Local residents demand immediate clean up of the toxic soil vapor at Marinwood Plaza as the Regional Water Quality Control Board starts ANOTHER public process before clean up can begin. Marinwood Plaza, LLC has been under order to immediately clean up the plaza as of February 2014. The repeated delays by the owner have been allowed by the RWQCB on "technical grounds"
Speakers: Stephen Nestel, Renee Silveira and Bill McNicholas.
Marinwood CSD meeting of July 13, 2021. Marinwood CSD manager Eric Dreikosen admits the construction plan is NOT APPROVED due to problems with the design. Just a few months prior he represented the plan as fully approved and urged the acceptance of a $1.3 million construction contract PLUS another $650k loan for "additional work". The newly elected Marinwood CSD board members were pressured to adapt the plan due to "Rising Costs". The Marinwood Maintenance Shed project will be THE MOST EXPENSIVE IN MARIN COUNTY history. Essentially it is a very expensive garage to house landscaping equipment. The huge cost is due to overdesign using exotic architectural materials and building a kitchenette and shower room. The unusual design features make the actual movement of vehicles and equipment difficult and the essential function of moving materials virtually impossible. Opps!
The Marinwood CSD has committed to building the MOST EXPENSIVE MAINTENANCE SHED in Marin County history designed by a former CSD Politician. Among the extravagances is the $377k IPE fence to house landscaping equipment. Why the huge cost? They say it is important to have a beautiful structure instead of hiding it behind a standard cedar fence. IPE fencing costs TEN times the cost of a standard cedar fence.
This ridiculously gold plating of our maintenance shed will come at a huge cost to the Marinwood CSD. Our pool needs reconditioning, maintenance needs have been ignored , basic items like park benches and accessible walkways have been ignored.
Oh, but did I tell you this shed will have an apartment inside?.....
The CSD needs an immediate investigation of its business practices and political shenanigans.
=============
Information about fencing: https://www.royal-woodwork-gta.ca/why-ipe-or-cedar-are-the-best-choices-for-your-home-fence/
Wood fence installation projects are demanding. You need to know which wood species to get for starters let alone making sure the fence is properly installed. And then it’s all about keeping the new fence for years to come without worrying about its maintenance every now and then, or safety concerns. Although wooden fence installation is a different chapter, the project begins by choosing the right wood species. And there is a reason why ipe and cedar are two great choices.
Let’s just say that ipe is hardwood and thus extremely durable. Another
good reason for ipe fence installation is its natural resistance to elements. Thus, it hardly needs maintenance. It won’t decay or rot. It’s resilient and ages beautifully. No matter what the weather conditions, ipe will remain strong and actually last for many decades. This will compensate for its rather high price. And this is actually the only drawback when it comes to installing a wooden ipe fence.
Since ipe is a hardwood, it is also hard to work on. So, if you decide to get ipe, find a fence builder with expertise in this species.
There are several types of cedar woods. One of the most popular one is red cedar. With red cedar fence installation, you get an average priced product that will last for years. It’s beautiful and resistant to insect infestation, moisture, and rot. But it will need some maintenance.
Cedar is resistant to insects due to its natural oils. Since it’s resilient, it has a long lifespan. And this compensates for the maintenance requirements. Another great advantage of cedar wood is that it won’t shrink or warp. And that’s very important for the condition of the fence since you don’t want it to sag in a few years.
Although the part over ground won’t rot, the part placed underground might rot. And that’s the disadvantage of wooden cedar fences. But you can mix and match wood species to get the best combination for long-lasting results. For example, you can use pine for the fence posts. Pine stands well underground but is not ideal for the slats since it might crack and shrink.
Believe or not, cedar emits a nice odor too. It has a very pleasing natural scent and that counts as an extra advantage.
So, which one should you choose for your home wooden fence? It’s really difficult to say since both wood species are marvelous. Each has its own pros and cons, so it actually depends on how much you want to spend today.
The best way to decide is to get in touch with your local fence contractor and get more information and perhaps suggestions for the fence in your home. After all, not all homes have the same style. But be sure that both cedar and ipe fences look great to all homes.
Editor's note: IPE = $17.00 per board foot. Cedar= $1.70 per board foot. Both are durable woods.
Marinwood CSD general manager Eric Dreikosen reports hiring an architect for $12,000 for all inclusive price for a maintenance shed proposal but fails to reveal that it is former Marinwood CSD director, Bill Hansell . Dreikosen was hired by the CSD board that included Bill Hansell in 2015 . The total budget cost of the project has not been revealed and the architects fees have exceeded the $12,000 before reaching site plan approval stage. Another architect with decades of experience with public works projects, bid $13,800 for the ENTIRE PROJECT including site plan review (fixed price $2800), construction oversight and architects fee of 8% based on $100,000 construction cost. He lost the bid. The CSD has attacked critics as spreading "misinformation" yet hides its plans and budgets. You be the judge how well they handle the public's business. This clip is from the February 13, 2018 Marinwood CSD board meeting.
 |
The proposed Marinwood Maintenance Compound won't have a grassy area in front. This area must be used for loading/unloading of landscape materials. |
 |
| Large piles of landscaping waste and trash is stored in the open at the Maintenance shed |
 |
| Proposed Maintenance Facility with old facility overlay in brown |
This drawing shows the footprint of the proposed Maintenance Bldg and the old building footprint in brown. The brown box on the left is the area the architect calls open storage. In fact the entire area from the current building to the horse shoe pit is used for landscaping debris, parking and tool storage. Clearly there is no area suitable for loading and unloading material within the proposed Maintenance Building above. The architect shows this area as green space and a walking path but it will not happen. It will be used for parking and storage of debris and landscaping materials. The is no alternative. What happened to the access road that the architect showed in previous drawings? It has disappeared. This is highly deceptive. The architect must show where essential activities will take place on the building site. Safety vehicles and pedestrians must pass through this area. The drawings do not show the true impact to the stream conservation area and Marinwood Park. The proposed Marinwood CSD Maintenance Facility is simply too big and inefficient, harms the environment and occupies land that should be used for recreational purposes as intended. |
 |
| Option #3 is the "environmentally preferred" option for our next maintenance facility. |
A quick investigation of the construction bidders for the Marinwood Maintenance Shed found that Azul Construction was involved in a major bribery scandal in the City of San Francisco. The U.S. Attorney charged its chief executive with bribery and faces up to 10 years in prison.
See the story HERE
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS OF BIDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Marinwood Community Services District will accept sealed bids for its Park Maintenance Facility project at 775 Miller Creek Road, San Rafael, CA 94903 by or before 2:00PM, Tuesday, 04/27/2021. Any proposals received after this time will not be opened and will be returned. Timely received proposals will be collected by District staff at 2:00 PM and will be opened and read thereafter via Zoom webcast. The Scope of Work is described as follows: Furnishing all required labor, materials, transportation, equipment, incidentals, and services for construction of a new Park Maintenance Facility consisting of a 1,200sf enclosed workshop, break room (not incl cabinetry and sink re: Add Alt 02 below), restroom, and storage closet contiguous with a 1,300sf covered (unconditioned) storage area. In addition, there are three (3) Additive Alternate (Add Alt) Bid Items, as follows: Add Alt 01: East & West Courtyards totaling 1,960sf, including fencing on concrete stem walls, rolling gates, and compacted gravel surfaces. Add Alt 02: Break Room cabinetry with sink Add Alt 03: Vertical Shade and Security Fins at openings above wall on column line 03 between lines A.2 and C.2 to be detailed in a separate Addendum Work shall be done in accordance with official plans and specifications available for printing by online order at Contractor's expense from NorthBay Reprographics, 4314 Redwood Highway, Suite 200, San Rafael, CA 94903, https://northbayrepro.com , Tel: 415-491-1112, Email: prints@northbayrepro.com . Electronic copies of all documents, including the complete Bid Packet, are available for download from the Marinwood CSD's website at: https://www.marinwood.org/contracts-rfp Partial sets of Bid Documents are not available from the Owner or Architect. Contractors shall perform a mandatory site visit at the Contractor's convenience and submit the Verification of Site Visit form included in the Bid Packet with their bid. Site Visit form must be signed off by the District Manager or Project Architect. Award of contract, if awarded, will be to the responsible bidder with the lowest responsive bid whose proposal complies with prescribed requirements, and will be within sixty (60) days after receipt of proposals. The Marinwood Community Services District reserves the right to reject any or all bids and the right to waive any irregularities. The provisions of Public Contract Code 22300, regarding substitution of securities for monies withheld to ensure performance shall apply to this contract. All Bidders shall be licensed under the provisions of Chapter 9, Division 3, of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California to do the type of work contemplated in the project and shall be skilled and regularly engaged in the general class or type of work called for under the Contract Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.1 and subject to exceptions set forth by that section, no contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5, and no bid shall be accepted nor contract or subcontract be entered into without proof of the contractor's or subcontractor's current registration to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. Any work performed on the project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor is required to submit all certified payroll records directly to the Department of Industrial Relations in electronic format. Any bidder or contractor not properly licensed with the State of California shall be subject to all legal penalties imposed by law, including, but not limited to, any appropriate disciplinary action by the Contractors' State License Board. Failure of the bidder to obtain proper and adequate licensing for an award of the contract shall constitute a failure to execute the contract and shall result in the forfeiture of the security of the bidder. Bids are required for the entire work described herein. This contract is subject to state contract nondiscrimination and compliance requirements pursuant to Government Code, Section 12990. The successful bidder shall furnish a payment bond and a performance bond. Pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the general prevailing wage rates for Marin County where the work is to be done have been determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. These wages are set forth in the General Prevailing Wage Rates for this project, available at the Department of Public Works, and are also available at the State of California Division of Labor Statistics and research web site at www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/pwd/northern.html April 15, 2021
MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT JOINT MEETING AGENDA Special Meeting of the Marinwood Community Services District Fire Commission and Park & Recreation Commission Tuesday – March 16, 2021 – 7:00 PM Internet Address: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89272455402 Telephone Access: 669) 900-6833 or 346) 248 7799 or 253) 215-8782 Meeting ID: 892 7245 5402 ATTENTION: This will be a virtual meeting of the Marinwood CSD Fire Commission and Park & Recreation Commission pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by the Governor of the State of California. There will not be a public location for participating in this meeting. Any member of the public can participate telephonically or via internet by utilizing the web link or dial-in information printed on this agenda. Instructions on how to make a public comment during the meeting: At points in the meeting when the meeting chair requests public comment, members of the public participating in the live meeting either via internet or telephone shall indicate their desire to speak. If participating via internet, please click the “raise hand” feature located within the Zoom application screen. If connected via telephone, please dial “*9” (star, nine). AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS B. Marinwood CSD Open Space Fire Prevention Vegetation Management Projects Presentation of District’s open space fire prevention vegetation management projects planned for 2021-2022. C. Public Comment Speakers may comment only on items appearing on the agenda. Speakers are asked to limit comments to three minutes. D. ADJOURN Requests for disability-related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made to the district office no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting by contacting (415) 479-0775
A fundamentally flawed housing bill, Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) is fast-tracking through the State legislature. SB-9 is a reiteration of Senate Bill 1120 from last year. Like its predecessor, the bill is an unprecedented taking of local planning powers that hands county, city and community decision-making directly to market-rate and luxury housing developers. Worse still, the bill could ruin treasured single-family neighborhoods.
SB-9 ends single-family zoning and requires jurisdictions to “ministerially” permit an urban lot split and/or a duplex on single-family parcels, as long as the subject parcels and developments meet specified conditions.
“Ministerial” approval streamlines the permit process and eliminates discretionary review, environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and public hearings, thereby stifling public engagement, democracy, high-quality development, and environmental protections.
The bill would let developers buy up single-family parcels as small as 2,400 sq. ft., subdivide each parcel into two 1,200 sq. ft. lots and then build duplexes on each lot. The result would be four homes, where there used to be only one.
When combined with the State Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law, SB-9 allows for the creation of up to six or eight units, and maybe even 10 units (although this is a stretch) in single-family residential zones.
Under SB-9, a city is not required to approve an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) where both the lot-split provision and the duplex provision are invoked. Section 6582.2 (e) of SB-9 states; “A local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section (the two residential units per single-family lot section) and the authority contained in Section 66411.7 (the lot-split section).” However, there may be creative ways to get around this stipulation.
Here are the possibilities:
An expert legislative analyst determined that Senate Bill 9 could result in the following development scenarios:
Rear and side setbacks are limited to merely 4 feet. Garages, yards, spaciousness, privacy and views are disregarded.
Also detrimental, SB-9 lowers parking requirements to just one space per home and totally eliminates parking requirements on developments located within one-half mile walking distance of either a "high-quality transit corridor" or a "major transit stop" or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.
Without any affordability requisite, the bill primarily benefits real estate investors, real estate developers, building contractors, and home rental companies. Overlooked are the concerns of homeowners, many of whom spent their life savings to live in a peaceful, scenic single-family neighborhood.
A 2019 Redfin survey found that regardless of where people live within the US, more than 85% of home buyers and sellers (including millennials) prefer single-family homes with more space, privacy, and gardens over a unit in a triplex that has a shorter commute.
Moreover, realtors report a recent trend of city dwellers wanting to move to single-family neighborhoods in the suburbs to escape dense living conditions, which contribute to the spread of COVID-19.
Over time, the bill would cause the supply of single-family homes to diminish due to conversions to duplexes, "fourplexes", or “sixplexes” and the price for the remaining single-family dwellings would become even more expensive. This would make it more difficult for residents to attain their preferred lifestyle.
SB-9 could result in a range of destabilizing economic consequences. The purchase of a home is typically an individual’s largest investment. Establishing a state policy that permits unlimited and radical developments on adjacent parcels with no public process will destabilize single-family neighborhoods. Those concerned about protecting the value of their investment, and/or seeking to obtain/preserve the traditional benefits of single-family neighborhoods (less noise, traffic, etc.) will opt to move to more rural settings—contributing to additional sprawl—or add to economic and social divisions by increasing demand for living in homeowner’s associations where such activities would be prohibited via CC&R’s, or is the final straw that accelerates a move out of state. Business location and employee retention will likely be affected as well, since local quality-of-life is often a major factor for those making relocation decisions.
SB-9’s vast up-zoning, without any environmental review of potential adverse impacts and cumulative effects, is reckless.
The 2007 Marin Countywide Plan’s (CWP’s) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) projected potential growth of 14,043 more housing units (more than the current number of homes in Sausalito and Mill Valley combined) and 29,759 more residents, if land vacant in 2006 were fully developed according to zoning designations of the cities in Marin County and the Countywide Plan. This didn’t include density bonuses. Alarmingly, the EIR concluded that “land uses and development consistent with the CWP would result in 42 significant unavoidable adverse impacts”, including worse traffic congestion and insufficient water supplies.
There are more than 61,200 single-family dwellings in Marin, according to a 2006 report by the County Assessor-Recorder. The County’s average household size is 2.35 people (per the CWP’s EIR). So, potential growth consistent with SB-9, in which single-family homes turn into duplexes or four homes, could be up to 183,600 more homes and 431,460 more residents, over and above the CWP EIR’s forecast. If single-family homes turn into eight-unit complexes, then potential growth could be up to 428,400 more homes and 1,006,740 more residents. Such expansion is unsustainable.
SB-9’s subsequent housing density, population growth and changes to development standards would increase the risk of adverse impacts on the environment, public health and safety, traffic congestion, infrastructure, utilities (water supply), public services (schools), views, sunlight, privacy, neighborhood character, and quality of life.
Especially worrisome, the bill would jeopardize fire hazard zones. There are many communities in “high” and “very high” fire hazard zones that have steep, narrow, winding streets and few roads out to safety. The bill allows a dramatic increase in population in these hazardous communities, while reducing or eliminating parking requirements, which will lead to streets being overcrowded with parked cars. Dire consequences could result during an emergency when residents are unable to evacuate and fire trucks or paramedics are unable to reach their destinations.
Finally, SB-9 would create unfunded mandates. There is no funding for dealing with the above listed impacts and the bill provides an official sidestep of addressing this issue.
If you agree, please contact Marin County's Supervisors (bos@marincounty.org); Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers' (MCCMC's) Legislative Committee (mccmcsecretary@gmail.com); Senator Mike McGuire (senator.mcguire@senate.ca.gov) 415-479-6612; and Assembly Member Levine (assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov) 415-479-4920 and urge them to oppose Senate Bill 9.
MARIN COUNTY, CA — The Marin County Sheriff's Office says a report of a man grabbing a 15-year-old girl while she was jogging in the Lucas Valley area last week has been found to be fabricated.
The girl said she was jogging along a path around 6 p.m. on Feb. 1 near Mt. Rainier Drive when a suspect came out from behind foliage and grabbed her face, then she punched him and was able to run away, sheriff's officials said.
The sheriff's office said detectives interviewed the girl multiple times, talked to residents and used a sketch artist, and eventually found video evidence that led them to believe that the attack did not occur.
When investigators presented the evidence to the girl, she admitted to fabricating the report.
No other information about the case was immediately available.
Marin Voice: Housing rules allow corporate raiders to attack communities
Scaffolding surrounds homes under construction at the Atherton Place development in Novato, Calif., on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2020. (Alan Dep/Marin Independent Journal)
Most agree that meeting state housing needs shouldn’t take away local control. Yet this is the trend driven by corporate raiders with their sights on accumulating community housing wealth.
In the 1980s, a ruthless type of corporate greed emerged. Corporate raiders took advantage of lax regulations to target “undervalued” companies. Using hostile takeovers, corporate raiders acquired and broke up companies, stripped assets and drained capital reserves. While companies and communities suffered, the raiders walked away with profits. The abuses are documented in books like “Barbarians at the Gate: : The Fall of RJR Nabisco,” by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar.
During that time leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, predatory bankers were the raiders. They created a housing crisis by alluring first-time home-buyers with no-money-down loans and deceptively low initial interest rates. Inevitably, when balloon payments came due, banks initiated an avalanche of foreclosures that shattered thousands of American dreams.
Like the 1980s, individuals and communities suffered while the wealthy thrived. Author Aaron Glantz documents this shameful story in “Homewreckers: How a Gang of Wall Street Kingpins, Hedge Fund Magnates, Crooked Banks, and Vulture Capitalists Suckered Millions Out of Their Homes and Demolished the American Dream.”
The corporate-induced 2008 housing meltdown started a downward trend. California’s average ownership rate dropped from 60.7% in 2006 to 54.8% in 2019.
Today’s raiders are aided by California state legislators and “Yes, in my backyard” cheerleaders who back a national YIMBY bill. This time, corporate housing raiders, with buy-in from legislators, have targeted single-family homes, the airspace and land the homes sit on. These are the new “undervalued assets.”
A New York Times magazine article published March 4 describes a $60 billion housing grab by Wall Street whereby hundreds of thousands of single-family homes are now in the hands of giant companies who squeeze renters and wreck the dreams of home ownership.
The brazen housing raiders of today put the home-owning middle class, those who aspire to join it and communities at risk. The crisis we face is mistakenly called a housing crisis, but the real crisis is legislation that elevates developer/investor rights over the rights of constituents and community.
In California, not everyone agrees we have a housing crisis. Research by the Embarcadero Institute shows the state’s claim we need to produce 3.5 million housing units is wrong. They also show that the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) quotas assigned to each jurisdiction are inflated, prompting 60% of Orange County cities (21) to formally challenge the allotments.
Legislators’ failure to address fair wages and taxes, income disparity and wealth distribution has created the “affordability” crisis. The 64 housing bills passed in the past four years don’t address affordability, nor do they provide funding to build housing.
When legislators accelerate corporate raiders’ opportunities to buy homes and build density, the scales can tip from a middle-class society of homeowners to a disenfranchised society of renters and increased homelessness. Corporate landlords profit while communities struggle to provide safety, water, sewers and parks.
Legislators like Toni Atkins, Lorena Gonzales, Nancy Skinner and Scott Wiener elevate the rights of developers over community wellbeing. In December, Wiener introduced State Bill 10, which would allow cities to change the zoning of single-family neighborhoods to accommodate 10 units of housing on a single-family lot.
Wiener calls it “gentle density.”
There’s nothing gentle about it. The inflated RHNA numbers set cities up for failure, mandating hundreds of housing units in cities with nowhere to build and no money to subsidize building. If cities fail to meet the unrealistic RHNA numbers, a heavy-handed law passed in 2017 (SB 35) will kick in that dismisses community values and voices so developers’ projects “pencil out.”
Empowered communities provide housing. Misguided legislation that allows developers to set the housing rules adds another dark chapter of corporate raiders confiscating community wealth.
Locally elected city councils, homeowner and neighborhood associations, as well as community groups, are the bulwark that protect caring communities against unhealthy density.
In 2021, stand up to legislators who support corporate raiders and work to protect caring communities.
Susan Kirsch, of Mill Valley, is a community organizer who was 2020 chair of the Nix-the-Nine Campaign. Email susan@susankirsch.com.
