Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Marinwood Citizens demand CLEAN UP of Toxic Waste Vapors NOW


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 Dec 14, 2021

Friday, October 22, 2021

Palace in the park- Government Waste.

This could be Marinwood.  At least TWO former CSD directors are contractors on Marinwoods new Maintenance Shed that will cost $2 million plus.  This video is about big city corruption but applies to our community.  Marinwood is building THE MOST EXPENSIVE MAINTENANCE SHED in Marin County history.

Monday, October 18, 2021

Marinwood CSD meeting Oct 12. 2021 at 2x speed

Meeting is being played at 2x normal speed. Adjust your settings on youtube to optimize your watching experience.

Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Marinwood CSD meeting August 10. 2021

 The Marinwood CSD did not want to share it with the public. As a continuing public service, we will post videos of our local CSD meetings. Why do you suppose they hide reporting of activities behind closed doors, cryptic meeting notes and will not answer questions or engage with the public? Ask Eric Dreikosen, Marinwood CSD manager and the Board of Directors who allow this.

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

A Simple and Effective solution to Keeping the Peace between Trail Users

Opinion: Put a Bell on It


Mountain bike bells go a long way toward keeping the peace between trail users.

Last summer, I was steadily grinding up Pinecone above Park City on my way to Wasatch Crest. As I rounded a sharp corner, another rider came careening down the trail straight at me. He slammed on his brakes and promptly crashed into a shrub, barely missing me. He was so close I could feel the wind on my face.

Thankfully, everyone was OK, and he got away without too many scratches on his $8,000 bike. You could argue that the rider was going too fast, but if either (or both) of us had bike bells, the whole situation might have been avoided, with precious frame paint still intact.

Sounding a bell from a distance announces your presence without making it seem like you have more right to be on the trail than anyone else.

To mitigate accidents (and angst between user groups of multi-use trails), I’d argue we would do the entire outdoor community a huge service by setting aside the “too cool for school” mentality and slapping a bell on our bikes. This makes the trails safer and friendlier—not only for us bikers, but also for hikers, trail runners and equestrians.

Sure, shouting “On your left!” to pass someone can work, but it doesn’t always get the reaction you expect—a startled person is rarely a happy one—and often they hesitate like a squirrel in the road or even jump right in your path. By comparison, sounding a bell from a distance announces your presence without making it seem like you have more right to be on the trail than anyone else, which is how it can seem when you shout.

Bonus: If you live in bear country, this saves you from either having to sing during your entire ride or worse yet, surprising a bear and possibly getting attacked. What’s more, a bell’s ring carries farther than a voice. A ranger I interviewed says that people on the trails can hear bells from a few hundred yards. Horses and other animals can often hear them from over a quarter mile.

Mountain bike bells are not without their haters, however. This is clear.

Is there another rider around that curve? | Photo: Dan Engel

“I hate bells,” said one Pacific Northwest rider I interviewed who wished to remain anonymous. “They are super annoying. If I rang a bell going into every corner, I’d drive myself crazy. Why not just ride under control and speak nicely to people as you approach?”

That does sound like a great idea (and a common sentiment), but that isn’t what always happens out there so some concerned bikers are taking matters into their own hands.

Places like San Luis Obispo County along the Central Coast of California are fully on board with mountain bike bells, so much so that the local bike community placed cowbells at every trailhead for bikers to borrow on their rides. In the last six years, Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (CCCMB) partnered with nearly a dozen local bike shops and other local business to supply about 2,000 bells per year at local trail systems such as Montaña de Oro State Park.

The bell stash at Montaña de Oro State Park | Photo: Amy Jurries

“The use of bells far surpassed our expectations,” said Bill Jenkins, CCCMB Sponsorship Chair. “The equestrians, hikers and bikers are very happy with the bells even though some of the bikers were reluctant to use them at first. Within a year of using the bells, negative encounters between the various groups decreased. It’s a great feeling when hikers thank us for using the bells whenever we meet them on the trails.”

Keep in mind, however, that simply sporting a bell does not grant you a special privilege to ride like you’re the only one out there—the International Mountain Bicycling Association’s rules of the trail (and good old common courtesy) still very much apply. Whether dinging or not, mountain bikers still yield to all other trail users.

I’m not waiting for an official bell installation at every trailhead—and you shouldn’t either.

The cowbell program worked so well that it led the State Park Supervisor to open up miles of singletrack in Montaña de Oro State Park for the first time to bikers—the result of which is the now über popular Oats Peak Trail. Imagine the results for riders (and new trails) if similar programs happen across the country.

But I’m not waiting for an official bell installation at every trailhead—and you shouldn’t either. On a recent trip back to Park City, I, along with numerous other riders in our group, sported every variety of mountain bike bells. Rounding a sharp corner on Mid Mountain, we approached a set of hikers, including children. They had heard our bells in the distance and already moved well off the trail to let us through. With a huge smile and “thanks for using bells!” they waved as we rode on down the trail.
My Top 3 Reasons to Use a Bell
That little ding alerts other trails users well in advance of your approach.
It’s less startling or confrontational than shouting at someone, especially if they are wearing headphones.
It helps to ensure we all just get along. You don’t want to be that person that gets bikes banned from a trail system.
Sweet Dings

From left to right: Timber Mountain Bike Bell, Knog Oi

[Timber Mountain Bike Bell] This always-on bell creates a pleasant, cowbell-esque jingle with an easy access switch to silence the ringer for those times you don’t need it. Using two rubber O-rings, the bell secures to pretty much any size handlebar. I’ve found that hikers and even dogs are standing at the side of the trail in anticipation of my approach so there’s no need to shout apart from “Thanks and have a great day!” as I ride by. ($20)

[Knog Oi] If you don’t want your bell to, uh, look like a bell, this dinger offers a sleek, inconspicuous alternative. The high-pitched ring cuts through even the loudest of headphone music but doesn’t carry as far as the others. The Oi comes in a variety of sizes depending on your handlebar circumference. Con: Like many traditional bike bells, it needs a thumb-flick to ding, which can be tricky if you’re bombing downhill. ($20)

[DIY] For a couple of bucks, you can copy the Montaña de Oro State Park bells with Velcro tape and a mini cowbell.

Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Marinwood CSD meeting July 13, 2021 Opps!


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!

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Marinwood CSD Meeting June 8, 2021

Marinwood CSD board borrows another $650,000 to spend on Marinwood Maintenance Shed project and leases Marinwood Park to lender. Despite many less expensive options, the Marinwood CSD Board of Directors have approved a $2 million dollar maintenance shed designed by former Marinwood CSD politician, Bill Hansell. Early estimates of this project using standardized building components and construction was $100k. The project is filled with luxury material and customized building components. It will be the MOST EXPENSIVE MAINTENANCE SHED in Marin County History. It is a positively shameless waste of Marinwood CSD resources.

Thursday, May 27, 2021

Marinwood takes on $650,000 more Debt at the CSD special meeting 5/24/2021.

The lack of seriousness by the CSD Board in committing a large debt obligations for the most expensive Maintenance Shed in Marin County history is appalling.  The Marinwood CSD board president, Bill Shea seems giddy with delight that no members of the public were present for this meeting.  

 This is money NOT being spent on maintenance, pool restoration ,  mobility access, etc.  

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

The Marinwood Maintenance Fence will cost $377,000 and the CSD will make YOU pay for it!

 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: 


Why Ipe or Cedar Are the Best Choices for Your Home Fence

fence_featuredWood 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.

The reasons for choosing an ipe fence

Let’s just say that ipe is hardwood and thus extremely durable. Anotheripe fence 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.

Why cedar fences are also a great option

cedar fencesThere 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.

Ipe or cedar fences?

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.

  • Cedar fences are very popular because they last long and have a friendly cost too.
  • Ipe fences cost more. But nothing really compares with the elegance of this type of wood.

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. 

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Marinwood CSD 5/11/2021 Marinwood CSD approves MOST EXPENSIVE MAINTENANCE SHED in Marin County history!

This is a long meeting on 5/11/2021 but demonstrates how the Marinwood CSD is wasting millions of dollars on the Marinwood Maintenance Shed and the future financial health of our district.  Citizens concerns were never addressed and the board ignored all practical problems with parking, loading materials and sensitive habitat. . Instead they hired a former CSD Board member as architect behind a closed door.  It is an egregious abuse of power and community trust. Numerous ethics and possibly political corruption laws were violated.    The original project was estimated to cost $100k utilizing standard designs commonly found in virtually every other park in Marin County.  The Marinwood CSD gave the architect a blank check to pursue his creative vision.  New board members were intimidated in approving the project by claims of "looming cost increases"  and never addressing practical alternatives.  Several former Marinwood CSD board members and their friends in the community will directly profit from THE MOST EXPENSIVE CAPITAL PROJECT in the last twenty years.  Our local democracy is virtually non existent.  Citizens must demand accountability and if laws were broken, those responsible should be held accountable.  

The history of this project and the board meetings are on fully documented on videotape.  Remember, what just happened the next time when the board seeks a new tax or bond for "budget shortfalls".

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

Secret Architect hired in Feb 2018 for $12,000 all inclusive price.

  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.

"Public Outreach?" asks Planner. Jeff Naylor shuts down discussion in 2018.


At the Jan 27, 2020 Marin Planning Commission meeting, commissioner asks about the public outreach. Jeff Naylor's famous response in September 2018 to a petition of 200 residents tells the real story of "public outreach" Still there has been no meeting. The project budget is secret and the architect, a former CSD politician has estimated billing 500% of the initial estimates BEFORE the plan has been approved. Hansell Design has a highly unusual "unlimited billing" fee arrangement with NO PERFORMANCE provisions. While CSD Director, Bill Hansell hired current manager Eric Dreikosen at double his previous compensation despite NO EXPERIENCE in managing a CSD. This is small town corruption on display enabled by the entire CSD board.

The Multimillion Dollar Shed is Missing Area for Loading/Unloading Landscaping Materials and Vehicle Movement.


The proposed Marinwood Maintenance Compound won't have a grassy area in front.
This area must be used for loading/unloading of landscape materials.

The Marinwood CSD maintenance crew generates big piles of landscaping debris and trash each week. They store this in the large open area next to the horse shoe pits in Marinwood Park to allow the convenient loading/dumping of material.  

Large piles of landscaping waste and trash is stored in the open at the Maintenance shed

A bucket loading operation requires much space as you can see in this video.   Generally, the dump trailer is loaded from the side into the center of the trailer. The operator must do this to balance the load for safety.  This means the bucket loader requires a large area for scooping material and turning.

The truck and trailer must be parked perpendicular to the bucket loader.  


In the site plan of the proposed Maintenance Facility below, you can see that the only area where this operation can take place is IN FRONT of the Maintenance Facility.  The architect has drawn a walking path in this area to deceive the planning department.  There is NO ROOM inside the walled maintenance compound to perform a mechanized loading operation.

Our Ford F250 is 22 feet long.and the dump trailer is approximately 20 feet long including tongue.

This means that 42 feet of space will be required for the truck/trailer and an additional 40' to 60' feet to the side will be required for the bucket loader and material. This will occupy all the area between the maintenance building and Miller Creek.

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.

The Multi Million Dollar Maintenance Shed won't allow our Vehicles to Turn Around


The Marinwood Drive Through Maintenance facility is a bust

The Marinwood "Drive Through" Maintenance Facility now before the Marin County Planning board is completely unworkable for the maintenance department and our service vehicles.  The video below shows why. Our maintenance department has a 2018 Ford F250 truck that is 22 feet long and a 16' dump trailer. Just like the truck in the short video, our F250 needs 51.9 feet to turn around .   
This means that our truck will be on the edge of Miller Creek stream bank every time it needs to turn around, rain or shine. More likely it will drive to the meadow to turn around and destroy this lovely area too.

In 2007, a catastrophic flood destroyed the stream bank below the current maintenance facility to prevent it from being lost.  If you look at the eastern edge of the maintenance shed, you will see the edge of the stream bank.

While the proposed maintenance facility is further away from the current garage area, it is still far too close to the stream bank where flooding occurs.  It is COMPLETELY within the restricted area under the 2007 Stream Conservation Ordinance.

This would be bad news for the CSD but fortunately,  Irv Schwartz, noted Marin Civil Engineer and former CSD Director came up with the best solution in 2017 called "Option 3".  It is a conventional maintenance facility design that is long and narrow and is situated next to the fence line.  It is the same size as the McInnis Park facility or about ONE THIRD the size and cost of the proposed Marinwood Park facility.
Option #3 is the "environmentally preferred" option for our next maintenance facility.

Tell the Marinwood CSD/ Marin County to stop wasting money on a maintenance compound that will destroy our park.  Design a new facility based on Option Three. 

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Marinwood Parks and Rec Commission Meeting 4/17/2021

Marinwood Maintenance Shed Bidder involved in Major Bribery Scandal

 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

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Marinwood CSD Million Dollar Maintenance Shed-Bid Opening 4/27/2021

Here is the video of the bid opening. It is 7 minutes long and inaudible in parts. Five bids were received in excess of $1 million plus.  This does not include considerable preparation work, engineering or landscaping and Bill Hansell's fees.  

The initial committee found that a serviceable structure could be built for around $100k using similar designs as found in Marin County parks.  When Bill Hansell got involved the costs skyrocketed due to customized architectural components normally found in Class A Office Parks and custom homes.   This is all for three guys in our landscaping department that work outside for most of the day.  Clearly this is a vanity project which will waste MILLIONS of our tax dollars. 

I must point out that the building does not even pass the basic "usability" standard for our landscaping team.  Vehicles are not able to easily load materials, store landscaping waste or even turn around without great difficulty.  The usability HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED by the CSD staff or CSD Board.  It doesn't require much effort.  Just stake out the building on the lot and try to maneuver our equipment.  It is very obvious that  this project is not only a massive waste of land and resources,  it will not even work as a landscaping garage facility.

We can do better.   An immediate solution would be to fence in the existing temporary facility and bring in a prefab office.  We will literally save millions.

  1. Murray Building, Inc., Santa Rosa: $1,059,000
  2. M3 Integrated Solutions, Inc., Santa Rosa: $1,072,000
  3. CF Contracting, Inc., San Francisco: $1,169,425
  4. CWS Construction Group, Inc., Novato: $1,287,000
  5. Azul Works, Inc., San Francisco: $1,297,000    see article about corruption allegations HERE

Monday, April 19, 2021

Last Minute Legal Notice for Contractor Proposals for Marinwood Maintenance Shed.

 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, , Tel: 415-491-1112, Email: . Electronic copies of all documents, including the complete Bid Packet, are available for download from the Marinwood CSD's website at: 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 April 15, 2021

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Coming soon to Marinwood Open Space for Fire Prevention

Last night, Marinwood CSD received a presentation by Marin County Wildfire Authority.  They discussed clearing brush but glossed over HOW they will do it.  Here is one possible solution using a Bobcat

Monday, March 15, 2021

Marinwood Fire and Parks Commission Agenda March 16, 2020 - Treecutting in Open Space for Fire Protection

 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: 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

Misguided Housing Bill Bans Single-Family Zoning Forever

 Misguided Housing Bill Bans Single-Family Zoning Forever

  • 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:

    • Six Units: At a minimum a developer could create six units by doing the following: (1) First add a junior and separate Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as permitted by recently-enacted state ADU law; then (2) use Sec. 65852.21 in SB-9 to split the single-family home into two units; then (3) apply for an urban parcel split under Sec. 66411.7 of SB 9, and build an additional two units on the newly created parcel.
    • Eight Units: With approval from the local city or county, eight units could be created on a single-family lot by doing the following: (1) The single-family lot is split and becomes two lots; (2) Two free-standing houses or two townhouses or a duplex are built on each lot; (3) In addition, one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) are also developed on each lot. Both lots end up with 4 units each and together total 8 units, where there used to be just one single-family dwelling.

    An expert legislative analyst determined that Senate Bill 9 could result in the following development scenarios:

    • Eight Units: In addition to the above six-unit outcome, a developer could potentially create two more accessory dwelling units connected to the subdivision of the original single-family home (for a total of eight units), if the division of the main dwelling is considered a condominium. It could then be argued that each condominium is a separate “lot,” so each separate unit is entitled to the development of both junior and separate ADU’s. While such an interpretation may seem farfetched, SB 9 only says (Sec. 6582.21 (e)) that ADU’s need not be permitted by a local agency when the developer also proposes the parcel to be split. However, the urban parcel split section of SB 9 (Sec. 66411.7) contains no mention of Section 65852.21, or single-family homes, or ADU’s that may be on the parcel prior to a proposed split. Thus, a savvy developer can exploit this by first maximizing and completing development of the parcel prior to requesting a split. Given SB 9’s objective is to preempt local zoning, and prohibit related local public hearings and discretionary decisions, the total amount of allowed units on a parcel will likely trigger litigation over how to interpret SB 9’s interactions between dividing single-family homes, adding ADU’s and splitting parcels.
    • Ten Units: This is a stretch but yes, 10 units may be possible. There is an omission in the draft of SB 9 that raises the question whether a developer could create two junior accessory dwelling units in addition to the two new dwelling units on the split parcel, because Section 67411.7 (h) in SB 9 only refers to a prohibition on accessory dwelling units per Sec. 65852.2, which applies to accessory dwelling units, but does not also reference Sec. 65852.22 which specifically applies to junior accessory dwelling units. This concern is further bolstered by language in SB 10 (Wiener) which implies that each section contains separate authority and reads as follows: “(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a project to create no more than two accessory dwelling units and no more than two junior accessory dwelling units per parcel pursuant to Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 of the Government Code.”

    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.

    • A "high-quality transit corridor" means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
    • A “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

    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 (; Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers' (MCCMC's) Legislative Committee (; Senator Mike McGuire ( 415-479-6612; and Assembly Member Levine ( 415-479-4920 and urge them to oppose Senate Bill 9.

    Wednesday, February 10, 2021

    Report Of Attack On Marin Teen Found To Be Fabricated​


    Report Of Attack On Marin Teen Found To Be Fabricated​

    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.

    When investigators presented evidence to the girl, she admitted to fabricating the report, the Marin County Sheriff's Office said.
    When investigators presented evidence to the girl, she admitted to fabricating the report, the Marin County Sheriff's Office said. (Shutterstock)

    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.

    Friday, February 5, 2021

    Juvenile Jogger Assaulted in Marinwood - Seeking Public Assistance

    Juvenile Jogger Assaulted in Marinwood - Seeking Public Assistance

    Please help us identify the person depicted in the attached sketch

    On February 1st, 2021 around 6pm, a 15 year old female juvenile reported she was jogging in a neighborhood near Mt. Rainier Drive in the Marinwood neighborhood of San Rafael. She reported while she was jogging on a wooded foot path, a suspect came out from behind foliage in front of her and grabbed her face. The victim punched the suspect in the face and ran away; he chased her but did not catch up to her.

    The suspect is described a black male adult, 50-60 years old, 6 ft tall, medium build, with brown eyes and a black beard a couple inches in length. He was wearing a black beanie, a red fleece collared sweater, blue jogging pants, and white Adidas shoes with black stripes.

    The attached picture is a composite sketch of the suspect. We have utilized plain clothes Detectives to canvas the area, marked patrol vehicles are providing extra patrol and our Detectives are continuing their investigation. We are asking for the public’s assistance in attempting to identify the suspect in this case.

    We would also like to remind the public to remain vigilant while in the area and report any suspicious activity to the Marin County Sheriff’s Office. We will continue to provide both marked patrol vehicle extra patrols in addition to utilizing unmarked vehicles to canvas the area.

    If you recognize the suspect or have any information relevant to this investigation, please contact Detective Patton at or (415) 473-7265.

    No further information will be released at this time.

    Contact: Sergeant Brenton Schneider at

    Sunday, January 10, 2021

    Marin Voice: Housing rules allow corporate raiders to attack communities

     Marin Voice: Housing rules allow corporate raiders to attack communities

    By Susan Kirsch, January 7, 2021

    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