Larkspur places stricter rent-control initiative on ballot

The Larkspur City Council has voted to place a new voter-backed initiative on the November ballot that would stiffen protections for renters.

The vote Monday followed a lengthy presentation from staff on the projected effects of the new ordinance, including higher costs to the city and a wider administrative mandate.

The city’s current ordinance caps rent increases at 5% plus inflation, or 7%, and voters affirmed the policy in the March election. The proposed initiative would cap annual rent increases at 60% of the consumer price index, or 3%, whichever is lower.

The initiative qualified for the ballot with 1,014 valid signatures, according to the city. The council was obligated to either enact the ordinance or place it on the ballot.

Mayor Scot Candell said he does not support the initiative because it could hike some rental rates and limit maintenance.

“While it is unfortunate when anyone has to move their home for financial reasons, the harm that would be caused to the city if the initiative passes, in my opinion, substantially outweighs its benefits,” he said in an email. “For that reason, I am unable to support it.”

Staff presented a report to the council on the potential effects of the initiative and its contrasts with the ordinance already on the books.

The current program is projected to cost $250,000 to $300,000 in its first year, with a cost to property owners at between $140 and $160 per dwelling, a staff report said. The new initiative is projected to cost $400,000 to $500,000, with a cost of $175 to $200 per dwelling.

The city estimates that the actual rent cap would likely be around 2% a year under the conditions set by the initiative.

The initiative also creates a public hearing process for a property owner to petition to exceed the cap in order to realize a fair rate of return on rental property. The ruling of a designated hearing officer could be appealed to the City Council.

The initiative provides a 36-month right-to-return period during which an evicted tenant may return to the dwelling if a no-fault eviction occurs when an owner wishes to occupy the residence or have a family member occupy it.

The initiative sets compensation for a no-fault eviction at four months’ rent or $8,000, whichever is greater. Specified vulnerable populations can receive an additional $4,000.

The initiative also establishes per diem compensation for the short-term relocation of tenants when work on a dwelling requires them to vacate. The initiative would nullify shared utilities, and dwellings would be individually metered.

There is no sunset provision with the new ordinance. The current ordinance would sunset on Jan. 1, 2030.

The current ordinance also includes an administrative review followed by appeal to a rent review board and a 12-month right of return.

Councilmember Stephanie Hellman said the effort for a new initiative bolstered an ongoing effort by citizens to codify the best possible protections for renters. She said state law is not sufficient.

“I am hopeful that voters will seek truth and understanding over the next several months as there has been significant misinformation disseminated by corporate landlords,” Hellman said.

The effort follows the passage of Measure D by less than 200 votes in the March election. Measure D was a referendum pitched by residents attempting to strike down the city’s rent-control law. The initiative asked for a simple vote on whether rent control should exist, and the yes vote won.

The new initiative was sponsored by a coalition of tenant protection groups, including the Skylark Tenant Association, the Bon Air Tenant Association, the North Bay Labor Council and the Marin Democratic Socialists of America.

“Our initiative is designed to create a fair and balanced approach that benefits both tenants and small landlords, ensuring that Larkspur remains a vibrant and inclusive place for all its residents,” said Richard Quinones, a member of the Skylark Tenant Association.

Other residents contended that the effects would be detrimental. Dennis Gilardi, a Fairfax resident, said the financial impacts to owners would lead to the displacement of tenants.

“It just makes no sense. There would be no economic reason for me to continue ownership of the building,” he said.

Elsewhere in Marin, the rent-control ordinance in San Anselmo limits annual increases to 5%, or 60% of the consumer price index, whichever is lower. A group seeking a referendum on the ordinance has submitted a petition with 1,568 signatures.

In Fairfax, an ordinance limited increases to 75% of the regional consumer price index and no more than 5%. The town has certified a citizens’ ballot initiative that seeks to repeal the town’s rent-control and just-cause-for-eviction ordinances. The initiative will be considered by voters on Nov. 5.