Direct Answers for San Anselmo

I understand why some on the current Council saw paid parking as a viable option. It is my belief that before moving forward with any solution, it is necessary to correctly and comprehensively identify the actual problem, and here, the problem wasn't a lack of parking. The issue was that vehicles were parking in our commercial downtown areas for extended periods of time, which limited the availability of parking for the customers and visitors those businesses depend on.

Once you frame the issue with this context in mind, the solution becomes clear: enforce the two-hour time limits we already have regulations in place for. I would have worked with the Central Marin Police to ensure regular, effective enforcement of the existing rule. That alone would change parking behavior downtown and free up the availability that businesses and visitors need, without introducing an unnecessary paid parking system, which deters local commerce.

This is still an issue in San Anselmo today, and it's still the approach I'd advocate for.

One of the realities of local government is that our community has finite resources to devote toward improving San Anselmo. I agree that conversion of our downtown main avenue to accommodate wider sidewalks, more parking, and more bike lanes would be beneficial and appreciated.

But wanting something and prioritizing it are two different questions. While I understand the motivations behind this project, I believe it should not have been prioritized, as a significant amount of time, energy, and money was invested before recognizing that this project was not worthy of the town's finite resources. Consultants were hired, and a great deal of community time and energy went into evaluating whether the conversion was even possible. In my view, the Council should have recognized early on that this was not worthy of our town's resources, and moved on to priorities that mattered more.

Parking enforcement is one piece, but preserving and expanding parking access downtown has to remain a broader priority for our commercial district to thrive.

I want to give credit where it's due: the Town's recently expanded Merchant Parking Program has been a real success, and updates that made permits easier for merchants to obtain are a step in the right direction. That's the kind of practical, responsive policy I appreciate and want to continue implementing.

At the same time, downtown has lost over a dozen spaces of parking space due to California's Daylighting Law (AB 413), a state mandate that removes parking near crosswalks and intersections for pedestrian safety. This is a case where a well-intentioned state safety law has had a direct, tangible impact on our downtown's parking capacity, and it's exactly the kind of trade-off our Council needs to be tracking closely and planning around, instead of accepting as an unavoidable loss.

Going forward, my priority is twofold: protect the parking we still have, and actively look for opportunities to expand parking capacity within the downtown district, so that commerce and community life downtown remains accessible.

I believe the team behind Woods Brewing genuinely wants to open on San Anselmo Avenue, and I do not doubt their intent to do so. This intention doesn't excuse the current reality, that a prominent downtown parcel has now sat boarded up for years. This is not acceptable for a town whose downtown vitality depends on active, occupied storefronts.

My approach would be straightforward and forward-looking: require a performance bond for significant future commercial projects downtown. A performance bond is a financial guarantee issued by a bank or insurance company to ensure a contractor fulfills all the terms and timelines of a development contract. If the contractor fails to finish the work or goes bankrupt, the issuer pays for the damages or helps find a new contractor to finish the project. It creates a real financial incentive for developers to finish what they start, on a reasonable timeline, rather than letting a project languish indefinitely while a prime parcel sits vacant.

It's not equitable for the town, and for the businesses and residents around a stalled project, to absorb the cost of a developer's shifting priorities or financial struggles. A performance bond protects the town's interest in a lively, functioning downtown while still giving good-faith developers, like I believe Woods to be, a fair and clear framework to build within.

We all love our incredibly charming town, and our commercial district is arguably the heart of San Anselmo. We have so many wonderful local businesses and a commercial district that helps maintain a charming, eclectic environment for our community.

The vitality of our businesses depends, first and foremost, on our own local residents choosing to engage with and purchase locally. Organizations like the San Anselmo Chamber of Commerce have done a great job promoting events that invite people to participate in downtown activities, including launching Live on the Avenue and other seasonal events, which have helped put our town on the map as a destination for lively, local entertainment. I believe the Town should keep the existing momentum going, by continuing to enhance and expand Live on the Avenue, and through the Chamber's broader work, to ensure our business community remains viable.

I understand the instinct behind rejecting additional housing developments. Our community loves this town and wants to protect what makes it special, but the reality is straightforward: San Anselmo has a State-mandated obligation to plan for 833 new housing units, including a significant share of affordable units, and that number is not going to change. Fighting our current legal reality isn't a viable strategy for ongoing city planning; comprehensive evaluation and organization is.

I want to give credit to the work our Planning Director and the General Plan Advisory Committee have invested in this project. Developing a 20-year framework for how San Anselmo grows is a massive undertaking, and it deserves our support and attention, not dismissal.

The practice I do not agree with are the developers who treat these State mandates as an opportunity to maximize density and profit at the expense of the town's character and its community members’ quality of life. The City Council’s responsibility is to ensure the right type of housing is developed, in the right locations, and is being built by developers who have the track record and capacity to deliver quality projects to completion, rather than cut corners to pad margins.

Balancing community needs against developer interests means holding a firm line on what gets approved, while still being realistic that new housing, both market-rate and affordable, is coming to San Anselmo. My goal would be to make sure that growth happens thoughtfully, is guided by the General Plan our community has already invested years into shaping, and results in housing security that strengthens our town for decades to come.

There is no denying that San Anselmo will see a number of larger-scale developments over the coming years as we work to meet our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the State-mandated number of housing units each municipality must plan for. Alongside those larger developments, I believe Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), smaller secondary residences built on properties that already have a primary home, are a useful tool our community should fully embrace as part of the solution.

My view here is grounded in a firm belief in property rights. Property owners should be able to develop their properties within the confines of our community guidelines and Planning Department requirements. That said, I don't believe it's the Town's place to dictate how an owner chooses to use an ADU once it's built, whether that's housing a family member, using it as a home office, or renting it out.

What the Town can do is create incentives for property owners to choose to lease out their ADUs as rental housing. Every ADU added to the rentable housing stock helps address the fundamental supply-and-demand imbalance driving up housing costs in San Anselmo. More rental supply, driven by owner choice rather than mandate, is a practical way to expand housing options while giving property owners greater authority in how they use their property.

Creek Park Plaza is one of those rare community assets that, once people experienced it, they couldn't imagine downtown without it. We were fortunate to have that platform over San Anselmo Creek, and it quickly became a cherished gathering place for the community. It's genuinely unfortunate how it played out: the structure was condemned, the plaza was closed, and the process since then has been long and, at times, frustrating for residents eager to see it return.

That said, we're now at an important stage: figuring out what a permanent version of this space should look like, and how it connects Creek Park more fully to the Avenue. I have appreciation for the volunteers and participants of the Reimagine Creek Park project. They've put in significant time and energy building a genuine community vision for this space, and that work deserves to be honored as the Town refines the final design.

My approach to evaluating any proposed design starts with the non-negotiable realities: any structure has to comply with hydraulic flow requirements so we don't increase flood risk for downtown. Additionally, the project has to be realistically fundable. A beautiful design that can't be paid for and brought to completion doesn't serve the community.

Within these constraints, one priority I feel strongly about is that we should not unnecessarily sacrifice downtown parking to build this extension. Our commercial district's vitality already depends on adequate parking access, and any final design needs to protect this space, while still delivering the community gathering space people enjoy.

Many of the Town's spending obligations are shaped by prior precedent, commitments, and patterns already in motion before any new city councilors are elected. If I were elected, my approach would be to evaluate the details of any new spending proposal or existing project, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis.

The money spent on behalf of this town is, ultimately, paid by all of us as residents. That means that every dollar needs to be benefiting our community at large, not just a narrow interest or population. I bring a personal-finance mindset to public spending: I want to see a highly probable return on investment before I'm comfortable supporting any proposed expense.

It's admittedly difficult to answer this in the abstract, without the specifics of a given proposal, the actual costs, the actual benefits, the actual alternatives. This is exactly my point; my approach isn't a fixed formula, it's a discipline. I would take a hard look at the value proposition and the return on investment, every time, before approving use of the community's money.

This question gets to the heart of one of my core beliefs: fulfilling an obligation to the best of one's ability. It also underscores why it matters to have Council members who bring a genuinely fiscally conservative approach, one that doesn't saddle our community with future unfunded spending.

Obligations that prior Councils have already made need to be honored. That's non-negotiable. Infrastructure maintenance, in particular, isn't a one-time problem to solve. It's an ongoing and growing reality that demands constant attention, strategic planning, and pragmatic funding, so it doesn't become a hindrance to our community down the road.

I'm not inclined to encourage additional taxes or additional financial obligations on our community members, unless those obligations are ones residents voluntarily choose to take on. In the absence of new funding sources, that means the long-term liabilities we already carry need to be actively managed, and the funds we do have available need to be allocated based on return on investment across all of our near-term community priorities, and not spread thin or deferred until they become emergencies.

Flood risk is inherent to our community, and anticipating risk factors has to be included in the Council’s responsibilities. That said, the SAFRR project, while well intentioned, may not meaningfully change the outcome the next time a major flooding event hits. It remains uncertain whether the flow diversion basin will play a significant role when the next major flood occurs, and the project to raise BB2 has been vacated over liability concerns.

If elected, my focus for the Council is to make sure we’re prepared for when flooding happens, and how we can recover most efficiently as a community. Our downtown commercial district sits squarely within the floodplain, alongside a number of residential properties, and I believe time, energy, and funding should go towards minimizing damage to property and toward preparing an effective remediation process before it is required.

I view the Town Council as a body of individuals elected to represent the interests of the San Anselmo community at large, acting in a fashion similar to a board of directors for a business. The Council’s job is not to micromanage or involve ourselves too heavily in the day-to-day operations of our town's governance. We have incredible staff at the Town of San Anselmo government office who do excellent work running our town's day-to-day functioning.

Instead, the Council's role is to help focus the town's energy on the best initiatives and goals, and to prioritize what the town will devote its time, energy, and money toward. Town staff is then responsible for doing the heavy lifting: providing as much context as possible so the Council can be fully informed when making important decisions about where our money is spent and our time is devoted as a community.

I fully anticipate there will be disagreement, and that's okay. What matters is that the Council is fully informed and that they discuss significant matters thoroughly, so that all five members of the Council have the opportunity to reach an informed decision. I look forward to helping foster that kind of environment: one of open dialogue and mutual engagement with the important work and objectives in front of our town.

While some voters look first to the Democratic Party for guidance, I want to be clear: I respect their role, but my commitment is to every person in San Anselmo. My record shows that I can work collaboratively, but I also think independently. You don’t need a rubber stamp; you need someone who listens and acts.

While some organizations have endorsed other candidates, my focus is on listening directly to San Anselmo residents. I respect differing perspectives, but my candidacy stands on uncommon common sense and listening to the needs of our San Anselmo community.