Welcome everyone to the City of Novato City Council meeting for March 24th.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

Laura, can you please take roll call?

Councilmember Eklunds.

Present.

Councilmember Carkle?

Here.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs.

Here.

And Mayor Frack.

Present.

We did have a closed session.

Gary, our city attorney, do we have anything to report?

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council members.

The council voted 5-0 to initiate litigation.

The action defendants and other particulars will be available upon request once the action is commenced.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to item C, ceremonial matters, I'd like to ask the council to uh meet me up front at the podium, and then also want to invite Carla Calva de Graaff, our finance director and members of the finance team to accept the proclamation.

All right, well, this one I'm really, really excited to give out.

And as some of you are aware, we were behind on our audits, and um our council has made it a priority, and staff has delivered to catch up on our audits and really become fiscally sustainable.

So their hard work, we're now in a great position.

So with this, I'd like to recognize government finance professionals week.

Whereas the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers is the state's leading professional organization dedicated to promoting excellence in financial management for California's local governments.

And whereas these professionals play a critical role in managing complex budgets, compliing with state and federal laws, maintaining accurate financial reporting in compliance with government accounting standard, administrating great processes, and a verity of funding with different requirements and supporting long-term fiscal sustainability.

And whereas Finance Professionals Week diligently, often behind the scenes, to provide critical information that enables informed policy decision and ensures the delivery of essential public services.

And now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Nov City Council of the City of Novato on behalf of the residents of Novato does hereby proclaim the last week of March as government finance professionals week and encourages all residents to recognize and appreciate the hard work and contribution of the finance professionals who serve our community.

Would you like to say a few words?

Um I just like to thank uh city council for all the support you've given us over the last few years in um catching up, and I would just say that I am um lucky to be a member of such an amazing finance team that is truly dedicated to working really hard to ensure that the finances are done, but not only done, but done well, and um they are super dedicated and a really amazing group.

You want to go over there and take take a photo?

Now I'm gonna hand this over to Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs.

Thank you.

Uh this next one is for George Brenton Estes.

George, you want to step up?

Whereas the City of Novato proudly recognizes individuals who demonstrate commitment to and support for the community values and principles, and whereas George Estes has been a proud resident of Novato since 1965, where he attended all of school Hill Junior High and Novato High, and whereas in 1975 he left to serve a two-year full-time mission for the Church of Latter-day Saints.

And in 1982, George and his wife, Rayleigh Davis, returned to Novato to raise their two children, whereas George started working at Valley Memorial Park on January 26, 1981, where he started a tradition of scouts from local Boy Scouts of America units placing flags on the graves of veterans at VMP, followed by a flag ceremony and a short memorial service.

And whereas in 1984, George became involved in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 79, and is now the present member of the Executive Board of Marin Council Scouts of America, formerly Boy Scouts of America.

And whereas in 1997, George received the Silver Beaver Award from Marin Council Boy Scouts of America, the highest award that can be bestowed on an adult leader for noteworthy exceptional service and youth to youth.

And whereas George is also a devoted Rotarian, he was inducted into Rotary Club of Novato in 1983 and served as president of the Rotary Club of Novado for 1996, 97 term.

And whereas, after a long 45-year career at Valley Memorial Park, George retired January 27, 2026.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Novato, on behalf of the citizens of Novato, does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to George Brenton SDs for his unwavering dedication and meaningful contributions to the community and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Good heavens.

Well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

This is indeed an honor.

I'm just gonna make this real quick.

I'd like to thank my family, my wife, my two kids are here.

Um got some grandsons over in Fairfield that couldn't make it, but uh, and a granddaughter there as well.

But I just want to let you know that the years spent at Valley Memorial Park had been an honor to serve this community and the families that we took care of is a blessing.

One of the things that frosts my cookies most of all is when people say, Well, what do you do?

You tell them we work in a cemetery, crematory, funeral home.

They say, Well, I guess somebody's gotta do it.

It just bugs me to death because not everybody can do that, very few can't.

And uh the families that we've helped through tough times are my payday.

The families that we that come out to the cemetery, and if you haven't been there, take a look at it.

It's the most beautiful cemetery north of the bridge.

Anyway, thank you very much.

All right, moving on to item D, approval of final agenda, to have a motion and a second.

I'll move it.

I was gonna suggest would would you be supportive of moving council reports to the end of the meeting this evening?

Okay, sure.

City Council reports, City Council and City Manager reports with would you be supportive of moving it to the end of the meeting to uh oh that's fine to come.

That's fine.

Okay, I second with that amendment.

Laura, can you take a vote?

Councilmember Eklund, aye.

Councilmember Carkle?

Oh, Councilmember O'Connor.

Hi.

Mayor Pertem Jacobs.

All right.

And Mayor Farack.

Hi.

All right, that passes.

Um moving on to 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.

There will be a public comment time for tenant protection ordinance when that item is called.

There's a three-minute time limit.

If you haven't, please, and you want to talk on non-agenda items, please fill out a yellow card.

Um, so I will first call up uh Brett Goldman.

Welcome, Brett.

First, I want to say thank you for city council.

I know it's you guys are basically volunteers, and it's great that you are here.

Um, I was alerted to this meeting by Michelle Leopold, who is very active in Marin County.

Um we were here six months ago, and ten of us spoke on all kinds of reasons why you should not establish a legal cannabis dispensary in the city of Novato.

I don't even know.

I've only talked to one of you on the phone if you're even considering this.

Um but first of all, I saw a lot of law enforcement.

We support the law enforcement here in all the communities and uh in uh Marin County, and um if you do do this, you're gonna have a problem with uh all kinds of problems.

Number one, I talked to a person that works at Novato High School, one of the teachers.

She said currently the students are going to run a park in Qatati to buy their vape pens, and it's a bad problem at those two high schools.

Number two.

When speaking of CNRFL, where I live, we spent three years trying to eliminate an illegal cannabis dispensary.

Luckily, one of the residents is the public relations director for the cannabis control in California, and he was able to go in there and eliminate that dispensary.

He confiscated 147,000 worth of illegal dispensary goods.

And the reason why I mentioned that is when I talked to him, he's extremely knowledgeable.

Most of his work is in Southern California, San Diego, Los Angeles.

What they do down there is they get illegal cannabis and then they sell it in legal dispensaries.

So who knows what you're selling?

Um DUIs crime.

Uh, right before the meeting six months ago, Novato had a bad incident or something backed in to a legal nicotine dispensary, and that was a problem because there was a high speed chase.

So I don't know if you're doing this for monetary funds for the city, but you might be spending more funds with the with the school district and the law enforcement.

Um I don't know if the school district has gotten involved in this conversation.

Um I think it's a really bad idea.

And also my son was really bad for two years, and it was horrible for us, our family.

I would find 14 vape pens in his room every night, 16 to 18 years old.

And the kids are gonna get it.

And last time I was here, we talked about the fake IDs.

It's an epidemic.

Any kid can get a fake ID anytime, so they they can go there.

If they can't get a fake ID, somebody else could purchase it for them.

So I'm urging you guys to do your homework.

There's cannabis psychosis that's going on now.

There's all kinds of horrible things with cannabis.

I am a victim as a parent that's gone through this.

It's a horrible experience.

So I appreciate your time and effort, and we really appreciate you to not do this.

Thank you very much.

If you agree, could you just go like this so we can keep it moving?

Thank you.

Um, concerned citizen.

All right, not seeing anyone.

Uh Michelle Leopold.

And then on deck will be Bridget Clark.

Are you Michelle?

Yes, I am.

Hi, Michelle.

Hi again.

Um I was here also uh six months or so ago to encourage you to not pursue a cannabis dispensary because of the harms to young adults.

I am a mother who lost her forever 18-year-old son because of cannabis.

I am convinced that if he had not become addicted at age 15, today's high potency THC products, that he would probably be alive today.

Um he was he was diagnosed with cannabis use disorder at his very first of many rehabs at age 15.

He had multiple fake IDs and before turning 18.

And of course, when he turned 18, he got an official one.

What isn't included in the costs and benefits of a cannabis retail dispensary that you are considering are the costs for a family like ours.

We had to pay for rehab programs, wilderness programs, and private high schools in order to keep our 16-year-old on the right track.

Nor are things like Trevor's emergency room department visits, where he was uh hospitalized for a 5150, a psychiatric evaluation to see if he was causing harm to himself or others from his high potency THC use.

Um expensive items in the emergency department are cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which is when people are barfing and s and uh screaming at the same time.

It's nicknamed scromadine, and psychosis, and all of these things are now coming out in studies that the industry did not know about, does not like to populate, and we feel very strongly that you need to learn about today's hypotency THC.

Trevor is an example of the science that cannabis use, especially in an unformed brain under 25 years old, often leads to experimentation with other drugs.

The science and data now shows the harms of today's high potency THC to youth, especially.

My forever 18-year-old son experimented with other drugs after becoming addicted to marijuana and died in his dorm room at Sonoma State University at age 18 from one prescription pill that was not that was fentanyl.

Protecting public health, especially that of our children, should be more important than anything else you consider as a city council.

I now use my voice to protect your children.

You have 10 mobile dispensaries that can deliver cannabis.

There is not a drought here.

Please find that sufficient.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome, Bridget.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm here as a lifetime resident of Marin and parent of 20 year olds, 20 plus year olds.

I have a serious concern over the process of the cannabis retail proposal.

The survey seemed faulty to me.

That was closed last night, or whenever it was a couple nights ago.

It's highly probable that the cannabis industry had a big influence on the responses in favor, just as Monsanto did with their promotion of pesticides that are they have an online presence, is my point.

The industry does.

So I just want you to be aware of that.

I do not believe this survey represents Novato's general population, and I'm also curious how the survey was distributed.

So I have concerns about that.

The education of the harms on cannabis to the community is lacking in my opinion.

I um have been uh working with Nick and um David Chef over the years.

Um Nick was the star of uh the film that Timothy Chamolet was in, The Beautiful Boy, and um they wrote a book about the harms of drugs, not just cannabis, but just to educate, so I wanted to share that with you because they've been extremely helpful in our community.

Um I also have, and I didn't make five a lot of copies of, but our um former um uh public health officer wanted um I'm friendly with him, and he also mentioned this cannabis control harms that you, if you're not aware of, I can give this to you or send it to you.

Um I know of a lot of young men in particular who have gotten cannabis use disorder, and um, one died by suicide jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, one's dealing with psychosis currently, um, hyperemes syndrome.

There's a lot of risks to cannabis that I'm not sure people are aware of.

Um, Kaiser recently did a survey that um with over 400,000 13 to 17 year olds that talked that focused on the um the fact that cannabis, because of the potency, is doubling the risk of psychotic and bipolar disorders, and even after accounting for prior mental health conditions.

Um, depression and anxiety also increased in adolescence.

Um, the other thing I'm concerned about is DUIs being so prevalent in in Marin County.

It's the number one crime in Marin County.

Um, and I want you to consider this seriously because of the unintended consequences in bringing a retail cannabis storefront to Navado.

Um, there are over a thousand DUIs in 2024, and this is a growing issue.

Um the thing about the book that I just want to um point out is that Nick mentions in the book that can, although he did heroin, meth, a lot of different drugs.

He said cannabis was the hardest one for him to quit.

So I don't think people really understand quite how addictive it could be and how how the industry really sells to youth.

Um really addiction for profit is the name of the game for the industry.

Thank you, Bridget.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your like to invite Don Carney up, please.

And then Elizabeth O'Donnell will be next.

Welcome, Don.

Thank you.

Um I'm Don Kearney.

I direct the Marin County Youth Court, have bins for 22 years.

About 70% of the referrals to the youth court are for young people getting their hands on substances.

In that period of time, I have watched families bury 40 of their children.

And that is very difficult.

The cannabis that I smoked at Woodstock for the police statute of limitations is up.

I had good contacts, it was 6%.

Your children will not look at marijuana at 6% today.

What they're getting is anywhere between 30 and 99%.

The leap from that level of THC to opiates is a millimeter.

I was really disappointed that your survey didn't ask any questions about the impact on youth, what parents might be afraid of.

In my world, we try and increase the perception of harm and decrease access.

Storefronts contradict both of those tenets of public health, particularly for young people.

I debated Gavin Newsom when he was peddling his initiative to legalize.

I asked him to decriminalize because the evidence and the data shows that drug enforcement is done racially.

People of color do a lot more time behind bars than white people for the same exact thing.

I knew legalization would lead to corporatization.

Corporations only have one thing in mind profit margin.

That's why they're peddling to children.

If you get that substances in a young person's body while their brain is developing, their likelihood for addiction goes through the roof.

And if you look at the way go into any dispensary and look at the packaging, it's geared to young people.

When Gavin was peddling this, and I'm a Gavin guy.

We disagree on some things.

It was predicted that it would only increase psychotic breaks by 10%.

Now that we've got the data and the time, it's increased it by 20%.

I've worked with 11 families who suffered their the impact of their child having a psychotic break because they were dabbing the good stuff.

And I want you to know that marijuana is the most deductive drug for a young person.

We stress our kids out.

You've got to go to the best schools, blah, blah, blah.

And marijuana reduces that stress in about a minute, and they're euphoric on top of it.

The next time you know, there are 40 living in mother's basement with a 200 bomb.

Thank you.

Thank you, Don.

Elizabeth Adon.

Welcome.

Hi, thanks.

As you know, Marin was one of the first counties in California to prohibit the sale of flavored nicotine vapes.

And all of Marin banned flavored nicotine vapes, recognizing that they're highly addictive and a disaster for kids.

So I would ask you to treat harmful flavored cannabis vapes with the same caution by not opening the door to storefront sales of these flavored vape products in Novato.

A flavored vape is a flavored vape.

It encourages new users because it's sweet and it's easier to inhale, but it's highly concentrated, and it causes more types of physical and mental problems, unfortunately.

So the number one product that's sold in today's cannabis stores are not leafy joints that we remember from the Woodstock days, and I recall them, but high potency flavored cannabis concentrated vapes.

So we know from research surveys that flavored vapes are the number one choice for young people who use cannabis.

We also know that storefronts are shown to increase youth use through 18-year-olds that get medical marijuana cards and older friends and normalization.

We also know from California research data that Marin's 11th graders use cannabis 3.6 times more than the state average.

So we have a problem here.

So the data is clear that early cannabis use is really not good for youth and their developing brains.

So I strongly urge you to consider the real life consequences of making these top-selling flavored cannabis concentrated vapes more available to youth through a retail store.

Just like with nicotine, there are better decisions for public health and for our community here at large.

Everyone can't be made happy.

Adults still have cannabis available to them through the delivery services.

There are 10 of them here.

So I suggest that you focus on our vulnerable population and make smart choices for Novato.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

And then last, uh Kate Roll.

Welcome, Kate.

Thank you.

I have some pictures of I have some pictures that I'm passing around.

These are well, first of all, I'll introduce myself.

My name is Kate Rooley.

I'm a Nevada resident.

So what I passed out is cannabis products that are targeted to use.

I'm going to speak to that in a bit.

So I also came six months ago and spoke before you.

And I've since been made aware there was the survey that the results did not include my own or many others because we didn't get the survey, and I'm wondering why that is.

So that's a concern for me.

And I don't feel that that survey was showing all viewpoints and all the dangers with there.

There was nothing about the dangers to youth there, which we did speak about before.

So the public needs to know about the dangers of cannabis use disorder among children, teens, and young adults.

The cannabis industry wants you to believe that cannabis is safe, that there's multiple, a multitude of health benefits.

And uses seduction campaigns to local communities.

So you know, these are all concerns, but for me, the biggest concern is that our children are targeted.

And this is proof of that, you know, this kind of thing.

So I had mentioned Lucas Talbot.

He ate an entire package of a product that's just like this.

Okay, so this is a rope candy, sour candy.

I mean, do adults eat this kind of thing.

This is not something an adult's gonna go to a cannabis storefront or purchase.

You know, this is not something that appeals to adults necessarily, uh, unless they're really high, I guess, but um, but no, this is this is something that appeals to kids, and this is the product that Lucas Talbis, uh Talbot had ingested that caused him to have a psychotic episode.

He is the young man who Bridget uh referred to that had jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.

He um had this package of uh candy, cannabis uh candy candy that he and just did three months later.

He jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.

Thank you.

Um his older brother Jackson.

Wow, that was really fast.

Okay.

Anyway, so thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

Um moving on now to um item G, consent calendar.

Um do you have a motion and a second?

I will move the consent calendar, but I will be pulling item number G8.

Do you have a second?

I'll second.

Laura, can you call roll?

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Carkle.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Aye.

Mayor Pertem Jacobs.

Hi.

And Mayor Farak.

And just to confirm that we'll be taking G8 at the end of the agenda, correct?

Correct.

Yep.

Thank you.

So moving on to public hearings.

This is a public hearing and consider introduced an ordinance adding Section 417 tenant protections to the Nevado Municipal Code.

There are translation services available in the corner.

So you'd like to say something?

Yes.

First of all, when the first version of this ordinance came out, it applied to every rental unit in the city of Nevada.

Soon after the first round of public comments, staff came back with a proposed change, which is being heard this evening.

And what staff initiated with that any of our knowledge actually was an exemption of a owner who rented one or two units.

I don't even know how many.

So I will be exiting the room as well as the mayor as well.

Thank you.

And yeah, I must recuse myself due to my ownership of a rental property in Novato.

I do want to say it's been a privilege to meet with you.

I have read all the comments and emails that you have sent.

And I appreciate hearing your perspectives.

While I'm disappointed that I cannot continue participating, I believe that upholding ethical standards is essential.

Thank you all for showing up and engaging in this public process.

Your voice matters and your involvement makes the difference.

And I have all the confidence in my colleagues to make a great decision here.

Thank you.

Do you record my phone there?

Yeah.

She says it was from general public funding, and she didn't include the call.

So my call, of course.

Yeah.

Before we get started on this item, we have one person who had public comment on a non-agenda item.

That's Alice Bear.

Do you like to step up to the podium, please?

Thank you.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Allie Baer.

Thank you for this chance to share my opposition to Nevada's consideration of opening cannabis retail storefronts.

I work with schools and counties across the country to deliver substance use prevention curriculum.

And I continually hear from school principals, teachers, nurses, counselors about the challenges they have with widespread cannabis use on their campuses.

Sorry, cannabis specifically, cannabis use disorder, as well as cannabis-induced psychosis.

We have a client right now, a young client who is suffering from schizophrenia as a result of using cannabis as his only drug choice.

So today I'm asking you to please take into account the significant societal costs of cannabis use, particularly for youth.

A few others mentioned just this month, a new longitudinal study was co-authored with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Health System.

So Northern California, right here, and it focused on over 460,000 Northern California adolescents until they reach the age of 25.

And this study found that cannabis use among these specific adolescents increases their risk of being diagnosed with severe mental health disorders.

And these include anxiety, depression, bipolar, and psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia.

And these research researchers excluded those Northern California adolescents with previous mental health disorders.

So it's you know a clear link.

And the data also shows that the societal cost of schizophrenia, and this is not including all of the other in depression, anxiety, and bipolar that are linked to youth cannabis use.

The societal cost of schizophrenia alone is an estimated $350 billion a year.

And this applies to the monetary costs and doesn't take into account the actual lives of the individuals who are suffering from schizophrenia and their families and loved ones.

And compared to this $350 billion societal cost, the estimated profits, and this is data that's online and available to everywhere.

The estimated profits by the U.S.

cannabis industry per year is only in the tens of billions.

So $350 billion in societal costs for schizophrenia compared to a rough profit to the cannabis industry in the tens of billions.

So with this, I ask you to please weigh whatever tax revenue you hope to gain from retail cannabis to this 350 billion societal cost of schizophrenia, which the Northern California Kaiser study has linked to cannabis use.

I sincerely appreciate your considering this real data when considering opening the first retail cannabis stores in Moran County.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Alan.

Okay, we're now going to move on to the item L or I 1, the public hearing.

And Claire Hartman, would you like to give a presentation, please?

All right, thank you very much.

Well, go ahead and get started.

I do have some slides to go through, and then of course we can always revisit some of these as we go through questions.

I interrupt you one second.

Before the item starts, we have a translator available for anybody who needs it, and they're over in the corner right here in the red shirt.

Red jacket.

Thank you.

Sorry.

No, great.

Thank you.

All right.

So what we're going to cover tonight is our just cause tenant protections ordinance.

It's a proposed ordinance.

And the first thing we're going to talk about is what is just cause, what is around that terminology.

And then we're going to go into the draft ordinance.

And then as we go over the draft ordinance, and many of you in the audience have come to some of our community meetings about this.

We'll go over the draft ordinance, but we're also going to go over what staff's recommendations are as a result of the public feedback we've gotten today.

At the end, we're going to uh revisit what are the key policy considerations with the ordinance.

Council will have a chance to ask questions.

There'll be a public hearing, and then ultimately it'll be up for the consideration of the council of what to do next.

So what is just cause?

It's essentially the premise that there's a valid reason that you're addicting a tenant.

And could you please speak a little bit about split into two categories?

There's at fault and there's not uh no fault.

At fault implies that the tenant did something wrong, there's a breach of contract out of their lease.

Uh we'll go through some of the examples.

No fault implies that the tenant has been paying rent and is in within the confines and is complying with their lease contract.

However, there's been an interest or change of circumstances by which the landlord is either temporarily or permanently vacating the unit, and so the tenant is displaced.

Most of the rules that surround just cause are found in state law, and most of them are found in the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

There are other state laws.

There's the Ellis Act and obviously some case law, but the main state law that we look to for tenant protections is the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

The main reason for a local jurisdiction to do a local ordinance is essentially to expand the tenant protections from state law.

So that is primarily the reason why a local jurisdiction would go and do a pass a local ordinance.

And oftentimes it's related to relocation assistance focused around no fault evictions.

Just to put tonight's initiative into perspective, there's probably 540 city or county jurisdictions in the state of California.

There's currently 43 local jurisdictions that have not just considered but went ahead and adopted a local ordinance.

But several other cities in the counties in the Bay Area have passed this type of order.

So why is the city of Novato looking into considering a local ordinance?

And why now?

So, like many cities in the Bay Area, we're all under the same housing plan cycle, the sixth cycle of our housing elements or our housing plan.

And like many other jurisdictions, we have it in our plan to consider an ordinance like this, and so that's what we're doing.

And the reason why is a lot of supportive data has been included in the staff report, but mostly in this city's plan, housing element, which documents the complexity of the housing issues that are in our city.

To put perspective, we have 52,000 approximately in population.

We have 20,000 housing units, and it's a mix of housing units, so we're uh like blessed with a mix of housing units.

34% of our housing units are rental.

So that's about 6,800 units in the city.

So it's a substantial component of who we are in this community.

One of the other considerations in Novato is that we have a very high occupancy rate in our rental units.

Uh, and as per the census, 96% occupancy rate.

So that's a very tight market.

Uh and oftentimes those units that are available are overpriced for most of our community.

They're the larger units, so they're more less affordable.

In the affordable arena, that is an extremely tight market.

If you have a unit, you want to comply with your lease, you want to pay rent, you don't want to be displaced, and so uh renters are very protective of the units they were able to secure.

To put in perspective the affordability issues of renters, the number one the predominant reason for evictions uh in the Bay Area, this came out of the MTC A bag regional Bay Area eviction study.

As much as 97% of evictions were due to non-payment of rent.

Now that's an at-fault reason.

It means that the tenant was out of contract.

Um, but there's a lot of different reasons to fall out of contract with uh a lease agreement, but predominantly 97% up to as much as 97% was because of the uh inability to make payment of rent.

The most predominant population within our communities for being rent-burdened, so that's the income to the cost of living ratio, um, is predominantly and disproportionately our lower income families and people of color.

And so these this is a segment of our community, and our housing element has acknowledged this and has put this in our plan to consider a policy of what it would take to expand just cause eviction protections for this segment.

Now, this slide highlights the progress we've made to date that's led us to tonight.

So, as you can see here, it started with the adoption of that housing element plan.

That was back in May of 2024.

That plan has a number of policies and goals, as we just noted, and this is just one of many, many action items.

The city and community can follow our progress towards that housing plan on our website.

And it's noted here.

This is also where we highlight initiatives like this.

So that has been the clearing house, if you will, for this effort.

But what I want to go over here briefly is just the sort of the learning process that we've we've gone through to get to tonight.

So there has been several meetings here in these chambers, as a matter of fact, but many others outside of these chambers to talk about this topic of tenant protections.

So we learned about displacement issues in Marin County.

There was a year-long study that we participated in called Rooted in Marin.

So we learned a lot about what was happening in Marin County and in Nevada through that process.

And then subsequently we held at least two study sessions at the city council level.

First, to talk about well, how does our housing element address displacement issues?

And so we had a study session just to learn about how where Novato fits in with that.

Following that, the direction to staff was to go out and talk about if we were to consider a tenant protections ordinance, what would be in it, what would be the parameters.

So we spent some time last fall doing those engagement sessions.

We came to the city council last August and had a special study session that was specific to that.

And that's when staff got the direction to when we went out next with the community was to actually draft a tenant protections ordinance so that we could get down to the language of it.

And so that's what we did.

We produced a public draft, we launched that through our website through our social promotions, and it's uh it was out there for the sake of discussion and to collect feedback, and so the last couple of months we've been doing just that.

And so it's cumulated into tonight.

So now I'm gonna shift gears and start talking about this draft ordinance, what we learned through the community feedback sessions and where staff is recommending you might go next.

So the purpose of the draft is essentially to create stronger tenant protections, but specifically for no fault.

That was really the intention of this ordinance is to focus on no fault.

And we did get a lot of questions from the public.

You know, why is this ordinance so much stricter or just stricter than state law?

And it has to be, if you're going to step forward and adopt a local ordinance, it has to be stricter or more protective to tenants.

That is part of the findings that have to be made when you pass something like this.

The laws that would get or the requirements that get set forth in a local ordinance, they would supplement and in many cases supersede the state law.

And so it has to be fairly comprehensive.

This approach.

So even though there's expansion of tenant protections in this draft ordinance, and as recommended by staff, we were very careful to keep thinking about what are the protections for landlords.

This slide is about the applicability and exemptions from current state law.

So what's the baseline, right?

So this slide is about the baseline today for through our state laws about tenants that are protected.

And I'm going to start with the very first one on the upper left, tenancies of less than 12 months.

So the state law covers if you are in a lease agreement, you're not protected by state law unless you've been there for at least 12 months.

So there's a delay on getting even state protections.

There's a number of other exemptions here listed.

I am going to call out a couple of others that really came up quite a bit in the public engagement process.

Some of the exemptions here that you'll see, they emphasize sort of small operator or small site properties.

So we've heard that a lot through our public feedback, this deference to like a landlord that has a few properties or who lives on the properties, and so some of these state law exemptions are set up to essentially I guess protect the landlord in these cases by giving them the right to manage their property and manage the evictions.

So they per current state law, they are exempted from tenant protections.

And these include there's three owner-occupied exemptions.

One is where the owner lives in a unit, and say they rent out rooms.

That's one of the exemptions.

Another one is it's an owner-occupied single family dwelling.

But it also has a second dwelling unit or an ADU, but the owner is on site.

Another example of an exemption here is an owner-occupied duplex.

So you're talking small one unit, two unit, owner-occupied as exemptions.

Another exemption here is something they we categorize as separately alienable properties that are not owned by a corporation real estate trust or LLC.

I'm going to talk a little bit about that.

So we hear a lot in our public feedback about why I own a condominium unit where I own a couple of houses in town, but I don't live at those units, so it might covered as an exemption in this category.

So this exemption here, it's for single unit properties.

So it would include single family dwellings on their own lot or a condominium condominium unit, which is basically on its own lot, but it's an airspace lot.

And that are owned by individuals, not corporations.

And even if it's an LLC, sometimes there's like a there's a family LLC or a group of individuals, as long as it's with individuals and not a corporation, you would fall under this exemption.

And you could have ownership over, doesn't matter, three or four, or maybe even ten, a single family homes on each individual lots or condominiums, but as long as it's a single unit on a single lot and it's owned by an individual, you would fall into this exemption.

This also includes mobile home units for the same reason, single unit, single law.

I'm just gonna note before I move on to the next slide, there are a couple of others that run with state law, and that is exemptions for affordable housing units.

These are the ones that are deed contracted.

And then another one is for more currently built housing.

So the way the statute uh reads is uh housing units that had been issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years.

Alright, this next slide is where I'm gonna shift into some of the staff recommend recommended changes.

One of the big expansions in this ordinance is the effective date for a tenant, right?

And so the proposal that you have before you includes that a tenant is effectively protected by this proposed local ordinance on day one of their lease.

So they're in contract, uh it would be effective immediately.

We did get some feedback on this, but this wasn't predominantly one of the most controversial of the items.

There was some others I'm gonna go into further detail that did impact staff's recommendation.

Um of the main comments that we've received from our landlord community was this deference to the smaller unit, small operator type landlord with an interest broadly through landlords and tenants and tenant advocates to expand protections on the multi-unit properties, particularly apartments, but uh the bigger complexes of rental communities.

And so what I've got here as a proposal for in our draft ordinance to bring back, if you will, to the draft the other two owner-occupied exemptions, as well as to consider adding back or adding an expanded smaller operator exemption.

There's really a couple of options here on this on even on this slide that I'm going to present.

The first is simply to bring back the separately alienable properties exemption that's in state law.

And again, this is reflective of single family properties, one unit properties, whether they're single family attached, detached, or a condominium unit, or a mobile home.

But again, it has to be individually owned.

And that's sort of the mom and pop aspect of that exemption.

Alternately, staff's recommendation is to consider that that would be one way to support landlords in that it's already an existing state exemption.

If you wanted to create something new that was unique to Novato that matched up with our multifamily inspection program, this is a program that is already staffed and administered by the City of Novado, and it is a inspection and monitoring process and program that focuses on habitability of our multifamily properties, and it focuses on rental units on parcels that have three or more.

And so if you wanted the draft ordinance or the ordinance to expanded tenant protections to be applicable to three or more units, you could add an exemption for those that are less than that.

And so that's another way to look at this.

One thing I'm going to say before I move from this slide is to talk about exceptions.

So I talked about applicability and I talked about exemptions.

There's another phrase called exceptions, and that's why you don't see it up here.

There was a lot of public comments about well, what if my tenant is at fault?

Isn't that a reason for a cause for eviction?

Or is that considered no fault?

Or what if a tree falls on my building or there's a fire or earthquake and it's a natural disaster, and neither the landlord nor the tenant is at fault.

What happens then?

Those are what we call exceptions in the draft ordinance.

And that does include these circumstances.

So in those circumstances, there is no relocation assistance that would not be part of this ordinance.

The way the process works for that is that the tenant is obviously if there's a fire or a tree fill on there, they're not the property will probably be red tagged that it's uninhabitable or unsafe to enter, and then they would work with Red Cross.

There wouldn't be relocation assistance associated with that.

But also it wouldn't be the responsibility of the landlord because it wasn't their fault either.

So this is a slide that illustrates that in the proposed ordinance, we have kept all 11 reasons that are valid reasons to evict a tenant.

The number one, of course, being non-payment of rent, we talked about that, but there's other item, there's other elements here that if they are warranted, are the cause for an eviction, and there are a legal cause.

That's when an owner is not interested in renting their unit anymore.

They want to pull it off the market for a number of different reasons.

And the reason why it's under this category is because they want to withdraw from the market while somebody is in a lease contract, right?

So this is causing an eviction.

Otherwise, you can wait till the lease agreement is over, and you can move, you know, you can move into your property, you can withdraw from the market.

But if you're in a lease contract with someone and you want to evict them because of this reason, now there's a process that you have to go through.

Owner move in is just like it implies the it could be the owner or a relative as defined by state law to move back into your unit.

We're going to talk about government action or what we call red tag.

This is not just any red tag.

This is a when a the city uh code of forcement inspects a site and finds that there are habitability or structural issues with a building.

And there are various versions of red tag.

The one that is in this is notice to vacate.

That means there's not just something wrong, but it's something wrong such that you are not allowed to be in the unit anymore.

So they call it a notice to vacate.

And then lastly, substantial renovation with displacement.

So it's not just fixing your home or working on a repair while the tenant is there.

It's the type of repair or renovation that requires the tenant to not be in the same space, to not be able to be in that unit.

Oftentimes it's temporary, but sometimes temporary could be you know more than a couple of days, sometimes it could be weeks.

Um in some cases I suppose it could be months, and so we're going to address that.

So for these two types, uh we received a lot of feedback because a lot of the landlords that had participated before in our engagement sessions, uh, understood that our focus earlier had been on tenant protection expansions for red tag situations where habitability is forced to uh notice to vacate, or substantial renovations, which pushes somebody from being able to be inside their building their unit while they're paying rent while somebody is fixing a habitability issue.

And so we received quite a bit of feedback of an interest in pulling back these two no faults to being more in line with state law and less uh with an expansion relocation assistance.

So staff has adjusted the draft accordingly.

Um there is relocation assistance to these, but it is only one month or last month's rent.

Uh but that would be brought into this ordinance.

And we would keep, and this would be an and this would be an expanded right because it would be explicit in all categories, though there are some right of returns through state law, but we would provide the right of return for displaced tenant.

And what right of return means, since that's the first time we're talking about it, is that when it's offered again, that the tenant would be have the first opportunity to rent back into that unit.

And there's some details with each of these about when that happens or how long that opportunity is there.

We can talk about that if we want to get into that type of detail.

Uh the only other thing is I want to note is that I have a uh strikeout here that's pretty significant.

Received quite a bit of feedback from all parties, all perspectives on this local expansion, and that is to prohibit move in if the tenant has resided in the unit for over three years, and are 62 or older, or disabled or terminally ill.

This is a clause that we did see in some of the Bay Area local ordinances, not most, I would say, just a few.

But again, we put this in there for the sake of discussion.

We wanted feedback on something like this.

Like, is this protected clause for this specific tenant type something that Novato would consider?

Staff's recommending pulling it out because there's a lot of public feedback that you'll hear tonight, I'm sure, where the owners of Navado rental units may fall close to this category, but not over 62, and would like the opportunity to move back into their units when they would like to do that.

And so we're pulling that out for the sake of the stack recommendation.

Alright, this is probably my most complicated slide I have ever created, so I apologize for that.

On one slide, so I'll go through this, and we can spend as much time as we need to learn about what's this the same to us.

This program, by the way, is the same relocation assistance program for both no faults, which is the crux of this ordinance.

So for the red tag notice to vacate circumstances, and the substantial renovation with displacement circumstance.

The first thing I'm going to say about these two circumstances is that they are very rare, but they are absolutely impactful to the tenants that experience them.

So how rare are they?

You know, working with our building team, you know, I learned that for the most part, I'll just say with substantial renovation, and most people can have this experience, you can work around a lot of repairs and not have to vacate your unit.

You can phase it, you can be strategic, you can time the construction.

So you don't have to automatically displace because you're thinking about making a repair, or you are guessing at how long, you can really be more strategic and not displaced your tenant.

And the building team will work with a contractor and a site to avoid displacement as much as possible.

But for the moments where you just have to do that, so for example, if you are you don't have uh, well, if you don't have hot water, you need to re and you need to replace your water heater, or you don't have heat, those are things that are habitability issues, and you you must displace if you can't have heat and hot water, certain um uh access to it.

Now, those are probably shorter term displacements.

Uh, if you do have water damage, uh, you have an older home and maybe your roof is coming, you know, with a lot of the heavier rains, uh, it's just wear and tear on the house, and the and the roof is leaking and sagging and causing some water damage, that might take a little bit longer to repair.

But again, you're planning forward, you're getting a building permit, you're figuring out the construction timeline, so you can be strategic going into a substantial renovation project.

And only if you have to displace with this kick in.

Uh likewise, red tags are not surprises to the landlord.

Oftentimes, if we've gotten to this stage of the city coming out and saying you must displace the tenants, you know, it's uninhabitable, and we're issuing that notice of vacate.

It's often preceded by many communications to the landlord inspections.

Maybe it came out of our multifamily inspection program, maybe it came out of complaints, but we've been working with the landlord to make progress on deficiencies.

And at some point, uh, sometimes, probably a couple times out of the year, we get to this point where the city says, enough, this building has degraded to the point that someone can't be in this unit until you repair X or Y or Z or all of the above.

And then the other couple of times a year that we're red tagging, is likely because a tree fell in a house, or you know, there's just very short-term situations, the sewer backs up and you need to you need to fix your plumbing, and so it obviously can't be there while they don't have plumbing.

Um they have the emergencies and those are exceptions.

So let me go over what's the proposal is for when those circumstances do happen.

And again, this is where the tenant is protective of their housing unit because occupancy is at an all-time high.

And so the tenant wants to stay in their unit, appreciates the repair, understands perhaps the red tag does happen at times, but hasn't done anything wrong.

And oftentimes you can do these actions in short order.

So the way this program would work, and this is we tried some different programs throughout the engagement sessions, and this recommendation is sort of a culmination of that.

So this is a progressive program.

So the first 30 days, the tenant is continuing to pay rent, and so their money is going that way, but they need to stage somewhere temporarily.

If they're lucky, they can stay with a friend or a family, but not always.

Not everyone has that luxury.

And so the price here, this is based on a mid-range hotel stay in Nevada.

So this is to have them temporarily stage while they wait for their unit to open back up.

We add here a right of return that when that work is done, they would get notice that the work is done and they can come back.

If the repair process takes longer, you know, they they will start to need to look for a more permanent place to stay.

So again, though, they don't want to lose where they are.

Most residents don't want to lose where they are, so they're going to continue to pay the rent.

But in the time period of month two to up to months uh through month six, the landlord would pay the market rate for that size of unit, and the market rate is dictated, um, it's an objective standard.

It's the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, fair market rent.

Uh it's dictated by how many bedrooms you have, and it's dictated by the county, you know, what county it is.

So it is a county average, the county has one rate.

For example, in Marin County, the fair market rate for a two-bedroom unit is currently $3,604.

It's gone up a few hundred dollars in the last few years.

And so essentially it's like they are cross-checking, right?

So the tenant continues to be in good standing and pay their rent, but the landlord also provides the differential or the compensating check.

So they have a little bit more to go out in the market to pay market rate to find some alternative staging area while they're waiting to come back.

If it continues on, there is a point where the tenant would have an opportunity to uh find someplace else, it's going to take longer than six months.

Uh this ordinance proposes to call that permanent relocation.

This is when the tenant can stop paying rent.

There's still an honor that they did what they were supposed to do, but they stop paying rent, and the landlord pays them two times the fair market rent, and that's so that they can move into another if they are lucky to find an opening in Novato to move into a market rate rent at that time.

Now, when that property becomes available, this is one of the biggest rights of the ordinance is this right of return.

And the way that works is they would come back, there would be, let's say it took a couple years for a major renovation, they had to change out the electrical, the plumbing, they had to shore up the structural, you know, it's just a lot of things all at once.

Um worst case scenario, they would have the right to return at the same rent that they had when they were forced out with just CPI increases allowed.

So they're not penalized by this action, they are supported, but the uh including their right to return at the same rate generally, and also supported by being able to have some funds to find alternative staging.

Uh there are alternatives.

I heard a lot of well, I'm a good, you know, I have a good relationship with my tenant, and um, you know, I would give them rent credit for the week, or I would like to uh pay for their hotel stay directly.

You can enter in this ordinance, uh, you can enter into an alternative agreement, that's perfectly fine.

Um, and that's part of this ordinance.

So this program is just to set a default uh so that tenants know that what they have a right to if they wanted to, but they can also go into uh an uh an alternative agreement with the landlord.

Also, if that landlord was like we talked about some of the Navatan landlords have multiple units.

Maybe there's a unit that's free that they can temporarily stage that tenant there while they repair this other home that they have.

Perfectly fine.

Option B is at the forefront.

If a tenant does not care to return, they can they would lose their right of return, but they could just elect to immediately permanently vacate and just find another place on their own.

And so there's a program there for that.

So I just want to make it clear because there's a lot of misunderstanding about financially how this works.

The tenant pays rent until it's a permanent relocation.

So that can be for the first six months of a temporary displacement.

And so some of this cost is offset by that.

The other thing I would say is it's designed specifically to incentivize strategic repairs, efficient repairs, and to help facilitate that return back to the unit.

That's what it's intended to do.

Oh, one more thing before I left that slide.

I don't know if this gets me back, no.

One more thing, and I forgot to mention over there on the right in uh red tags.

So, in addition, so substantial remodel and red tag is the same program all across the board, all of what you see there, including the alternative agreements that is all the same.

Except with a red tag, there's an additional state law.

Because of the suddenness, right?

The substantial renovation requires a building permit and notice, like there's some deliberate communication happening.

With a red tag, it's often a surprise to the tenant.

And so they are immediately displaced.

It's often less than 10 days' notice.

You know, oftentimes it's just a couple of days' notice because what you're finding is that there's some significant issue that says you can't be in this unit safely.

And because of that, the state law, health and safety code, says that you the landlord must pay two months of that fair market rent plus utilities within 24 hours in those cases when the notice to vacate gives you less than 10 days to get out of there.

That's going to be in addition to our local program here, and that's just for red tags, and that's because of that immediate shock of you didn't have time to find a plan.

Alright, we are down here to the last couple of slides.

This slide is about enforcement protections and remedies.

I talked a little bit about multifamily inspection program.

That's probably the number one biggest preventative to avoiding red tag uh red tags from the city.

Uh we do annual monitoring of our multifamily larger project properties in town.

These are properties, three units or more.

We do a great job.

Our team, we have a full-time staff member who does that, uh, creates a relationship with landlords through that program with tenants and through inspections, uh, gives inventories of what needs to get done to address habitability.

Uh so that's a great preventative tool and communication tool.

Um, but we're uh we are in an enforcement role and an educational role of the ordinance.

Um like many other local jurisdictions, this is set up to be enforced not through a city board.

We don't have that sort of arm with the in Novato, but it would be through civil court proceedings.

Um what this sets up is clarity for both parties, landlords and tenants to be to understand what their protections are, to spell it out specifically.

And one of the changes of staff recommendation based on some feedback that we received.

Um I think the original draft said three times penalties.

If you're found at fault with this ordinance, any part of it, it's three times the penalties across the board, damages, attorney fees, uh, and whatnot.

The recommendation is more in line with what state law looks at, and also it gives deference to the extent of damages, the deference or discretion is given to the court.

And so that it was a recommendation that we receive through public feedback.

So what does the city do if we were to adopt this?

What's our role?

Our role is to educate, provide the information, answer questions.

We would have templates for all the noticing that's part of this ordinance.

And we would support landlords and tenants the same.

This is just a summary of the public workshops.

We uh invited all the public to come to any of these meetings.

We we met, we had a series of five meetings, I think, on workshops.

They were in person, they were on Zoom, some were in the middle of the day, some were at night.

One of them was in Spanish.

Uh we received quite a bit of feedback.

I think there was 200 pages of public comments that you received for this item tonight.

Uh so the key considerations is applicability, exemptions, uh focus on temporary and permanent relocation assistance.

Do we have it?

Do we have it right?

Do we have the right uh program setups, opportunities, payment plans, and then the right of return applied to all four of those no fault um evictions.

So that's the conclusion of my presentation.

And uh here before you use our recommendation, consider this ordinance.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I know you put a lot of work into that, and it's been uh presented very well.

Thank you.

Uh I'd like to open it up to my colleagues to make some comments.

Uh councilmember O'Connor, would you like to start?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Um first of all, Claire, thank you to you and your team.

Oh, Laura, I think this delivery for you.

Clara, thank you to thank you to you and your team for all your hard work.

This was this was a huge lift and appreciate the time and effort you've put into it.

I want to thank everyone out here for their messages.

I I'm sure my colleagues will say the same thing.

I tried to respond initially and keep up with it, but the sheer volume of people that reached out was overwhelming.

I can assure you I read all of your feedback, I listened to all of your voicemails.

I wasn't able to respond to every single one of them, but I did read and consider each one.

Um front, I did want to add one other thing.

I did receive a large amount of messages about rent control.

And I just want to be really clear that none of this ordinance is about rent control.

There's nothing included in here about rent control.

So I just want to make sure we address that in the front end in case there's any misunderstandings around that.

Um my first question, uh Claire or Gary, um, can you clarify?

As we worked through this ordinance, what steps do we need to take to also ensure that there's no state protections accidentally eliminated through any adopted legislation this evening?

Well, I've highlighted several of the uh components of the ordinance that carries into our local ordinance the state protections.

So, for example, at fault in its entirety.

Uh we're proposing the move in and uh withdraw from the market to come forward into our ordinance as well, with some exceptions.

Um making sure that people have a right of return, and also um that we honor the state uh relocation for one month uh in those no fault examples.

Um those are the key ones if you want to add.

Yeah, I would just add with the exception of the modified exceptions, which were up there in the presentation that the community developer director uh provided, all of the other protections are carried over from state law, just those few modified exceptions, which um we'd be happy to give more detail on.

Okay, thank you.

Um one piece of feedback I heard a lot of y as I was talking to people was around the small operator exemption.

Um there's an eagerness to match state law, which I think I'm supportive of.

Would you mind clarifying what the state the small operator exemption is under state law?

I'm happy to jump in on that if you'd like me to be a good question.

Yeah, sure.

Um so the statute in state law, the Tenant Protection Act from 2019, which is the state law that authorizes this and also contains the current um protections in state law.

Um it includes a series of exceptions.

The statute is civil code 1946.2.

Subdivision E has a series of exceptions, and subdivision E8 is the one that we're referring to here.

That applies to residential real property, including a mobile home that can be sold separately from the title to any other dwelling unit, provided that the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, a limited liability company in in which at least one member is a corporation, or the management of a mobile home park.

Uh so the way of thinking about that is if you have a single family home or a condo with separate title that can be sold separately, that would be accepted under the state law.

And so that is one of the um exceptions.

It was not carried over in the earlier drafts, but we could certainly add it back in to the ordinance pretty quickly this evening if the council members would like us to.

Okay, thank you.

Um I guess as I'm asking questions, I can just add the clarify what changes I'm looking for, and then we can that that saves us how much having to repeat myself.

So I would like to align our operator, small operator exemption with state law, because I think that helps folks understand who this applies to.

They're used to they're used to that interpretation already.

Um relation to red tags, um, you talked a little bit about this already, but can you dig a little deeper in terms of when the red tag applicability, when this would apply?

So in particular, I'm interested in understanding when is the landlord at fault versus a natural disaster?

Where do those definitions come from?

If folks are unclear, where can they go to understand exactly what is and is not applicable?

We cover the um exceptions.

Uh it's uh in our staff recommended draft, it's on page 19 under exceptions.

Um it says a tenant shall not be entitled relocation assistance pursuant to this um section.

If the government enforcement agency determines that the condition giving rise to the order to vacate was one A caused by or substantially contributed to by that tenant?

So that's when the tenant has caused that damage that is created the red tag to vacate, or um a result of a natural disaster beyond the control of the landlord, and the landlord did not cause or contribute to the condition.

So those are exceptions to this this ordinance.

Okay, and is that a carry forward from state law as well?

Is that definition consistent between the two?

Um state law does contain some exceptions for relocation assistance in the event of a red tag, and those will continue to apply.

So that relocation process uh in state law will continue to apply even with this.

Um but it does have an exception in state law for when the conditions were caused by the tenant.

Um so that is a similar carryover, I guess.

Thank you.

Um in relation to the per diem payment for the first 30 days, does the is the tenant continuing to play pay rent and then receiving a per diem back from the landlord?

Is that how this is structured?

That's correct.

So the even in the first 30 days the tenant continues to pay rent and the landlord is then paying the per diem back to the tenant.

With that understanding, I'm supportive of the $250 day per diem.

I think my I would be in support of just that and keeping it the fee as straightforward and simple as possible.

I know you discussed a couple a couple of other payment options, but I think $250 works.

Um if still displaced at one year, it mentions that they have to pay a permanent relocation fee.

Could you clarify what that is, please?

I'm sorry, I missed the first part.

Oh, sure.

Um so uh if if if tenants are still displaced at the one year mark, uh what you're proposing pays the permanent relocation fee.

Could you share how that's determined?

Calculated.

Yeah.

So the uh relocation fee for uh substantial renovation and red tag?

That why is it right?

Permanent displacement.

Yeah, the permanent displacement.

Uh it's to give enough money for them to um find uh a new unit and to and to pay for that transformation.

And it's two times what?

It's two times the uh HUD fair market rent.

And again, it's out of a it's a federal program that all cities look to uh for determining fair market rent.

It is county county-based.

Okay.

And then we have a lot of responsible landowners, of course, in our community too.

Um so are they still able to work directly with their tenants to negotiate something if something like this were to arise that's agreeable to both of them without them having to lean on this ordinance?

Yeah, and that's not uncommon to have an alternative agreement.

That's uh especially with small operators or um you know, even a uh small rental property, it's not uncommon for landlords to negotiate uh something else, and that's perfectly fine through this ordinance.

Okay.

And then all right, so moving on to right of return under red tag.

Can you explain how that applies in this circumstance?

I'm sorry, I missed that.

Sure.

With the right of return uh in in a red tag circumstance, how does that apply?

All right.

So the right of return for a red tag, for example, is uh with so within 30 calendar days of the lifting of the order to vacate by the issuing government agency, the landlord must provide the vacated tenant household with a written offer to reoccupy the unit at the lawful rental rate in effect when the order to vacate was issued, plus any lawful annual rent adjustments applied thereafter.

Um under the same terms in effect when the order to vacate was issued.

So that is the right of return for a red tag.

Okay.

And then this is probably a question for City Attorney Bell.

If we have currently displaced tenants due to a red tagged building, would this ordinance apply to them?

There are certain provisions of this ordinance like the right to return if there's a building with a current red tag that's being lifted that might apply.

Yes.

Thank you.

Just moving on to substantial renovation.

How do we define what a substantial renovation is?

I can chime in, Claire, if you'd like.

Okay.

Substantial renovation is defined, one of the things defined at the beginning of the ordinance.

It's repair or renovation work performed by a landlord in good faith on a rental unit or building a structure containing a rental unit after the landlord has obtained all necessary permits from the city.

They cannot be performed while the tenant occupies the unit, and that improves the property by prolonging its useful life or adding value.

Substantial renovations must involve one of the following.

Replacement or substantial modification of any structural electrical plumbing or mechanical system or abatement of hazardous materials, including without limitation, lead-based paint, mold, pastor, asbestos.

And then are there currently any protections in place under state law for minor displacements of someone has to be moved out for a week?

Claire, did you have any of those discussions as part of the community meetings, the minor displacements for up to a week?

They would be covered by that first 30-day clause.

Yeah, if they're temporary within 30 days, it would still fall into that clause.

Okay, thank you.

So withdrawal from market, just moving on to that.

So it's it's important to me that we minimize negative impact on property providers that have a genuine reason to leave the market.

In your opinion, how can we accomplish that?

For withdrawal for the market.

Yes.

Yeah.

So it is there is an opportunity through state law currently to withdraw from the market.

There's uh procedures that need to take place.

You need to provide notice.

Um you need to follow through with withdrawing from the market.

What can't happen is that you say you're going to withdraw, you evict your tenants that are in a lease, and then you don't withdraw from the market, you just re-rent it.

And so this ordinance does provide protections against that, similar to state law.

Okay.

And then so in that circumstance, obviously they're not going to continue paying rent, unlike in the red tag scenario, right?

Correct.

So yeah, in that case, it's different than uh temporary, it's it's permanent when they're okay.

In that case, I just to make the point clear, I don't think a per diem is needed if then because they're not continuing to pay rent.

Um they are permanently displaced, however, so I'd be in favor of a permanent relocation fee in that instance.

Correct.

And at right now, for a withdrawal for the market and move in, they're both just one month as a permanent relocation.

Unlike for substantial renovation and red tag, we have it at two months.

So there is a difference there in our ordinance.

Okay.

And then with regards to a right of return requirement, how long does a unit have to be off the market for it to apply?

Um there's a two in the current version of the ordinance.

If it if it is placed back on the market within two years, they have a right of return when it's withdrawn from the market.

And is that the current state standard as well?

Um I would need to look at the statute and see if that's the current state standard, but I believe so, yes.

Thanks.

I didn't have any other questions or comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Carpal, do you have any comments?

Uh yes, I do.

Yes.

Actually, I both.

Um thank you very much.

Um just putting it out there, thank you all uh for the comments and the voicemails and the emails you've sent me.

I've uh tried to respond to as much of them as I can, but if I didn't, that's just due to the sheer volume.

Um I apologize.

Um I also want to thank Claire and the staff uh for all the work that they've done on this uh matter.

And uh with that said, um Laura, could you uh do me a favor and uh put up attachment four from the um agenda because that's gonna help me at least maybe walk through this.

It's the summary of staff recommendations.

Great, thank you.

Hopefully that's readable.

Um again, thank um, thank you, Claire and staff for putting together the summary sheet comparing you know the previous draft uh from what we have in front of us here today.

Um it's been especially helpful to me as I've tried to wade through this matter.

And with that said, I do have a few questions or possibly comments on some of these items.

Um and I'm sorry if this may be a bit repetitive or duplicative because I did hear echoes of what I'm about to say and what council member O'Connor said earlier, but I'm just gonna jump in there.

Um so I'm gonna address uh the exemptions part.

And I guess I had a question in terms of how would this, you know, we talk about uh consider a small operator exemption, and there was um there's language in there about um the multifamily inspection program.

And I was just wondering how would the optional uh small operator exemption work in conjunction with uh NFIP.

Uh in other words, how would it be different from the exemptions that you have in the red line version, or would this be a new provision and would it align with state law?

So I realize there's a number of questions, so I'm happy to repeat it.

All right, thank you for this opportunity.

Um so the draft, we put the wide net out, and the strategy of the feedback sessions was to collect where what would define small operator, because in our earliest uh earlier sessions we heard small operator, and I was really looking to the public for language or where would the threshold be.

And so as you saw from the um earlier slides that we went through, the state has a number of um current currently related small operator type exemptions, owner occupied, there's three owner occupied small, like single unit exemptions.

Um through our questioning here, we talked a lot about the um alienable um separately alienable properties, which is a long way to say uh single unit condominium units or single units single family units.

So that's another way that's not on this chart, but that's another way is to put that exemption back in the ordinance um to cover single unit properties, even if you had multiple um you own several of them.

Um so this option here uh kind of really solves it in the same way, just a different way to say it.

So instead of using the states exemption that talks about single units, uh the one that's proposed here, and this is this proposal um is not in your red line staff.

I I've left this question open-ended for you to give direction on how you would like to move the ordinance forward if you want to move the ordinance forward.

This option is seamless because uh if you wanted to do something that was local, locally written and special to Novato, and you didn't also have the other state exemption, is you'd match it up with our multifamily inspection program.

And so uh like I said, we already have it staffed.

We already have a registry um which helps a lot with monitoring our rental properties.

And we already have a program to inspect those those units, which is very helpful to avoid to put you know to prevent some of these scenarios that we're talking about.

The worst case scenario is you have to displace and make these payments.

Um it's the worst case for all parties, right?

Tenants don't want to leave their units, and landlords don't want to have to pay anything more than they have to pay for, they want to focus on their their property.

Um so this was just another opportunity.

Um it's about equal, I would say, to in impact or accept uh exemption impact as the one that we were talking about earlier, uh, the state one.

Okay, and then just to um kind of reiterate that it'd be similar or consistent with AB 1482 uh exemption for a single family home or condo that's not owned, like say by a corporate entity.

Correct.

It would be streamlined to take uh forward the state exemption that already exists as opposed to creating a new one.

But uh this is just something that we thought of in response to public feedback, but e either one gets you to the smaller operator.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um then uh the next question I have is I I I've noticed on there that with the at fault uh just cause and then the withdraw from market and the move in we're making adjustments to basically match um or be consistent with uh state law.

Um and then in terms of the red tag um item, I guess I had a question on the um the per diem amounts that are referenced in the draft uh and the revised draft.

And I just kind of like to get an idea of how those uh numbers might have come about, the 250, the 50 and so on and so forth.

Okay, so the amounts that were established for the per diem is essentially it's the true cost of locating at say a hotel in Novato.

So again, this is uh looking at not displacing uh our local tenants too far.

This is if you want to pay the true cost of staying in one of our local hotels while the their rental unit is being renovated or repaired.

Um and that is the mid-range cost of Navado and Marin County hotels is two fifty a a night, and that is usually for one room.

Um family could be strategic and get a couple rooms if they had a large family, but it would the this is sort of cutting down the the middle ground there and just um having it be per day.

It's often it's also kind of a common per diem for these types of ordinances is you know, anywhere from 150 to 200 to 250, depending on the the area.

Um I think Sam Rafael also has a 250 per day per diem.

And then the uh cost uh $50 per tenant in the tenant household per day for food or meals.

That came out of just the reality of you know, uh most of our hotels, now we're lucky we have the you know, one of them that has kitchens, but not all the units have kitchens.

And uh it's and also there's the inconvenience, you know, these again, these are displaced tenants um trying to keep their lives in order, and so the idea is that there is gonna be a need to go out or get take out during that temporary displacement, and that is generally the cost of what it costs to to go out and and compensate for that.

And then through the public process, um there was in addition uh interest by tenants to the real cost again if they have to board their cat or dog, and so that's where those numbers came from.

Um that is all up for your discussion.

Um you know, one of the notes in there uh talks about reducing the per DM amount to 150 dollars a day, and I guess that's an option, but um what I was getting at uh maybe was when you have different I guess um levels you have if you consider small operators and then you have large operators.

Uh what's the room for considering maybe a tiered structure?

Is that something worth looking at or well under the exemptions the small operators would be exempt, so they wouldn't pay this.

So it would be if you were you have enough units and you your unit and your tenants are protected through this program, that's that it's gonna be for the multi-unit properties that pay this.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um and then the question on the meal expenses.

Um there's a it's a fifty dollar per person per day.

Um and I wasn't sure, but I I don't think I found.

Is there is there a cap on there?

Um to say maybe four or five or six household members.

Um or is it um are and also um are any subtenants?

Would subtenance be in included in the cap.

I I didn't catch the last part of what you said.

Oh, I was wondering if there are any subtenants involved.

Um would they be included in that as well?

Oh subtenants, thank you.

Uh no, well, to answer your first question, it's the the tenant and tenant household is defined in the ordinance.

So uh this is uh maybe a easy way to describe it, you know, a family of five, maybe uh dad's on the lease, but there's four other family members.

They're not they're um part of the tenant household because they're relatives of the and it that's their primary residence.

So all five of them would get the meal the meal per DM.

So it would be times five.

Um and so and currently there is no cap um, but most rental units have, you know, they have uh a cap because they're recognizing a primary tenant and any relatives that are using that um they're recognized as part of that lease agreement.

Subtenants would only be part of this if they were part of that lease agreement.

Got it.

And so in in many cases they're not, they're more informal.

They would not be covered in this.

Okay, all right.

Um and then for um on the permanent relocation part under the red tag.

Um I just wanted to note that the uh and I think you alluded to it earlier in your presentation, the uh FMR, the HUD FMR for a two-bedroom unit is about about 3300, and the average rent for the same, I think you noted is about 3600.

So I think this actually captures the difference.

Um the 30 to 180 day periods.

So it's just a comment, and actually it ended up answering my own question.

So uh anyway.

Um then on the right to return, um, and this is just maybe this is just me, but um the re-rental limits uh what I'll call re-rental limits or uh uh return are two years for the withdraw option and twelve months for the for the move-in um option.

I was wondering, does that come from state law or wh why are they different?

Why why is one twenty-four and the other is twelve months?

Do you know the part of the ordinances referring to, Claire?

Happy to look it up.

And I can confirm the right to return is two years in state law for when it's taken off the market and put back on within two years.

Okay.

Thanks.

Um maybe we could help with the question.

Your question is why is it different, the re the right to return between the two?

Right.

Um and that's between the red tag and yes.

And uh take it off the market.

Those two.

Um I think the idea in the policy between them is that when a property is red tagged, they're temporarily replaced.

And so there's different payments that are going to those folks because they've been forced to move out on a temporary basis while the building is brought up to code.

Eventually the city is going to come and say, yes, this is up to code now.

It can it is now habitable again.

Folks will be coming back.

So that's why there's different relocation payments too for that sort of displacement from as opposed to taking it off the market where presumably the landlord won't be renting it anymore, and so those payments are different.

It's the one-time payment up front as opposed to those pre-DMs that occur with a slightly different right of return.

And essentially the right of the return for what is taken off the market is if the landlord changes his mind his or her mind or um its mind, or um it was a ruse to get uh folks out temporarily, perhaps, right?

So you want to have that longer period there so that if the landlord changes their mind and puts it back on the market, those folks can come back.

So that's the difference between the two, as I see it.

But go ahead, Claire.

Yeah, and I just want to add that because we were intentional about honoring the state law provisions as much as possible for owner move in and withdraw from the market, trying to honor that the unique and special protections that we're focused on is the other no fault, which is substantial renovation and red tag, where they do not have a right of return in many cases.

They have some uh not as clear as as we do in our local ordinance for substantial renovation.

Um, but that was the intent is to keep uh the no fault for move in and withdraw the same as the state in terms of the timeline.

Okay, all right, thank you.

And then my last question is really a clarification or kind of along the lines of what am I missing?

So uh the uh right of return on the um draft ordinance, um it says it expands from state law by offering a right of return to withdraw, move and substantial renovation and red tag evictions, and then the recommendation was to uh keep as drafted with an option there.

Um so I'd like you to maybe talk a little bit about that option, and then also I'm a little puzzled because AB 1482 already include right up or done provisions for withdrawal or moving or what am I missing?

Well, I I can't speak to that last one about 1492 and what it includes, but I do have that here.

Um I guess uh what what we're saying with this last line is again we are expanding state law by offering the right of return.

It's definitely more um explicit and more expansive for the the two that I mentioned, and the others were carried over.

And maybe there was some minor amendments as noted in the staff recommended um changes, but again, the intent was to mirror state law based on public feedback.

Okay.

I guess that's kind of what I was gonna go to see if it mirrors.

Okay, so thank you.

Thank you.

So I've just got a some clarifications questions.

Um on exemptions, um if it's we're talking about possibly four units or more.

I just want to clarify that they uh they each one needs to be basically deeded separately.

If you have ten units, ten houses, and each one is a separate property, that falls under how does that fall?

Does that fall under indiv uh less than four properties?

That would fall into the exemption that's in state law, but not yet in our draft ordinance.

Um that would be the one that uh uh Mr.

Bell mentioned into the um as a response, and that was the separately alienable exemption.

So yes, you could there's not a cap on how many you would own so long as you are an individual and not a corporation, and so long as each of the units are a single unit on their property.

Okay.

Um so yes, you couldn't um have a property that had multiple units or multiple units with where one could be sold separately.

Okay, thank you.

And then on um owner move in uh there's the option to delete the um senior 62 and over and handicapped or terminally ill.

Um and we're talking about possibly deleting that.

I I've gotten a lot of calls about that one.

Um because my concern if we kept that in, it would cause a lot of uh landlords to be very hesitant about renting to seniors.

And I I'm concerned about that.

That is the feedback that we received um a lot of as well, and which is why in the draft um staff recommended changes we did take it out.

It would have been specific to Novato.

Okay.

And then the red tag, you have an option of 150 dollars a day.

Um we did talk about 250 a day plus meals plus pet assistance.

Um, you know 150 dollars a day is the is the option.

I would I would say two fifty a day without the dogs, cats and meals.

That's kind of my feeling on that.

Um and I've gotten a lot of feedback on that also.

I've got a lot of feedback from a lot of people.

I've been meeting with people for two, three weeks quite a bit.

Um then the other thing on chart on page 12.

We've got under 30 days, 250 a day.

We've talked about that just now.

But 30 to 180 days, they're paying rent, and um they have the right to return, but what they're getting the HUD payment.

Is that correct?

Between 30 and 180 days?

Correct.

So uh between 30 and 180 days, they're still paying rent, but they're being compensated with the landlords paying a fair mark.

So they're paying their current rent.

So if it's three thousand a month, they're gonna continue to be in good standing and pay their current three thousand dollar a month rent.

Uh but the landlord's going to provide market rate rent for that size unit.

And oftentimes if a t uh tenant has been in a unit for some time, they they it can fall below market, so there might be a difference.

Okay, and then when they reach a hundred and eighty days, which is at the bottom of the chart, permanent relocation, stop rent, and they pay are they paid two times the hood fair market rate one time?

Correct.

Okay.

All right, that's what I was wondering on there.

Come back here at eight o'clock, which is about five minutes, and continue with public comment.

So I'd like to cut it down to two minutes for everybody.

Everybody, please sit down.

All right, we're gonna continue our meeting.

Uh before we get to public comment, don't mind.

Uh we have one thing that uh Councilmember O'Connor wants to say.

Yeah, uh Claire, this is uh and Gary, this is a question for you both really just for process.

Um we kind of give you guys a lot of feedback on the front end.

Um we're gonna go into public comment and then circle back.

Do you want us to relist everything that um we're looking for at that point?

Or for instance, I know that the for instance the small operator exemption we've all discussed and are supportive of including that.

Like, did you want us to like restate all of that after public comment, or how did you want us to approach it?

Go ahead.

Yeah, so I have noted a few of them that there seem to be consensus on right now.

There's two.

I imagine there's others.

So it uh we will need um a list of those so that we can make sure that it's clear for the record what the changes are before you all vote, assuming you all agree on those changes, and it does need to be all three of you.

Um it's the so far it's the adding the single family home um single unit that can be sold separately into the exceptions that would apply throughout the whole ordinance, and then also moving to just two hundred and fifty dollars a day for pre-DM without the other payments.

Those are the two that I have in my notes so far.

Thanks.

I just want to make sure the construction is not logical matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So if there's anybody who was concerned about those and doesn't want to stay for the rest of the meeting, uh we understand.

Uh we're gonna go with two minutes.

I'm gonna call three people up to the podium, and we're gonna be very strict on our two minutes.

Excuse me for that, but uh we don't want to be here till midnight.

Thank you.

Uh first speaker I have is Charlotte Gunnells.

Or Ganella.

Sorry.

And I'll try and do my best with uh names.

Ganella.

Okay.

Good evening, council members and staff, and all the people here today.

My name is Charlotte Ganella, and I'm the director of case management and housing for North Marin Community Services.

I'm here to show our support for a passing the ordinance.

For over fifty-four years, North Marin has been an anchor for Novato's most vulnerable residents.

I am speaking also to you today as a professional working in the county in the area of housing and homeless prevention for over two decades.

Since COVID, rents continue to surge to unprecedented levels.

We are running out of rental assistance the prior month to serve the community.

If that is more than ten thousand dollars monthly.

I'm gonna I've said I would name three names, and I didn't do that the first time, but uh Katie Wington, Karen Kimbar, and Dina's Staffis.

Hi.

Thank you for being here.

And I just wanted to express my opinion about the changes.

I think that the uh state law is sufficient.

Um I do think that bad actor landlords should be punished.

They should be liable.

And um but I represent several landlords.

And uh they are good people who take care of their tenants and take care of their buildings.

And um when people are late with rent, they're like it's okay, it's not a problem.

I mean, really good people.

And it's they feel punished by this action.

And so I just want to put that out there that um it's not it's kind of overkill and it's hurting the wrong people, and those people are gonna get out of the business.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you, Katie.

Karen?

Good evening.

Uh my name is Karen Camber.

I'm a Novato realtor and property owner of 43 years.

I oppose this ordinance and have already submitted a letter as well as e-comment uh concerning my uh outlining my concerns.

What brings us here today appears to stem from the unacceptable actions of a corporate owner on Romer Court.

While I understand the urgency to support the tenants rushing to a decision without fully considering the unintended consequences is not responsible governance.

Novato's rental agency rental vacancy is under one percent, and fewer than one percent of Bay Area evictions are no fault.

The issue at hand is narrow, and yet the proposed ordinance is broad, severe, and unfairly targets responsible housing providers.

Moving forward with a vote tonight risks harming the very community we aim to protect.

Small housing providers make up a significant portion of Nevada's rental market, yet they have had little opportunity to weigh in.

At minimum, they deserve a meaningful seat at the table.

As it stands, the proposal contains too many unanswered questions and unresolved concerns.

The most constructive and path forward is to delay this vote and allow time for thoughtful review and collaboration, possibly focusing on a red tag landlord at fault ordinance.

We can and should develop an approach that protects the tenants without imposing excessive or unjust burdens on responsible housing providers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Karen.

Dina.

And after that, it's gonna be Chuck Hildebrand, uh Vivian Pierce Pierce, and Rosa San Sambo Sanlos.

Good evening.

My name is Dina Stathis.

I've been a resident of Novato for over 50 years, a realtor assisting clients with investment property purchases in Novato for over 15 years and a Novato housing provider for over 10 years.

I want to begin with a simple concern.

Ordinances intended to protect tenants should not unintentionally reduce the very housing that our community depends on.

While the proposed tenant protection ordinances ordinances may be well intentioned, I respectfully ask the council to consider the significant financial impact they will place on the housing providers in our community.

We should stay consistent with the state's current tenant protection laws.

The majority of Novato's rental homes are not owned by large corporations but by small local housing providers and who rely on the rental income to maintain our properties and meet our financial obligations.

Increasing regulatory requirements, compliance costs, and restrictions on property management will place a significant burden on all the housing providers, many of whom are already operating with narrow margins.

The more risk and financial burden on housing providers, the less stability in rental inventory for tenants.

And what happens with that is that everyone loses.

So I will say my first choice here tonight would be to reject the ordinance in its entirety and stick with the existing state regulations that have operated relatively well in the past.

And then I was able to get certified as a painter.

Oh, and then I was able to get certified as a general contractor.

And from there I started working as a general contractor.

And then I made the decision to buy properties and flip them or sell them.

But with the first per property that I obtained that I bought.

And two ADUs, sorry.

Or to go back to my initial idea of just buying and selling.

And with all due respect, I was a renter for 18 years.

So thrust that tengo idea stand abajo de la market.

So all of the rents that I own to this day are under market price.

Because since I was a renter for 20 years.

So I would vote not to allow this new ordinance to take effect, and so it would not pass.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

One other thing I neglected to say is that when there's an interpreter, we're gonna have a longer talk time.

Thank you.

As a Novato resident and small landlord, I am alarmed that even this red line version of this ordinance has so many issues.

Five.

So this has gone on long and I want to keep this.

Sorry.

There we are.

So in in order to keep shortened my time, I'm just gonna go and make uh an observation.

So in order to keep shorten my time, I'm just going to go and make uh an observation, and that is that it seems to me, although there's been an awful lot to digest here tonight, that there seems to be a movement from the proposed ordinance or towards the state ordinance.

I hope I'm not wrong about that.

But that being the case, let me just read something here that I had put together previously.

And that is that California already has tenant protection laws that apply to every city.

So why are those protections considered insufficient here?

Who made the determination based on whatever evidence?

Shouldn't the public have access to the reasoning, the claims, and the timeline?

Transparency matters, especially when new regulations are being proposed.

So having said that, I don't think there's anybody here that would disagree of the uh bad actor uh owner of Romer should be punished to the maximum.

So uh another question I have that still remains after hearing what I've heard is that uh yeah, so there is if there is data showing a widespread eviction problem in Novato that justifies this level of action.

In my experience, there is no such data.

In fact, the data shows, and that's been spoken to earlier, that there is very close to zero evidence of such a problem.

This ordinance is complex.

Bill, thank you.

Sorry.

Yeah, my apologies.

Appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Uh Debbie Gonzalez.

Okay.

Uh Christine Scabola, Joe Gugilimo, and Wendy Riches.

Okay.

Jason Saras.

Uh Manny La Caruba and Heidi Merchin.

Jason, welcome.

Good evening, uh Mayor and Council members, or vice mayor, I should say.

Uh this ordinance is about fairness and housing stability, the bare minimum every Navado resident should be able to count on.

Tenants should not be pushed out for asking for basic repairs.

You must have a guaranteed right to return.

This policy ensures code enforcement enforcement is a safeguard, not a pathway to displacement, and stops arbitrary evictions that's destabilized lives while still allowing evictions for legitimate causes.

When tenants are displaced through no fault of their own, relocation assistant is essential to in today's housing market.

These protections must apply across Novato, including small properties and ensure tenants receive notices and languages they understand.

The city should also include retroactive protections for those already harmed, especially the tenants displaced at Romar court.

And I want to be very clear that what what's at stake.

If we are serious about addressing homelessness, then we must focus on prevention.

Stronger tenant protections are the best front-end strategy on addressing or keeping people in homes.

We already have people housed.

Our job is to keep them there.

This ordinance is not radical, it is not responsible, it is necessary, and it is long overdue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jason.

Manny?

Yeah, hi, I'm Manny Locaruba.

Um my wife and I are mom and pop landlord.

We've rented out an in-law unit for 20 years now.

Our units empty right now.

And if this unit that this ordinance passes, we'll do something else with the space.

And you people with the signs, you want me as your landlord, trust me.

You really do.

But this is onerous.

Like we we're out of the business.

We can't take on basic economics.

You increase the cost to the seller, that cost has to get paid for by the buyer.

Period.

You're increasing complexity unnecessarily.

State law has served us very well.

And the risk of of these onerous uh uh potential fees and the complexity of compliance.

You know, forget the cross and a T or dot an I, and you know, you could be in trouble the way I read the ordinance.

Um I can only encourage you.

And and and also the the application process for new tenants.

We had a bad actor.

We didn't know.

He fooled us.

And under state law, within 12 months, we could just say, hey, not a good fit, moving on.

First time in 20 years.

So don't hurt the people who need help by passing this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Manny.

Heidi.

Hello, everyone.

Thanks for having this hearing tonight.

I think absolutely tenants should have protections and you should pass a fair just cause eviction ordinance.

I want to speak about the inconsistency and how conflicts of interest are being applied when it comes to these decisions.

Right now, council members who own rental property must recuse themselves from rental protection votes because the financial impact is considered direct and specific to them.

But this narrow definition ignores the broader reality of how policy affects people in our community, especially especially those who have been historically marginalized.

We're living in a moment where people cannot afford rent, groceries, gas or homes.

Families are already stretched to the breaking point.

And we're seeing a national all-time high percentage-wise of people asking how to deal with mortgage default, which means we'll have more renters in the market since the Great Recession of 2007 through 2009.

People are struggling in ways that we haven't seen in decades, and they need protections and stability, not selective rules that shield those with property wealth.

This council recently voted to criminalize homelessness, including making it illegal for people to possess basic survival items, which you all called camping paraphernalia.

That decision has enormous consequences for human dignity, public health, and racial and economic justice.

It determines whether people have a safe place to exist at all.

It can also be perceived as affecting neighborhood conditions, property values, and rental demand, all of which directly benefit landlords and also homeowners.

Yet landlords and homeowner council members voted on that policy without hesitation.

The same pattern appears in public safety decisions.

Investments in policing, lighting, parks, and community programs can raise property values and rents.

Again, you all voted.

Thank you, Heidi.

Alma Abeira, Bert Hoffman, and Michael Sexton.

Good evening, Council members.

Quite a long night.

It's going to be even longer.

But imagine going home and then seeing a five-day notice, and you have only what about 120 hours to move?

That's what brought me here.

Just five days.

May I kindly remind you that on May 7, 2024, you signed a legally binding contract with the State of California.

You speak into the mic.

I'm sorry?

Speaking of the mic.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You signed a legally binding contract with the state of California known as the six cycle housing element.

Failing to pass the ordinance tonight isn't just a choice of helping those who fall victim to a five-day eviction.

It's a direct breach of that contract, specifically promising the state and program five that we would expand just cause protections and relocation assistance.

According to the Department of Social Services, temporarily housing a family cost about 150 per day, which doesn't include assistance in obtaining permanent housing if evicted.

But if it costs you zero dollars to follow follow the law and keep them housed.

Also, every five-day notice issued by a predatory landlord is a bill handed to the taxpayers who are currently subsidizing slumlord profits with public funds.

May I also remind you that under Assembly Bill AB 72, the State Housing Department of has the power to de-certify a city's housing element if the city fails to implement the programs it promised, which could initiate litigation against Navado for violations.

Please note that the California Attorney General's housing strike force led by Ron Bonta, Attorney General has aggressively sued and settled with cities that fail to meet their housing and element obligations.

Additionally, if a council member has received significant campaign donations from landlords who issued these five-day notices, their vote to kill the ordinance could be challenged in court as a conflict of interest, potentially voiding the decision and inviting further litigation.

Which I'm sure the voters will not forget in November, council that invited the lost.

Thank you.

And then Michael Sexton after him.

And then Elizabeth Stahl.

Good evening.

Thank you for all the time staff and uh you guys have spent on this uh on this ordinance.

Um in the moment it feels rushed.

There's a lot of changes that have been thrown out, thrown into it now that need to be looked at closer.

Um my background is as a low-income housing provider.

I I work for an organization here in Novato as well as a private landlord uh with a partnership in 16 units here in town.

Uh I don't believe that this ordinance will do anything to fix the problem that you really have, which is fundamentally what took place at Romar Court.

You're working on things that are after the fact.

You need to look closer at what you can do to enforce the problem in your pre-inspections and all the rest of that before the problem results in the eviction.

I think that's fundamentally where I see this as faulted in this, and I think you need to vote no about this now, stick with the state uh ordinance to uh state code to keep track of it and uh work on the problem before it becomes an issue that requires evictions.

Thank you, Bert.

Michael Sexton.

Thank you, City Council.

I'm Michael Sexton, director of the Marin residents, an organization advocating for common sense rental regulations in Marin.

I represent a variety of mom and pop housing providers throughout Marin.

We very much oppose any extra rental regulations that go beyond what's currently written in state law simply because they hurt the neediest families of Novato.

Like Novato, like all other areas of Marin that's experiencing expensive rental housing.

Numerous studies indicate that additional regulatory and financial burdens placed upon the housing providers results in the quantity of those housing providers taking their units off the market.

You can just listen to the landlords speaking ahead of me.

They also raise rental prices to compensate for the increased costs and liabilities.

When these units are removed from the market, families like those behind me are forced to spend extra money on higher end units or move out of the Novato.

Fewer rental options do not benefit the city of Novato or its residents, and especially residents with in with the greatest need of affordable housing.

Tenants have protection.

I would ask you to carefully consider the consequences of any extra rental regulations.

One, the diminished rental supply, especially in the affordable housing, two, the increased rental prices for both lower and higher end units.

Three, the fallout from imposing major financial policy changes without a vote of the Novato residents.

So to reference what happened locally in Fairfax, San Selmo, and Larksburg, to the surprise of no one except maybe the town council members, the extra rental regulations that went beyond current state mandates were soundly rejected by the voters of these towns in 2024 by a two-thirds majority.

So I asked for rental regulations that will economically negatively affect all the voters of Novato.

I ask only to only to embrace common sense rental regulations that already exist in the state, or at least bring these regulations to the voters of Novato in November so that they have a say.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Michael.

Next we have Elizabeth Stahl.

And then Yennifer Volot Volatero and Jesus Portillo.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Lizzie Stahl, and I'm here on behalf of Call Marin Home, which is a coalition of organizations in Marin County advocating for affordable housing in Marin.

I'm also here on behalf of 12 of our member organizations in our coalition that have endorsed our support of this rental ordinance or sorry, the just cause ordinance.

We strongly support the tenant protections originally included in the Just Cause ordinance, and the need for local tenant protections is urgent.

Claire mentioned the rooted in Marin report.

I encourage folks who are interested in understanding the data behind the need for tenant protections and for the current status of displacement from Marin.

To check that out, you can Google rooted in Marin.

But basically, uh nearly two of every three Novato renters are cost burdened, spending more than they can afford on rent.

And an unexpected eviction is not just a disruption, it's a financial catastrophe.

Families living in substandard rental conditions routinely avoid requesting repairs because they fear displacement.

And last year, as we've heard, dozens of low-income families at Romer Court were forced to vacate their homes with days of notice.

And we can prevent this from happening again.

Okay.

It's a business, but uh they have that.

Soy una inquilina de la 12 Roma Court.

I am a renter at Romar Court.

We are here yet again before you.

It's not just me, but several of us who live there.

This night I raised my voice.

I want to make it clear to everyone who's here.

For us it was very difficult.

Because when they came to notify us, we were told that if we did not leave the police would come and remove us from our homes.

Can indemnify usto with what is fair for losdanios occasionados a nuestra familias for the damages that were done to our family.

We lost days of work.

We had to buy food.

And 15 days later we still did not find where to live.

I've let the owner know.

But he has not shown up.

So that is why we are raising our voice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I ask we not have clapping if you have just raise your hands?

We need to get things rolling.

Thank you.

Jesus.

Good evening, my name is Jesus Portillo.

I lived in Roman Park for almost 15 years.

And we are here because we want to be heard.

Because this ordinance that needs to be exercised, that's good.

And I know there are some property owners that don't want this ordinance, but for some of us we don't think it's a bad ordinance.

And I think that would be all for me.

Thank you.

Veronica.

And after that it's Marina Castaneda and Freddie Lopez.

My name is Veronica Hernandez.

I'm one of the members of an organization and a family member from Runner Park.

And one of the tenants that was displaced.

And we are here today because what we are arguing about is not a theory.

Include all of the units without an exception.

And to make sure that the communication is done in the language that the tenants can understand.

This is not against the responsible property owners.

This is to make sure for those that are not being responsible.

That they not continue causing damages and harm without consequences.

And then Freddie Lopez afterwards.

So I am I urge you with your respect that to pass this ordinance so then the families can have a break and be able to sleep with more peace and every day.

And uh yes, that's all I'm asking you, and with my respect, I would like you to pass this ordinance.

And then Armando or Dunes.

And what I know is that we the renters are the basis for the economy in Novato.

I'm here to ask that we renters be uh considered and that we have good protection.

I am not against the property owners that do their job well.

But I am against the landlords that demand for more money and are not fulfilling their job.

And that's all and I wish you a good night.

If the property owners work well, they have no reason to be afraid of this new ordinance.

And when they say they're going to raise the rent, that is not right.

And that is against human dignity.

I would like to hear renters that say I'm fine, everything's fine.

And if it were fine, there would be no reason to complain.

This ordinance is going to make Novato have fair housing.

And don't rush, give time in order to consider this ordinance well.

My name is Roselia Gramajo.

I'm a person who rents in a building.

And then if they were doing a good job in apartments, we would not be here.

Oh, I would like for when the city comes to the apartments.

And that we should not have a fear of speaking because we are afraid we're going to be kicked out.

Veronica Duarte.

Very good evening to you.

I have been living in Novato almost 10 years.

I'm a Novato resident.

I want to, my experience will warrant me making something very, very clear.

We don't want to affect the fixers.

I'm turning that way so that they can see me.

I did not live in a Roma.

I lived in another building.

And I also received a notice to leave.

And it was very frustrating.

Because I was paying my rent punctually.

And then they gave me the eviction notice.

Because they represented me.

Because it was an unjust eviction.

How would the owner property owners feel?

We have nothing against you.

If you're doing your job well and maintaining the apartments, there's nothing to worry about.

Receiving the eviction notice caused my baby to be born before his time.

And I repeat, it was for something that I did not provoke.

And the other organizations that support us.

So we don't need one more problem.

So you heard that no fault evictions are rare, but habitability issues are very common in Novato.

Since 2024, habitability has been a factor, an issue for tenants in one-third of the eviction cases are office open in Novato.

Eighty percent of those tenants were people of color.

And one third lived in single family homes.

When our attorneys advise tenants facing habitability issues, we provide information about code enforcement and requesting impairs repairs in writing.

And tenants consistently ask about retaliation.

What could be the consequence for them?

We explain that while retaliation itself is illegal, our attorneys explain, they may still face legal eviction through code enforcement actions or substantial renovation.

Time and time again, the tenants we serve weigh these risks and choose to remain in substandard housing and not complain rather than request better standard conditions.

This is a problem.

And tonight you have the power to change that.

By guaranteeing the right to return after landlord repairs, by not lowering relocation assistance during displacement, and by preventing loopholes that allow landlords to remove units from the market and circumvent relocation payments.

Yes, if you lower relocation payments for withdrawal from the market, you create an incentive for landlords to withdraw from the market and wait two years and then re-rent.

These measures would give tenants the confidence to act on legitimate habitability complaint.

And one final point on relocation payments and exemptions.

We've heard concerns from small landlords about costs, and those are to be taken seriously.

But exempting small landlords entirely, like single family homes and condos is not the answer.

This would leave many tenant households without protection and vulnerable to arbitrary eviction without cause.

The solution is tiered payments.

These are already used successfully in Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Hayward, Concord, and other jurisdictions.

And this approach balances small landlords what they're saying is a burden with meaningful tenant protections.

Small landlords pay less, larger landlords pay more.

Everyone is covered by these protections.

Thank you for considering this ordinance and creating this discourse.

Thank you.

These people are Novato.

They are the reason why this city works.

Tonight, you have a chance to say something simple and powerful to those families who rent in Novato, that you belong here.

You are welcome here.

You are part of this community, and this city will fight for you.

We understand that this decision isn't easy.

We don't take that for granted.

But the families in this room didn't take it easy either.

Many have been through so much, too much to get to this point, and yet they have shown up, spoken out, and trusted that their city council would hear them and act.

Tenant protections are not just about choosing sides between landlords and tenants.

They are about choosing the kind of city we want to be.

One where basic fairness is the standard, where stability is possible, where diversity is protected, where working families don't have to choose between reporting a broken heater and keeping a roof over their heads.

A city where we show up for our neighbors.

As the Marine IJ editorial board wrote just a couple days ago, families in this situation should not be punished for an owner's mismanagement of the property.

Quote We urge you to pass an ordinance that centers tenant protections for working families, one that assures that when a negligent landlord red taxability walks away from the rental market, a family's life in Novato doesn't end with it.

That is how we take care of each other in Novato.

Thank you, Jesus.

Juan Antonio Chan, uh Kina Shannon and Aurelia Vargas.

Juan.

Okay.

Uh Kina Shannon.

And then Aurelia Vargas and O'Neilia Massavargus.

Sorry.

I think you're saying my name uh Kira Shepard.

I have a bad handwriting.

All right.

Hello, everyone.

I am gonna try to make this two minutes long.

Uh I'm here tonight in solidarity with Novato tenants and all the tenants of Marin who may look to rent in Novato.

I've been following this ordinance drafting closely because I've had the opportunity to bear witness to these personal testimonies of the group of the Inquilinos Affectados de Romar Court, the group of organized tenants of Romar Court who experienced a mass displacement due to long standing neglect by their corporate landlord landmark realty.

During this process, I also had the instructive experience of hearing from many other marginalized tenants across Novato about their similar living conditions in buildings and rental units of all sizes and scenarios.

How can tenants feel safe to report these issues when they see and hear repeated examples of landlord retaliation going unchecked?

This situation makes tenants and the entire Novato community less safe.

At the recent public hearing on landmark landmarks appeal of the red tagging at Romar Court Building 12, we heard from an under-resourced city code enforcement representative about how it came to be that a jack holding up a structural support beam at the building was allowed to remain in place for nearly a decade, if not longer.

This I'm running out of time, but these are such significant issues that will be definitely addressed by having a protective ordinance, and I echo the demands that all of the tenants have brought forward about what this ordinance needs in its current format.

That's my time.

And then after Jay will be Bernabe Rodas and Diego Ciellus.

Good evening.

Thanks for having us tonight.

I'm neither a renter or a landlord.

I'm just a property owner.

I'm here in support of the Renters Act and ordinance.

I won't go over what so many other people have said, so I just like to address one thing I kept hearing from so many of the landlords.

There are no new costs in this bill.

There are costs that are now incurred by renters.

This ordinance all it does is move that to the landlords.

The renters cannot keep these buildings maintained.

These renters do not profit from these buildings.

So please support the renters and move these costs to the landlords where they belong.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bernabe, Burnaby.

And then uh Silva.

Um hello, good afternoon.

My name is Diego Selis, and it's a pleasure to be back in the city again to share my comments.

As one of the former residents of Romar Court, he has not been nearly a year since the evidence of Romar Court took up place.

Personally, I am grateful to know that you are currently working on a new ordinance as well as for the positive changes it expected to bring about.

On another side, we do not have much information regarding the identity uh the identified of the owner.

We know only that he owns numerous apartment units bought here in Marine and across the country, and that he operates through our show company that manage manages all expenses of the apartment services, including rent collections and maintenance on their website.

They claim that the quality service provide in these apartments meet the standards of dignified housing.

This is a complete lie.

It's merely a marketing ploy.

They make these claims without acknowledging the actual conditions of the apartments brought inside and out.

In reality, they fall for sure of the standards for housing that is clean, orderly, and safe.

Furthermore, the owner has failed to respond either us or you.

Thank you, Diego.

Amaranta.

And then Colleen Frasco after that.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Tamaranta Silva.

I'm a mother and community organizer with Prime Voices Marine.

And then over the past year I have worked closely with the families displaced from Rome Work Court here in Novato.

I'm here with my daughter.

I'm a resident of Novato also, and I'm representing all the families that they have to leave today because they have to show up tomorrow to work or to school early.

So what happened there exposes us a serious gaps and how tenants are protected in moments of crisis.

Families who have done everything right, paying rain, caring for their homes were suddenly displaced and left to navigate an extremely expensive housing market on their own.

In response, we organize, we for the we form at the Romer Court tenants group, and we have spent nearly a year advocating, meeting with you, the council members, educating ourselves and building community power to push for solutions.

And that organizing has led to the real engagement.

First, first relocation fair relocation assistant payments that actually reflect the real cost of the displacement.

Earlier today you mentioned that you want to lower it.

I wanna I want to see if you can find out on a hotel and you can pay for meals for the 150 that you propose.

Families are paying for hotels, food, storage, transportation, and application fields.

Current proposals don't fully account for those realities.

Second, the right to return families should have the fair opportunity to come back to their homes once repairs are completed.

And third, protections from day one.

The tenant should not have to wait to be protected.

Safe wars must apply immediately when displacement occurs.

Those are not unreasonable demands.

There are basic protections that bring firmness and accountability into the system.

Without them, we are living families vulnerable to the same kind of displayment.

We still at the market courts.

You have the opportunity to address this.

Not just by knowledge, the problem, but putting the strong clear protection in place.

We also should take action in urgency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleen Frasco and Linda.

Lipsstrove.

Thank you.

Colleen had to leave, but I can speak with her, speak on her behalf.

Thank you everyone for being here.

We really do appreciate it.

I am a landlord.

I've owned a property in Novato that I've been renting for the last 11 years.

And I am a single person, and I have to take care of everything.

So I can't afford to hire a property manager.

My insurance five years ago was 1900.

My homeowner's insurance was $1,900.

It's over $7,000 today.

Our costs are tremendously going up.

I've been saving saving savings every single portion of the rent that I've been collecting so that I could paint the house.

Now I'm looking at the realities of I need to have a slush fund in case something goes wrong with the tenant because just you know what happens if the tree falls or the fire happens or whatever.

I have to have that slush fund instead of being able to put that money into back into the house.

When I think about all the onerous responsibilities and the laws that I need to do to comply with renting this house, I really weigh is it worth this investment.

And when it becomes too difficult to comply with the rules and regulations like it does in Berkeley, like in San Francisco, like what happened in Fairfax.

The reality is I sit there and think, well, I should just sell my house and be done with it because it's just too complicated to be a landlord.

So be careful when you try to help certain people.

We've heard a lot of situations and the horror stories of what have happened to them.

But if you start taking out including owner, other owners that are not corporations, large large corporations, they will leave the market and you will not have as many places to rent.

Linda, thank you.

Thank you.

Susie Dershowitz, Lucy Hollingsworth, and then Julia Kylie.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Susie Dershowitz, and I'm a senior staff attorney at Public Advocates.

We're a nonprofit legal organization with deep expertise in anti-displacement policies.

Tenants in Novato need a strong just cause for eviction ordinance.

First, tenants who face an eviction that is not their fault should receive strong relocation payments to find new housing.

Relocation assistance is often life-saving for tenants.

Local just cause ordinances typically provide a higher amount of relocation to reasonably compensate tenants, commensurate with the loss of their housing through no fault of their own.

State law amounts are insufficient.

The original amount in the draft ordinance, three times the HUD fair market rent for permanent displacement is a reasonable amount and in keeping with what other California jurisdictions provide.

For example, Santa Clara County, Mendocino County, and San Mateo County's ordinance ordinances protecting tenants displaced from substandard units, all provide relocation payments of three times the HUD fair market rent.

Relocation amounts should account for the fact that evicted tenants typically must pay the cost of moving, security deposits, first and last month's rent, and increased rent levels at a new unit, all unplanned expenses.

Second, tenants who face an eviction based on the landlord withdrawing from the rental market or moving in should also receive increased relocation beyond what state law provides.

Decreasing the relocation payments for these no fault reasons will encourage landlords to choose the cheapest legal pathway, claiming withdrawal instead of substantial renovation.

There are strong policy reasons to prevent this kind of strategic behavior.

Uniform relocation payments would reduce the incentive to gain the system.

For impacted tenants, no fault evictions cause the same harm regardless of the reason.

Most local ordinances provide for the same or higher relocation payments for withdrawal as for the other no-fault categories.

And I want to be clear, the ambiguity in state law on withdrawal from the rental market has led landlords using to excuse me, has led to landlords using this reason as a loophole.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Lucy.

And then it'll be Julia Kylie and Florence Parada.

Good evening, Council members.

I'm Lucy Hollingsworth, Director of Policy at Legal Aid of Marin and a Novato resident.

I'm speaking on behalf of the low-income tenants we serve across Novato in eviction defense and housing preservation.

I want to focus on a few key policy issues before you tonight.

First, the scope of the ordinance.

Any just cause of ordinance must cover most rental properties.

Expanding exemptions beyond state law result in a net loss of protections for too many Novato tenants.

Given that a significant portion of Novato's rental stock are smaller properties that would leave hundreds of households vulnerable to no cause evictions, directly undermining your housing element commitment to apply just cause protections broadly.

Second, displacement tied to health and safety.

Under current law, tenants are displaced due to red tax or substantial rehabilitation have no guaranteed right to return.

From a public policy standpoint, that creates a perverse incentive.

Necessary repairs can become a mechanism for permanent displacement and increasing rents beyond what the state law allows.

A clear right to return at the prior rent is essential to align code enforcement with housing stability goals and to ensure tenants can safely report substandard conditions.

Third, relocation assistance.

Without enhanced local relocation requirements, withdrawal from the market can be used to avoid repair obligations and remove tenants at a lower cost.

Strengthening relocation payments in these cases is one of the few tools available to deter speculative use and mitigate large-scale displacement.

Finally, we encourage the council to consider tiered relocation structures that rather than broadly exempts for sm rather than broad exemptions for small landlords.

Lucy, thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Julia Kylie.

My name is Julia Kylie.

I am a member of the Marin Organizing Committee, which represents 23 face faith-based and nonprofit organizations, some of which have already spoken this evening.

So I'm not going to repeat the things that they've said that we support, but I would do have to say that I am very concerned with the adjustments and deletions to the ordinance as it was published as of the website this morning, particularly in the areas of what units are covered.

Um, because it's not reasonable to recogn and not recognize that California Novato has so many single family homes in their rental population.

Um the reality is bottom line is that people who own property have choices they can make.

Renters don't.

They have very, very limited choices, and we don't want to drive them away.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Florencia Parada and then Vince Sheehan.

Good evening.

My name is Florence Parada.

I'm a resident of Novato and a homone.

Through my work with immigrant families in our community, I have seen how housing instability affects everyone in every part of our lives.

The fear of displacement, the uncertainty, the sometimes intentional policies for tenants to be so complex and complicated, and so many more traumatic challenges our tenants have to endure, and you hear them tonight.

Through this work that I do, I have witnessed how much stability matters.

This ordinance to me brings fairness.

It ensures tenants are protected from day one.

It ensures that we have the right that our tenants have the right to return after repairs and receive real support and assistance if they are displaced through no fault of their own.

It also creates clear accountability.

Landlords who maintain safe, healthy housing and follow the law have nothing to worry about.

But when properties are neglected, when repairs are ignored, or when tenants are pushed out unfairly, there must be real consequences, accountabilities for everyone.

This ordinance sets that the standard and makes expectations clear for everyone.

A stronger tenant protection stress our whole community.

When families are stable, we know.

We know that our children stay in school.

We know our parents keep their jobs.

We know our people can contribute and stay connected and build community.

Community that matters for all of us.

A stable home should not be a privilege for a few.

It should be a foundation.

We protect here for everyone in Novato.

As a resident of Novato and homeowners, that matters to me.

First, I just want to say I don't think it's right that two council members had to recuse themselves just by the fact that they are uh housing providers.

I think then you could say, well, some of you may have rented a house, so you're on the other side of the issue.

I just think it would be more fair to have everyone involved and listen to everybody's issues here.

Second, I think this should be this is something that's going to restrict people's property rights, and it should be based on a vote by the the populace.

So I think you are doing very good work to hear all the concerns, try to come up with an ordinance that's appropriate.

But I think when it gets down to having a law that restricts someone's property rights, you should put it up for a vote.

So that's my opinion.

Um it sounds like what's needed here as much as what I'm hearing with the complaints about Romar and other situations with bad landlords.

You should have a more restrictive code enforcement plan, and the city of Novato should take that on and be strict about it and make landlords comply rather than do such a broad um just cause eviction law.

That's my thoughts.

Thank you, Vince.

Teresa.

Okay.

Stephen Hall.

Eric.

Schweiger?

Schellinger.

Erica Eriksson.

Who do we have?

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Eric Schwinninger, and I am a resident and a homeowner here in Novato.

Uh this ordinance to me is about fairness, predictability, and housing stability.

Something every resident in Novato deserves.

No tenant should risk eviction simply for requesting basic repairs.

And those temporarily displaced should have the right to return to their home once those repairs are completed.

We're asking for strong practical protections, higher relocation assistance for no fault evictions, and coverage for all units across the city, and safeguards that begin on day one of the tenancy.

And ensure tenants receive notice in their preferred language.

This is balanced.

It protects tenants without removing landlord rights, and it makes Novato stronger and more stable for everyone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Eric.

Erica Erickson.

And then Jocelyn Ordinez.

Give it a shot.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Erica Erickson, and I'm a former member of the County Moff Marine Planning Commission, where I had the opportunity to introduce the first tenant protection program of the accounting, the county housing element, based on the great need for it.

I currently currently serve on the board of North Marine Community Services, where I am the chair of the housing committee.

I've lived in Nevada for 14 years.

Many of them, as I have went there.

I'm here today in support of this ordinance.

In Novato, one third of households are mentors, most living in multi-family housing.

As city staff noted earlier, and as we heard from tenants here today, a significant share of these tenants are low-income people of color.

What is often not mentioned is that many of the low-income households are led by women.

We heard some of them today.

These are a few examples of the stress and the suffering caused by uncertainty and potentially losing their home.

Women, especially women of color, are more likely to face financial and emotional abuse from landlords and ultimately eviction.

It ensures that people are not displaced without cause and that families have a stronger foundation to remain in our community.

This ordinance is aligned with the city housing element commitments, not just to build new housing, but to affirmatively further fair housing and protect existing residents for displacement.

Also, this is about the kind of communities we want to be where families can stay, contribute, and thrive.

Thank you, Erica.

Jocelyn.

Thank you.

Good night, everybody.

So everybody here always wants to come back to those hero.

We like everybody knew that all the places and neighbors, everybody could help out, but until we want everybody to come back and to come back how we pay.

And all these people love their homes.

They were always happy.

And I mostly I knew I grew up there and I knew that place and so I knew each apartment I need.

I had friends there, but in the moment they left.

So I felt lonely.

But then I noticed that my house is really cute.

Really nice to be in.

And everybody wants to come back, and they want to be back because they know that they were they were being living there and playing and working.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jocelyn.

Odelio Rodriguez.

Carmen Perez, then.

We are done.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to close public comment and bring it back to council.

I'd like to clarify a couple things if I could.

Sorry.

Do you have a point for Milma?

What's her name?

One second.

She's here to let her come up to speak.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry.

My name is Vilma Monzon.

Soy una de los inquilinos afectados del 12 Romar Court.

I'm one of the tenants that were affected that lived in Romar Court.

So I lived in Romar Court for nine years.

I always paid my rent on time, almost three thousand dollars every month, and I took care of my home in a responsible way.

So when the building received the red tag, my daughter and I were displaced.

And that negligence is the reason why my family and many others arrived to this point today.

And all of this has a real economic, physical and emotional cost.

Okay, now I'll bring it back to council.

Do I have a motion?

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Yeah, I just want to say a few words on the computer.

We're here after two years of work and careful consideration.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction to one horrible event.

Although that did event did clearly highlight the need for improved tenant rights.

Okay, thanks.

Um are you talking about new times the farm market uh rental uh or just two months rent?

For withdrawal from market or for the it's the same permanent it's the same permanent relocation fee for all three scenarios.

Got it.

Laura?

Councilmember Eklund is recused.

Councilmember Carkell.

Aye.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Aye.

Mayor Pur Tim Jacobs.

Aye.

And Mayor Farak is recused.

Thank you.

We're going to take a five-minute recess, get our colleagues, and continue the meeting.

All right, welcome back.

An excellent job, Mayor for Tim.

Um, so we have Caitlin, our senior planner to open the item.

Um, applicant Casey Baxter will also be presented.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Caitlin Zatelli, senior planner.

And this item tonight is a requested amendment to the existing McPhail's Commercial Office Development Master Plan, or just master plan, to expand the permitted and conditionally permitted land uses to those of the light industrial office or LIO zoning districts within the master plan area.

The master plan area is fifty-four hundred Hannah Ranch Road.

It's comprised of three buildings between Hannah Ranch Road and Highway 101, south of the Vintage Oaks shopping center.

So the existing master plan was last submitted in 2018 and it contains a shorter list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses.

That list up on the screen is all of the uses that are allowed out there.

And this list has limited some of the uses in the tenants that can locate at the site.

So the proposed amendment would take all the uses from the LIO zoning district as seen in the zoning ordinance, meaning all those uses that require a use permit in the LIO zoning district would also require use permit in the McPhil's master plan area.

Um and this request is made recognizing that the general plan land use designation of the site is also LIO.

So the LAO um land uses are much longer than this list on the screen.

This is just to give you a general idea of what's allowed in that zoning district.

Welcome, Casey.

Yeah, P and K Hanna Ranch LLC.

So uh planning staff has done a really great job of outlining our application.

I'd just like to give a little context to help you understand uh why we're bringing forth this application at this time.

So I'd like to start with a brief history of the site.

So it sat vacant for decades.

In 2017, the applicant worked closely with the city to process a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from business professional office to light industrial office.

When the city originally processed the zoning change, office vacancy rates were at 37%, while industrial vacancy rates were at just four percent.

As a result, the proposal enjoyed unanimous support from city staff, the planning commission, and city council, as it was clear there was a dire need for more high-quality light industrial office space in Novato.

Consequently, in 2021, the applicant completed the first class A light industrial office space to be built in Novato for 20 years.

In addition to the general plan amendment, the master plan was adopted, which limited the allowed uses at the site, which are listed here.

Given this pared down list of allowed uses, the applicant has attempted to fill the buildings with appropriate tenants.

Building B has been subdivided into six commercial office suites and is currently vacant, though we have several prospective tenants in the pipeline.

And building C is fully occupied by a media company.

Now I'd like to focus on building B, which has been subdivided into six spaces.

The Marine County Fire Department is slated to occupy four of these units.

They intend to use this space as equipment and vehicle storage and will run several vegetation management crews out of the site.

And finally, the reason we're here tonight Snakecraft, a local artisan millwork and cabinet maker, excuse me, is interested in occupying one of the units.

However, the current master plan restrictions prevent this otherwise permitted use.

The owner and operator Jake and Liz Ward were here this evening, but they left about 30 minutes ago.

They did come to the planning commission hearing though, and they're very interested in the outcome.

Snake Craft is a custom fabrication and millwork team currently based in San Rafael.

They've been in business for nine years and specialize in crafting custom original woodwork, such as furniture, stairwork, and mill work, with an emphasis on locally sourced sustainable products.

Snake Craft currently has seven total employees, typically three skilled woodworkers in the shop and four installers in the field.

City staff has confirmed that Snake Craft is considered a cabinet maker as considered under a zoning code.

While cabinet makers are allowed under the LAO land use designation, the master plan for this site currently prevents them from locating here.

Snake Craft represents exactly the type of skilled artisan manufacturing that creates quality jobs and serves the community without generating heavy traffic or industrial impacts.

Jake and Liz and their team want to relocate to this new home in Novato, specifically because it is a high-end Class A light industrial office building, something that's very difficult to come by in Marin County.

As I mentioned previously, the LIO vacancy rates in 2017 were very low and they have not improved since then.

According to Cushman and Wakefield's fourth quarter 2025 North Bay Market Report, the overall vacancy rate for LIO space in Novato is just 3.6%.

While vacancy rates remain uh very low, this site cannot fully capture that demand now or in the future due to the existing master plan restrictions.

We respectfully request that the city council vote to amend the master plan for the site to allow for all uses permitted in the LIO zoning district.

This would bring the master plan into alignment with the city's LIO zoning code while maintaining the high quality character of the development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Casey.

Um Council, if you have a question, let me know.

All right, I'm gonna open up public comment.

Uh Derek Nell.

Good evening, Council.

I'm Derek Nell, resident of Nevada for some 40 plus years, and I'm also a former business owner for 25 plus years of the light industrial use of a building here in the city.

So here to speak in favor of staff's recommendation to support the draft ordinance and resolution.

I think that uh appropriately when this uh development was first planned under a planned development caution was there.

There was some uncertainty as to how things would turn out, but I think things turned out fairly well.

And as a result of time and uh what we have now, I think it's appropriate uh for us to amend uh the ordinance to allow for the light industrial use.

It's gonna add to our economic vitality.

It will produce jobs and just be better off overall for us here in Novato.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know how you do it.

Uh Mayor Farrock, Council members and staff.

I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the Novato Chamber of Commerce as their immediate past president.

Um at its core, this amendment is about ensuring that Novato remains economically competitive while preserving the thoughtful planning framework that has guided our city for decades.

The proposal, the proposed update aligns the site with light industrial and office zoning, which allows the kind of flexible modern uses that today's employers are seeking.

Research and development, small scale advanced manufacturing, and professional workplaces.

One of the big biggest challenges facing Novato businesses today today is the lack of appropriately zoned space to grow or root relocate within the city.

But we also have an issue with people within the city not being able to grow within the city because of the lack of space available.

So when companies can't find that space here, they leave.

And that's something we need to make sure we try to prevent.

Ultimately, this is about balance, supporting economic vitality while maintaining community values, and providing opportunities for local businesses while planning responsibly for the future.

For those reasons, the Novato Chamber of Commerce respectfully urges you to support the plan as the amendment on to the plan is proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Bringing it back to council, do have a motion.

I'd like to move the draft resolution and introduce the draft ordinance.

One second.

Laura, can you take the vote?

Councilmember Eklund?

Aye.

Councilmember Carkle.

All right.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Hi.

Mayor Pertem Jacobs.

And Mayor Farak.

Hi.

All right, that passes.

Congrats.

Thanks for staying late.

All right.

General Business, J1, consider introducing an ordinance amending the Novato Municipal Court provisions related to City Council compensation.

So I'm going to ask Eva to come up and present this.

She's the chief people officer.

Okay.

Good evening.

Oh, this is too far up.

Let's go back.

There we go.

Good evening, Council members.

Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor.

Thank you for being here.

I know it's late, and we appreciate your time.

As you mentioned, my name is Eva Hilliard.

I am the Chief People Officer here for the City of Novado, and I'm accompanied by Carla Hansen, our assistant city manager.

Tonight we will be reviewing current compensation options moving forward for City Council's compensation and new state laws, information from our labor analysis and some options for you all to review at the end.

So some key takeaways.

We're going to go ahead and start from the very beginning here in terms of what our goal is for the evening and what what we want you to be able to walk away with, which is basically Novato City Council compensation.

It has been almost 40 years since the compensation has been updated.

It feels weird to even say 1988.

But it has been that long.

State law was recently updated three years ago in 2023, which did allow cities to update and modernize the compensation to be able to reflect inflation as well as added responsibilities to the role over the years.

After that.

So why does council compensation matter?

We recognize that these roles require a significant amount of time, right?

In addition to reviewing information, representing the community, there's the every other week meetings and the evenings.

There is representation within the city of Novato as well as boards and committees outside of Novato and throughout the Bay Area.

There's regional representation.

As we've witnessed, there's a lot of significant amount of materials to be reviewed, read and corresponded and responded to.

So a little bit of background.

So state law does set the maximum for compensation for council members, and that is based on population size of the of the city.

Currently at about 52,000 is the population for Nevado, and we currently the stipend per month for council members is set at 400 per month.

Again, back in 2023, SB 329 did allow for an updated compensation limit.

Um again, because you recognize that the low compensation could hinder people with maybe inflexible work schedules, working families, maybe people who could not supplement their income to be able to actually serve in in the capacity.

So again, with SB 329, it did allow that maximum to go up to 1,600 per month given our size.

You know, as I as we show here, um it's between 50 to 70,000.

Novado currently sits at about 52,000 in population.

And again, just mentioning that this wouldn't go into effect in in November of 2026.

So a little bit of background and what we heard in the labor market analysis.

So we do use a defined labor market uh to ensure that everything in terms of the compensation, that the decisions are objective, consistent, and fair.

Um the labor market that we use is the same labor market that we use during staff compensation evaluation, so that we again want it to be consistent across the board.

Um currently the care of the council salary is well below the market median.

Um it's actually about 138% below market median, so it's it's a significant um gap there.

Um and again, our compensation compensation philosophy has always been with our staff is to align within the market, and that's what we're looking to do here as well as to pay within the market.

Um, and some of you may recall that during our recent labor negotiations that we closed late last year, we had decided to land at 97% of market median for staff pay.

So that's where a lot of the calculation comes from.

So given all this information, this is our staff recommendation.

Um we would like to propose that um, and again, we're just proposing the ordinance today for your approval to increase city council compensation to align with our city's philosophy.

Um if we take that same calculation, 97% of state allowed maximum is $1,552 a month as a stipend.

Um again, the change would take effect after the election later this year.

Um we talked about you know making sure that this helps to reduce the potential barriers to service.

Um, again, recognizing that we want to be able to compensate um council members and anyone else who would be interested in in these public service roles for it to be something that's attainable and and and you know makes sense.

Um and again, just to reflect the level of responsibilities, the time commitment, the work, etc.

Now there are some alternative options, obviously.

Um this is up to the city council.

Um the the we'll have three options here just to start with.

One is we could decide to do nothing and maintain the current 400 a month stipend.

Um another one is that you could select any other amount as long as below the state maximum of 1600 a month.

Um, and certainly that it's also allowed to just hit the maximum amount at 1600.

So there's a broad range there.

And I believe in the staff report we did give an attachment that kind of gives the details of what other cities are doing, so that gives you a nice broad range, but it is it it's very broad.

So ultimately, um, in closing, before we go into questions, we just wanted to be very clear about the recommended action though from staff, which is to introduce the ordinance amending the municipal uh Nevada's municipal code provisions related to the city council compensation.

We are recommending that we increase the monthly salary from 400 to 1,552.

Um again, this would become effective the first pay period after the next general municipal election in accordance with state law, which would occur for us on our schedule would be in November of 2026.

And I think that's it in terms of questions that you guys may have.

Thank you so much for the work on that presentation.

Um if you have questions, can you please let me know?

All right, pump member Carkel.

Yeah, I was just uh I was actually um more curiosity than Antonio's um, you know, the staff report did so cities with 35,000 residents are fewer, the maximum is 300 per month.

But then I noticed in the an attachment too.

But then I noticed in the dashment too, there were a number of cities in uh that were considerably higher.

Uh Mill Valley is at 950 and close Cordomerera.

Do you know why that is?

So you're sorry, you repeat again, you said they did that that they vary in the Yeah.

So I was looking uh cities the 35,000 residents are fewer, the maximum is supposed to be 300 per month uh in a staff report, but then in your um compensation analysis, you list uh cities like uh Corte Madera in Mulder Valley, there are less than uh population of 14 and 12,000 or something like that.

They're at $950 a month.

Um I was just wondering what what the disconnect was.

If I'm under I apologize if I and I hope I'm understanding your question.

So this is what it allows, right, with the new uh law, but they aren't necessarily not all of the cities have actually adopted that, and so they some of them have already.

I think we have about 40 percent of cities of the ones that we surveyed that have actually already got you know are paying at the new rate, but some of them have decided to stay where they're at or haven't gotten there yet.

Am I answering?

Yeah, I should jump in.

And this might have been mine when I was reviewing this staff report um quickly before agenda publication.

The new maximums in state law for up to 35,000 is 950 a month.

The amount that's in there is the old amount that has been updated.

And so when they were translating the memo we drafted into the staff report, I think it got lost, and then I didn't catch it on the staff report.

So it's 950 for up to 35,000.

35 to 50,000 is 1,275.

Got it.

And then cities like Novato, it's up to 1,600 per month.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right, I'm seeing no other questions.

Um I'll open up to public comment.

Come on up.

Good evening.

Derek Nell, President and former elected board member of the Nevada Unified School District.

And I'm here to uh encourage you to go ahead and increase your stipends.

Uh you work hard.

I know you work hard.

And so it's certainly it's been 38 years since uh there's been an increase.

And timing is very important when uh elected bodies make moves like this, and this is the time.

So I would encourage you uh basically because what we want our our city council members, our board members to be uh motivated, you know, and uh have their expenses covered and to take care of the the incidentals and the the amount of time that that that we give up in of our personal lives uh and dedicated to this type of services is very valuable.

So it's just you know the dollar amount is is certainly nominal.

It's not gonna have a major effect in any way on our budget as a whole, and so I would certainly encourage you guys to uh increase your your stipend.

Thank you very much.

All right, that'll close public comment.

Um back I would like to say a few words, but you have the right.

Yes, yes.

Is that okay?

Yeah, that's fine.

Um usually we do the motion and then well I I want to explain the motion that I'm gonna make or proposed debate.

Um it on the city council, it was never intended.

The stipend was never intended to um be a lot.

And it was really just that, a stipend.

It wasn't intended to try to cover the costs or the time.

It never could, because the amount of time that all of us put in um it's way above an eight-hour day job.

It's really almost a 24-hour uh job.

Because you get calls at all times of the night and day and on weekends.

So it's it's really a 24-hour job, and that's just part of it.

But um, and so when I first got on the council, um I thought it was 300 or 350, we yapped it, maybe 400.

I don't remember exactly, or maybe we didn't.

Um but you know, I have some concerns about tripling it or over tripling the amount.

Um if we can go all the way up to 1,600.

Um to me that's a huge jump, and I'd like to try to propose that we do it at increments.

And I would like to make a motion that um that we go to $800 a month, um, and then uh reconsider it um in 2020 um seven.

So that's my motion.

Okay, there's no second.

That's fine.

I'd like to say a few words.

You can go and then I can.

Oh, sure.

I'm gonna make a motion to move the item.

I think it makes sense.

The current structure is a barrier to service for a lot of people.

Like Councilmember Eckland shared.

I mean I estimate I spend at least 12 to 15 hours a week on this work.

This last week it was probably close last couple of weeks was probably close to 30.

Um average at the current rate of pay that it works out at about $6 an hour.

And just to add in, we don't get reimbursed for our expenses, mileage, things like that.

Um we're fortunate enough to be able to do it.

I think there's a lot of people out in the community that they're not in a position to commit to public service in those terms.

Um I looked into it.

When the current salary was set in 1988, it came to over that worked out at just over $6 per hour using the same amount of commitment time.

At the time the minimum wage is $4.25.

That means that at that time the salary was adopted, the council members were being paid about one and a half times the minimum wage at that time.

The new proposed rate works out at about $17 an hour, and that's more or less in line with the minimum wage in Novato, so not one and a half times like it was in 1988.

Um I think it's hard to justify a wage lower than the minimum wage for the work that we do.

Um so yeah, I'm proposing moving the item, and that's my rationale for why.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Um, and then I just wanted to say, I think too, just um me being the only mom on the council and having to get child care.

Um, the child care back in 1988 was the average is $2 an hour.

Now it's 25.

So a lot of times if I have to get coverage and stuff, I'm paying out of my pocket, and I know Kevin with MCE has to go to the e-space.

So just covering costs, so you know we're not diving in, so I have to make the decision if you know Ethan's gonna play soccer or he can't has to sit out.

So it does those things, there are people, and I think it'll expand um candidates too because it makes it more feasible.

So I know this would be uh just helpful for for my family.

Um I appreciate the second.

So Laura, can you call the vote?

Councilmember Eklund?

Uh I'm gonna vote no.

Councilmember Carkle?

Aye.

Councilmember O'Connor?

Aye.

Mayor Pertem Jacobs.

And Mayor Farak.

Aye.

All right.

That passes.

And I wanted to say one more thing.

I I pay mom care, and that's $35 an hour, $30 an hour.

So you have two pensions.

So you're lucky.

Um, so um item G8 was pulled, and that was pulled um by council member Eklund.

Yep.

Um I I pulled this item um for uh a couple of reasons.

First of all, I wanted to set the record straight.

And the first is that um Ray Dwelly, who is the manager at the Hamilton Museum is the person who reported to public works that this the uh sidewalk or the what the walk that's coming up to the front door was sinking uh along with the bricks.

And so the only reason I got involved was because there was no action or any plan of action for over six or eight months.

I don't remember what it was, but it was some period of time.

And so then that's when I made an inquiry.

So I I did want to make sure that the staff report report reflected the uh fact that Ray Dwelly was the one and is the one that has been so good about keeping that museum in good working order and reporting items to the public works department.

Um secondly, um I was shocked actually that this report was not shared with Ray Dwelly at all.

Uh when I talked with him, um he um uh I already had my ideas on the first and the second and the third option.

Um and when I talked to him, he actually um stated in his comments if I can find my notes.

Here it is.

One uh the first option is a no-go.

That's what he actually said in his words.

And he said um last time it was grinded down.

Uh the guy who did it said they you can't grind it down any further, and then that's what when they actually put some of the asphalt on top of that.

He said the second option is also a no-go.

Um and uh there's a lot of different reasons why those two options are no goes.

One is obviously you can't just put the bricks in storage.

And then secondly, you just can't fix it and then put the bricks back down, and then who knows how long it's going to take for that sidewalk or that path to have to settle again.

And so I think any solution really needs to involve Ray Dwelly and those of us who really care about the museum.

And based on what the third option was, I think that that is something that we need to look at.

But I think we need to have some more discussion with the pup new public works director and Ray Dwelly and some of the other volunteers that have been noticing the issue here.

So I I would like to suggest that we table this to allow a little bit more discussion between staff and Ray Dwelly, the manager of the museum.

And also too, this whole issue, and I I looked in it and I um think that we need as part of the budget this year is all of the the dwellings or all of the facilities that the city owns.

We need to put and we used to do this, but it's not being done anymore.

We used to put in the uh public works um uh budget, not just public works, the the city of Novato's capital improvement budget.

We used to put all of the um the city's facilities in there and um sometimes some money was set aside to do specific things for that particular building.

But I went back and I looked at the capital improvement project budget that we have for this year, and the only ones that are in there really uh are the ones that were funding and some not funding the full level, obviously.

So I think we need to have some discussion about going back to what we used to do, and that was put all of the buildings that were responsible for and having some discussion about whether or not some money should be set aside in the capital improvement budget for some um improvements um in that fiscal year or future fiscal years.

But um we need to, in my opinion, and Ray Dwellys, um again, we're not experts, um, our public works director is an expert, but we'd like to have some discussion with you about real really what would it take for us to do a um an analysis of what is causing this and um and is there something more uh uh maybe over time that we could do.

Um and granted it's uh none of us like to see the sidewalk there and and with the uh ropes and everything, making sure people don't walk there, but um the I'm sorry, but the first and the second budget or the first and the second alternatives just won't do it.

Um, you know, Ray said, where are we gonna put the bricks and how are we gonna know something's not gonna happen to the bricks?

And I said, very good question.

And if we try to put it all back and and you know, with the bricks, will it take six months?

We don't know.

And so there needs to be some dialogue back and forth, and so that's why I would like to postpone this item so that we can have that discussion and then come back with a plan where the his historical guild, which manages the museum, and Ray Dwelly, who has had his heart and soul in this building, um and has done wonders.

He's absolutely done wonders on this building.

Um and if and no one has been there recently, you should come in and and spend an afternoon.

I volunteer on the fourth Saturdays of every month, I'd be glad to give you a tour myself.

Um so anyway, so that's why I pulled the item.

I was really shocked too to see my name in there and not even have an opportunity to properly represent uh my role in this.

So I think in the future um it would be helpful if there's somebody that is engaged on a particular item, at least we have an opportunity to make sure that it's accurately reported.

So that's um my comment.

So if I'm following your your motion correctly, you're proposing so I so I I would like a motion to postpone this and bring it back to council once we have a proposal that um can be supported by um all involved.

Um council or uh city manager Cunningham would like to speak.

So I'd like her to speak before I just and I need to open public comment as well.

Yeah, um so two things.

One, um, as part of this upcoming budget cycle, we are going to be requesting funding to do a full citywide facilities assessment so that we understand what the needs of all of our facilities are so that we can weigh all of the different needs and um get the council to help us prioritize and fund those items and have like a a full funding plan going out for the next number of years.

So that would help you in the prioritization schedule.

Um so uh I'll leave it at that.

So you can look forward to that coming in the future.

I think that will help a lot.

Do you want to say any words?

I was just gonna second, but you can go to public comment.

Come back.

Yeah, all right.

Do you have a new public comment?

No.

All right.

I make the motion.

And I'll second council member Ecken's motion.

All right, Laura, can you take or council member Eklund?

Aye.

Councilmember Carkle?

Councilmember O'Connor?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs?

Aye.

And Mayor Farack.

Aye.

All right.

Um, a long meeting.

Um so the next regular city council meeting will be held on April 14th, 2027.

So we're not gonna do our uh council comments.

So we could do it at the next meeting.

No, I'll just do it at the next meeting.

Yeah, I don't have a lot.

Um yeah, we'll just skip that.

Um does anyone have anyone they'd like to adjourn in memory of?

Yes, I do.

I'd like to uh adjourn the meeting in name of Ken Valente.

He was a longtime resident here in Novato.

He uh was a car guy, was always involved in stuff here in town, has quite a car collection, and he passed away two weeks ago.

So we will adjourn the meeting in memory of Ken Valente.

Thank you.