaced in our community.

Second, the right to return.

If Roalmark Park Court, sorry, would rehabilitate or be reconstructed, we should have the right to return and paying the same rent.

But not only the physical space, but a worthy home that is safe and clean because it's not only about bricks, it's about our lives.

We want you to include a clause that guarantees that we can come back to our home without being discriminated with financial obstacles.

Thirdly, responsibility to protect negligence, no.

Oh, responsibility for negligent property owners.

These property owners ignore the reports that allow these homes to become inhuman to become inhumane conditions.

And they should confront clear consequences.

We want action.

We want dignity.

And this should not have happened to anyone anymore.

Thank you for your time and thank you for listening, not only to my words, but also to my pain and our hopes.

Let's build together a community that does not kick out people, but embraces people that they don't just expose.

And that's the end.

60, I'm sorry, 60 days.

Why?

Instead of cleaning or repairing the uh the pipe, the sewer, they just let it go in my backyard.

I was not notified when I came back from work.

My son asked, Mammy, what is that?

You can imagine what it was.

So therefore I went and knocked at the door at to the manager's door.

I called him by his name and I asked.

And he responded, I'm sorry, I forgot to let you know.

So I asked, how am I gonna go into my house with my kids?

He said, oh, I will clean it tomorrow.

So the day went by no limpio.

And he didn't clean it.

So therefore I wrote an email to the Novato, the city of Novato, mandelas photos, I send the pictures.

And he asked, are those pictures a real pictures?

I told him, it's my yard, it's my garden.

He asked for the for the landlord's information, the address, the phone number.

Tres días de Gomicartes.

They call him three days after I received the eviction notice.

Okay.

So what happened?

So he said I had sixty days to move out.

And I asked, but why?

Your kids, you have a lot of kids in this unit.

I've been living there for eight years.

He wanted to give me any reason because I reported him to the city.

So I called legal aid of marine.

They anxious.

They gave me the support, but my kids they were very anxious.

They were asking, where are we going?

It's not a two-day solution, you know, to find where to move with the renters, with the landlords.

Ligo lay trabajo muy fuerte.

Legal aid worked very hard.

Ganaro Micaso.

We won the case.

I'm still living there.

But now when I need to fix something at home or something happens, I think about it.

I think if I should call to report it.

I know that the city, you guys did all the work to call the landlord.

But he acted against me.

So that's why I'm here.

I know they gave me the notice for 60 days.

They didn't have that opportunity.

But it was unjust that they I was paying for my rent on time, and they shouldn't done that.

I'm a resident of Novato.

I took uh belong to voices of canal.

But soy una residente de ustedes.

But I reside and I reside as you in Novato.

And I wanna tell being able to tell my kids that we have somebody in somebody who supports us.

Novato necesita una ordenanza.

Novato needs an ordinance to protect the tenant.

Because there are causes that they're not just.

Yo quisiera compartir unos echos y cifras con ustedes.

My name is Diego.

I also I was displaced from my home from Roman Court.

I would like to share some facts with you.

There is one building, but we were displaced like from twelve apartments.

So the total of 58 in that property.

We were 50 people displaced from our homes.

Many of us paid from 2700 to 3,000 dollars a month for rent plus utilities.

Before the utilities were included in the rent.

Now we pay it additional.

For years they have increased our rent each year.

And our income doesn't give us enough to rent.

So for the total of 7,600 units in the whole country.

Landmark is the owner of 289 units in the Marine County.

If you check the website, you will not find anything under the name of Roman Court Apartments, neither in Novato or Marine.

So they do advertise it on the website.

They do.

They say we are dedicated to offer the high standard in quality in all the aspects.

Secure, static, attractive.

Our compromise is with quality, and we extend the service to the client.

We with meaning our properties.

So for fine ustedes nuestras por favor de verdad prevegan este mal comportamento de los dueños de parmentos.

Gracias.

I believe the difference in between us and what the people say, the reality is what we are.

So finally you are listening to the truth, our own condition, and please we beg you to listen to us to protect and to not let the owners of the proprietors to do this to us.

We need to be relocated and we want to be able to go back to our homes.

That happened to me a year ago.

I have to borrow so much money from several friends.

So thanks to that, I was able to relocate.

Sounds a lot of money.

Something very important.

Because I know you have the power.

And even if we had so many ordinances, you know, the owner doesn't appear.

We have we are tied, you know, our hands are tied.

But if you miss paying one or two months of your rent, they come like rats, you know, they want to take the Christ of out of my house.

Why can't they do that to us?

And why cannot we have our own rights with dignity?

It is so hard.

Do we have to get up to through the end of this to be able to talk in front of you?

I also wonder if or want to have ordinance for the landlords of the owners of the property to be able to pay us.

For the damage to pay for the damage, but not only to pay to the uh tenants to move out, you know, just also a penalty so they can be punished or they can feel it.

I will go around California to find the owners, and I can't do that, but I know you could.

Because we work para pagar mes a mes nuestra rentros vivan comodos to pay our rent month by month and to have a good place for our kids.

And if we pay rent is to have a dignity house to be able to live in.

Thank you.

Okay.

Who?

Karina Velman.

Corina.

Oh, I think she left.

I'm gonna keep moving.

And the next speaker is Nelson Selis Nelson.

My name is Nelson Selis.

And I am here for the second time.

I've already been here the first time to tell you my story of living in Roman court.

And I want to tell you that I continue being affected of what happened in Roman Roman court.

And one of the cases is the were more secure crazy is that it's a very expensive place to live.

When I speak with other people in Novato and that I live in Novato Cara, the rent is really high, it's really expensive.

When I say that I say yes, it's expensive.

But it's safe.

So what I'm trying to say is I experimented many party.

And it's around four or five buildings in those areas.

But the most difficult thing was when we found out the red tag about the red tag.

Because for me it was like the first time that I lived that experience.

And I feel that we didn't do anything wrong.

And also organizations that came to us trying to help us.

We were living six people there.

And the place where we were applying to Solos only three people can live there.

So we had to separate our family.

So now we're living in very different locations.

So what I want is the key as just like we have suffered still or something of that the owners of those places and that they can see the damage that they have done to us.

And I think that we came to you now.

If we were to speak, they would not listen to us.

It's been more than enough.

Everything that has been heard.

And we know in the position that we're in.

We are vulnerable.

Because I'm going to put myself as an example.

I only count with one job.

And when supposedly the income salario or the salary went up.

In my job they cut off my hours.

If I were to work, 80 hours to gain or earn thirty three thousand dollars in a month.

But the rent is very expensive.

The money is not enough.

I don't have enough with what I'm earning.

So I have to pay for the light, the electricity.

I need to be able to have clothing.

And it is not possible to cover all of these expenses.

Life is very hard, very difficult.

I am aware that you have the power.

Because before us yo creo in Dios, I believe in God.

I'll go to Zoom if you are on Zoom and wish to make a public comment.

Use please use the raise hand button.

Yes, we do have raised hands on Zoom.

The first is Alia Gomez.

Good evening, welcome.

Okay, nothing.

Good evening, Mariel Connor and Council members.

My name is Alia, and I'm on the government affairs staff with the Marin Association of Realtors.

We share your concern for housing stability, but we urge you to recognize that AB 1482 already provides strong enforcible protections.

State law sets clear rules, just cause after twelve months, relocation assistance for no fault evictions and rent caps that are keeping increases predictable.

These protections are in place today, and they apply across California with consistency.

That may sound good in concept, but in practice it will discourage property owners from reinvesting in housing stock and could reduce the number of rentals available in our community, which we do not want.

We are especially concerned as our August 18th letter notes that the draft would apply to properties with as few as three units.

That change pulled in small family landlords who are not corporate entities.

They are individuals renting a part of their retirement plan or supplementing their household income.

Burdening them with complex rules and relocation liabilities risks driving them out of the rental market all together.

Finally, this proposal introduces new administrative costs and enforcement responsibilities that the staff report has not yet addressed.

Who will fund relocation payments?

How will the city ensure consistent enforcement?

These unanswered questions make it clear that Novato is not ready to adopt such a sweeping ordinance.

Instead, we encourage you to build on what already works, AB 1482.

Thank you for considering our perspective, and we look forward to working with you on bound solutions that protect tenants while preserving the housing supply our city needs.

Thank you and have a good night.

Thank you very much.

Or is there anyone else?

Next is Victor Gomez.

Welcome, Richard.

Victor.

Oh, sorry, Victor.

Uh wonderful.

Thank you, Mayor O'Connor and Council members.

Uh my name is Victor Gomez, and I'm also with the Marin Association of Realtors, and we're here really to urge you not to advance a new overreaching just cause ordinance.

Uh first, state law already is already working.

A B 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, strongly supported by the by Governor Gavin Newsom, requires just cause after 12 months.

It caps annual increases and provides relocation assistance for no fault terminations already.

It sets a balanced uniform framework statewide and exclusively allows enforcement today.

Attempts to expand the Tenant Protection Act have failed in each year since the act was passed.

SB 436, AB twelve forty eight, and another ambitious bill that attempted to lower the rent cap wasn't even giving a hearing this year.

A clear message that our state and governor do not believe in these ideas like yours to severely impact rental housing.

Layering uh separate local regime risk confusion and costs without uh evidence of any improved outcomes.

Second, the staff report contemplates expanding protections to essentially all units and adding new categories that trigger displacement obligations, repair, rehab, and demolition, potentially with additional relocation payments, and even rights of return.

Those are major policy changes with real fiscal and operational impacts.

That report has not uh quantified.

Before you proceed, you should know that uh we want to know really who's gonna pay for this.

How is the city gonna administer this new program?

Have you asked those questions to staff?

No.

Not once has any member of this council asked for a fiscal impact in how the city's actually gonna pay for this and how you're gonna pay for new staff to administer this new program.

Third, our association's letter notes, the draft concept deviates from common thresholds by changing the typical exemption line used across California, moving from a more common four-unit threshold to three or more.

That shift falls hardest on small mom and pop housing providers who are renting uh part of their retirement uh that are uh using that as a way to raise money and their retirement uh days.

If the goal is stability, squeezing small providers off the market will not will completely do the opposite and not work.

Uh fourth, Marin already faces uh an extreme supply in uh in housing, limited land, high costs, uh complex regulatory environment do not help.

Fifth, basic implementation questions remain unanswered.

What resources does the city have to provide both tenants and small landlords to navigate these new rules?

Are asked tonight is simple.

Either pause uh to conduct a fiscal analysis uh of this and how much you're gonna pay on behalf of the taxpayers of Novato, or refer any potential uh proposal to the voters and let the voters decide.

If we really do believe in democracy, and that's what you stand for, then that's exactly what you would do tonight.

We stand ready to collaborate on targeted data-driven solutions, education, mediation, rental assistance and safety net programs that protect tenants without shrinking the rental supply Novato needs.

We look forward to continuing to working working with all of you and uh look forward to uh next steps.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Laura, any other public comment?

There's no other raised hands on Zoom.

Okay, that concludes public comments.

So I'm gonna bring it back to council.

Um so tonight that the goal is to provide staff with directions so that they can begin work on refining an ordinance to bring back to council for further discussion.

Um I'll start with uh if you sorry if you'd like to provide comment, please use the raise hand button.

Um I'll go to council member Eklund first you're muted.

Oh sorry, council member, you appear to be muted sorry, I was starting to talk already here.

Um so uh first of all, um relative to the um item um okay to me there's uh we need to expand what we're intending to do here, in my opinion.

Um I think that uh we need to uh make sure that the landlords need to keep up with regular repairs on their property.

One of the things I think we should explore is um uh establishing um a um ordinance um that um uh requires uh landlords to or for the city to inspect um the apartments um and then um site landlords if they're not um keeping their um uh apartments in uh good uh condition, one that is livable, um not with holes in walls and not with paint peeling, um, which probably has lead in it.

Um and we we need to do an inspection and uh program um we need to explore this.

Landlords uh must allow the tenants back into the rental unit, and um, I believe and should uh not increase the rent um uh before any of the renovations.

And I think that part of the rules should establish what is the anticipated renovation period um so that it's not gonna be for um you know more than six months or a year or whatever it is, and actually if there's more regular enforcement, um then we won't have the situation where we had um in Novato earlier.

Um I think we need to strengthen the relocation assistance.

Um and so I believe that the ordinance or the program should include that the landlords or the owners of the property need to pay for the rent in other apartments, and that it the rent is paid until the work is completed in their apartment, and then they can allow their residents to go back into that um apartment.

Um let's see.

Uh I believe that um there should be a guaranteed displacement, um uh whether it's uh through a red tag or a substantial remodel.

Um, and it uh should have the right to return.

Also, the landlord needs to pay for the rent and the temporary location for as long as needed to allow the renter to be able to go back to the original location.

Um I think that there should be no exemptions for rental properties.

Um this should also include ADUs, except um I do agree that single family homes and owner-occupied duplexes as promised for in the California Tenants Protection Act of 2019 would not be included.

Um there should be just cause eviction procedures that apply to all rental units with AB uh 1482 um exemptions.

Um there uh tenants should um have the option uh to uh obviously notify the landlord where there are improvements that's needed, and um the landlord should respond within a certain period of time uh to re make those repairs.

Um I think that um there are a lot of other things that I'd like to include in this.

The um agenda item itself um includes uh the different, and I can't find that piece of paper where it has the different um uh sections of what um Claire was talking about earlier, but I think that all of the items that are listed in there should be included, not just the ones that are marked in red.

Um I think we need to have more discussion about all of this.

Um I I think this is just the beginning.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that um we're being given enough time to really actually talk about some of these issues.

Um I think that um uh that we should have an opportunity to have an organized discussion about each of the issues that were raised.

This red tag issue, substantial remodel situation.

Um you know, I I my heart just bled every time um I heard one of the residents when they were told to um leave and with um with that any indication of when they were gonna be coming back or if they were coming back, and um especially I mean people are just living day-to-day uh, you know, issues, which is hard enough, and then to have to deal with something like that on top of it, I think is really unacceptable.

And I think that kind of thing um shouldn't happen, but I think that the property owner needs to pay um for the relocation of the residents.

Um there's a lot of others in here that um I think we need to have some discussion about.

I'm uh not gonna limit my suggestions to what I've said tonight due to the lateness of the hour since it is 1017.

Um, but um I I think we need to have strong anti-displacement policies and protection for people that are renting.

Um so that's just the beginning, I think, hopefully, of a discussion that we can have later on.

Thank you very much, council member.

Um Mayor Pro Tem Farak.

Thank you.

First, I want to just thank all the public comment speakers and being here at this late hour.

I'm gonna be brief because we still have two more agenda items.

Um I think there's two issues here.

I think it's the uh preventative proactiveness of um addressing negligent landlords.

Um so I think developing policies that can prevent that so this situation doesn't happen.

Um and then also um I think it's what we're currently looking at today and looking about um you know, tenants' rights and um right to return and stuff like that.

So um I'd love to you know see a draft ordinance and then we can kind of start from there and really look at the details, but I think um a big element that's missing is the preventative piece of how to address these issues ahead of time, so then um we're not giving red notices and um people are thrown off.

Um I think two quick ideas I had.

One is um having something on the website where we're um tenants can complain and we go out, and then um if landlords don't fix the issue, they don't get charged red.

Um so just something that I was thinking of.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Milberg.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you all so much for being here tonight.

I've met with some of you prior and um really appreciate all the um honestly feelings that you have, and more so um the reason why you're wanting to do this is to prevent it for other people to have it happen to them, which I think is is really uh amazing.

Um this is not an easy issue.

I um you know, as far as uh availability for uh additional um ability for return of right of right of return clause to no fault evictions, I'm I would be definitely encouraged about trying to look into that further.

Um I think the um it was interesting when you were talking, Claire, about the uh basis for at fault just cause terminations and the currently Novato has all 11 versus others, the city of San Rafael and the other has uh less.

And I think for me, I didn't hear anybody, and maybe it's just not really understood by the people that spoke tonight, you you all that are affected, but I am curious, you know, does that where do where do we want to go with that?

But I am curious, you know, does that where do where do we want to go with that?

Because in my opinion, we have to match um the horrific nature of what you all are are are going through with trying to maintain a healthy business environment here.

And so I think you know, for me, number one, if we could get a better handle on what the enormity of the issue is, how many more potential Romar courts are we going to be facing?

I don't have an answer for that myself, and I don't know if anybody else on this council does, but um when when when I hear about the five days of um you know having to pack up everything, it's it's it's heartbreaking.

But at the same time, at least my opinion was to do something immediately given the the circumstances and given the the problems that existed.

Yes, it wasn't adequate time, but it's not a reflection on the city's uh desire to do the right thing or the city's caring about you as our residents.

I want to make sure that's understood.

Um it was done in and we we we dealt with it because we felt it was an emergent situation.

And so for me, the the the um uh the rectification of this is to hold landlords more accountable.

You should never have to feel like you're living in a place with mold.

Uh what we saw in the pictures uh of the of the architectural the building being held up, just it just wasn't safe for all of you.

And yet the enormity of of how many other Romar courts are there is is frightening to me personally.

So there's a delicate balance in my mind we have to we have to fulfill.

Um we don't want to be totally a um enemy of the real estate market here.

And so for me, it's like doing the right thing, but also working with uh people that are trying to make a living that are doing the right thing and and providing uh appropriate uh maintenance for their apartments that you have not experienced.

And to hold for us to be able to hold uh landmark and others that are similar to landmark accountable is really for me the move the way to the move forward.

So I think as far as other, you know, I I guess I'm still a bit confused, and maybe I'll just spend a little more time on this, Claire, about relying on state law only.

I've heard that from a few people, and you know, the the impact that we would have as far as adopting a uh a more stringent local ordinance and what that would really mean.

Um allowing exemptions for small operators, ADU and JD JDUs, I think is worth uh exploring further personally.

Um I mentioned about the all or some basis for outfall just cause terminations.

If the residents and the people that are supported here tonight don't feel like there's anything that should be taken away, or that's something that's so onerous that just leaves a bad bad feeling, then I'm probably in agreement that we should just leave that.

And I think it's a good counterbalance with the real estate state, we're not touching that because we do believe all of those are justified.

Um as far as the uh ability, and I mentioned the right to return.

I think that has to definitely be part of what we do here.

Um but as far as the expanding temporary relocation assistance, that is a tough one for me and for us, I believe, because you know, we felt like, and I at the time when this happened, I felt like it is it is the right thing to do when we and we were able to provide it quickly, but obviously in talking to all of you personally, I know it wasn't enough.

And I'm just curious as to where that money would would or should come from.

I don't know if it's gonna come from the city.

I think it perhaps could be uh done uh from you know, uh doing this more with the landlords and and really holding them accountable.

Uh but I just want to point that out.

I don't think it's a full solution there, but it doesn't mean that your situation um doesn't require more attention and more heartfelt understanding what we can do going forward.

So I respect you so greatly for coming out tonight and speaking your heart.

Um it means a lot to me personally, and um I wish you didn't have to go through this, and I will do everything in my power to to work to continue to make sure this doesn't happen again.

So thank you again for being here.

Thank you, council member.

Um I agree with practically everything that uh my colleagues have shared, so I'm not gonna repeat that.

Um I'm interested in reducing um sorry.

I mean in introduce it's late.

Interested in reducing exemptions, not increasing them.

Good landlords can exempt themselves.

One topic that came up several times that would also tie into a potential registry concept that I'd be interested in understanding more is if there is a possibility for an automatic expansion process to ensure rental unit quality.

Nothing too onerous.

Once even five or ten years would be something, but we've heard a lot of stories about low quality units out there.

And I'd like to understand if there's a good program we could implement that would help identify those.

Relocation assistance.

Definitely needs to be improved.

The proposal you mentioned earlier, five months is a strong proposal.

I'd be supportive of something like that.

One thing I'd like to make sure we talk about a little bit further, though, is withdrawal from the market with appropriate notice and a defined uh period.

I feel like that there'd be circumstances withdrawing a property off the mark, it shouldn't result in relocation requirements.

For instance, if someone's taking something off the market because that they're taking care of a parent or something like that, they shouldn't have the added burden of having to pay five months' rent.

So I just want to be mindful of circumstances like that, not create unnecessary hardships.

Um the right of return, uh I don't want to change state law or negatively impact what the protections that are there.

Um like my colleagues, I'd like it to be stronger, guaranteed right of return at current rate and to the extent legally permissible.

And those are just kind of some of my thoughts.

I'm sure everyone else has additional thoughts, so I'd encourage the rest of council.

If you have additional thoughts or items that you wanted to share with Claire for future consideration when she gets to put the draft together, please share them with her in writing.

Um with that, have you received enough feedback to get started?

Yes, I am.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So with that will conclude the item.

It's after 10 p.m.

So uh council practices to just do a pulse check to see if we have time to take the remaining two items.

I checked with staff, both will take about five minutes or less.

Um, one is time sensitive because it will impact um some pending construction projects, including MVMCC.

I don't think we did in a consent calendar either or council comments.

We didn't we did the consent calendar at the beginning of the meeting, but council comments have been pushed to the end.

So um but what I wanted to what I wanted to suggest is if we could take J1 and J2 and then um not do council comments tonight.

Good idea.

Council reports.

Would that work for everybody?

Yes.

Yes?

Okay.

In that case, I'll move on quickly to J1, which is adopt a resolution amending the limited term, retired annuant appointment of Tim Burke as interim public works director under government code section 21221, adjusting his salary pursuant to the city's current salary schedule and ratifying the amended offer letter and extension letter.

And with us is Greg Canfield.

Welcome, Greg.

Good evening, Mayor and uh council members.

Uh tonight's item is a request to adopt a resolution amending and ratifying the limited term retired and newitant appointment of Tim Burke as interim public works director under government code section 21221H.

Mr.

Burke was first appointed in December 2024 to provide specialized leadership and stability during the recruitment of a permanent public works director.

His original appointment anticipated ending on June 30th, 2025 or sooner if a permanent hire was made.

However, to maintain continuity of operations, his service will extend beyond that date until the recruitment is completed.

It's important to note that this appointment must comply with CalPERS requirements.

That's why we're here this evening for post-retirement oper uh employment specifically.

The appointment must be limited term uh to a vacant position.

The retiree must have the specialized skills needed to perform the work.

The city must be actively recruiting for a permanent replacement.

The retiree cannot work more than 960 hours in a fiscal year across all CalPERS employers.

Um the receiver uh the retiree cannot receive any benefits or incentives beyond the hourly rate that complies with the adopted salary schedule, except access to the employee assistance program, and the appointment needs to be approved uh with a resolution in an open meeting.

Mr.

Burke's continued appointment meets all of these requirements, making his service compliant with CalPur's rules.

Staff recommends adoption of the resolution amending and ratifying Mr.

Burke's appointment.

And that's it.

And I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

Thank you very much, Greg.

If you have any questions, please use the reason the raise hand button.

Not seeing any, we'll go to public comment.

If you'd like to speak, please fill out a yellow card and hands the city clerk.

Not seeing any.

Uh looking for Zoom and public comment.

If you'd like to speak in this item, please use the raise hand button.

There's no raised hands.

Thank you.

No public comment.

Closing public comment, bringing it back to council for a motion and a second.

I'll second.

All right.

I'm gonna say Mark moved it.

And Laura, if you'd call the vote, please.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg.

Aye.

Mayor Purchamp Ferrat.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Aye.

Motion passes five zero.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Still want to know how we did it, by the way, but we'll talk about that primary.

Cal City's annual conference general assembly.

And Laura, I believe you're introduced in this item.

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

So this item is to select a voting delegate in alternate for the annual League of California Cities Conference.

This year, both Councilmember Milburg and Councilmember Jacobs will be in attendance.

So with that, I will turn it over to Council for discussion.

I'll move uh Jacobs to be the voting delegate and um Melberg is the alternate.

I'll second that.

Do you want to do one comment?

Well, yeah, so okay.

Um use the raise hand button if you have any questions, no questions or yes, Mr.

Jacobs.

My understanding is voting will be on Friday.

That's correct.

And I will be leaving early on Friday.

No, it's just the other way around.

Okay, I don't have a problem with being the alternate or being the primary.

Okay.

I can be the primary, but I will not be there on Friday.

That's fine.

That's that's the reason to have an alternate.

Yes.

That's fine, so being the private vote.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right, and I'll go to public comment.

Any public comment?

Nope.

Zoom, hands up.

Nope.

No raise hands.

Okay, bringing it back to council.

We have a motion and a second, which is uh Councilmember Jacobs as primary with uh Councilmember Milberg as the alternate.

Um would you if Laura if you'd call the vote?

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Milberg.

Aye.

Mayor Pur Temferak.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Aye, and that passes five zero.

Thank you.

Um move on to adjournment.

The next regular council meeting will be held on September 9th, 2025.

Does Council have anyone that'd like to injourn a memory of I do have one person I wanted to close in memory of, so I'm going to close in memory of Diane Thompson.

Diane moved to the Bihia neighborhood in 1986 and quickly became a valuable member of the community.

Over the years, she built up a large group of friends in Bahia, and along with her husband Charles, got involved in the homeowners association in a number of key projects over the years.

Dan was responsible for the Bahia Newsletter, the neighborhood telephone directory, and found countless other ways to get involved and help the Bahia community.

Diane was a mainstay in Bahia over the years, and she'll be sorely missed by everyone that knew her.

So we're adjourning in memory of Diane Thompson.

Thank you.

Very nice.