The San Francisco Exodus  

• Gabriel Metcalf
• Oct 14, 2013

My friends keep moving to Oakland. Gone from San Francisco for greener pastures and cheaper rents, because it’s just gotten too hard, by which I really mean too expensive. Their move signals that something has gone terribly wrong in this most progressive of American cities.

In some ways, we came by the problem innocently. San Francisco had the good fortune to be one of the very few 19th century industrial cities to successfully make the transition to a new, post-industrial economic base. It wasn’t just bohemians who set up shop here—all kinds of entrepreneurs and creative business people decided to call San Francisco home. As wave after wave of older industrial jobs moved out of town, new types of work were created to replace them.

At the same time, San Francisco was a great place to live. Partly from historical inheritance and partly from the work of activists who chose to make the city the focus of their activism, the city remained a walkable, urban paradise compared to most of America.

Something has gone terribly wrong in this most progressive of American cities.

A great quality of life and a lot of high-paying professional jobs meant that a lot of people wanted to live here. And they still do.

But the city did not allow its housing supply to keep up with demand. San Francisco was down-zoned (that is, the density of housing or permitted expansion of construction was reduced) to protect the "character" that people loved. It created the most byzantine planning process of any major city in the country. Many outspoken citizens did—and continue to do—everything possible to fight new high-density development or, as they saw it, protecting the city from undesirable change.

Unfortunately, it worked: the city was largely "protected" from change. But in so doing, we put out fire with gasoline. Over the past two decades, San Francisco has produced an average of 1,500 new housing units per year. Compare this with Seattle (another 19th century industrial city that now has a tech economy), which has produced about 3,000 units per year over the same time period (and remember it's starting from a smaller overall population base). While Seattle decided to embrace infill development as a way to save open space at the edge of its region and put more people in neighborhoods where they could walk, San Francisco decided to push regional population growth somewhere else.

Whatever the merits of this strategy might be in terms of preserving the historic fabric of the city, it very clearly accelerated the rise in housing prices. As more people move to the Bay Area, the demand for housing continues to increase far faster than supply.

There’s a lot of housing under construction now, and for the next couple of years, we’ll see more built. But a few years of strong housing production, building out neighborhood plans that the city has worked on for the last two decades, is going to be too little, too late to undo the larger trend. Absent any transformative approaches, new housing construction is likely to return to its normally low levels after the current round of building is finished.

Railing against Google buses, fancy restaurants or new condos—the visible signs of gentrification—will do nothing to stop San Francisco from becoming more expensive. These are not causes of the rising rents; they are symptoms. The root cause is that many people have chosen to live in San Francisco, and we are now all

Marin County Community Development Department admits "buffer inventory" is a Fraud.

Marin County Community Development Department admits that the so called "buffer inventory" becomes part of the "essential inventory" of subsidized housing for the California mandated Regional Needs Housing Assessment. Citizens complained when planners insisted in adding additional 400 units of inventory over the California State mandates during the 2014 Housing Element. The planning department claimed it was just insurance should the state not accept some of the sites. Now, once the RHNA has been approved, the Community Planning Department has a new tune. Buffer inventory must be replaced.

Such deceptions by the County Planning Department are common and is one of the reasons Citizens all over Marin County are rising up against this bureaucratic tyranny.

The 2014 Housing element should be amended to reflect only the state mandated requirements.


 We will Save Marin Again!

How Developers " Play to Win" over Stupid, Racist, NIMBYs in Marin

"Something is not right here. They told me high density housing was going to be great for Marin."

Editor's Note: Today, I got an invitation to a professional seminar promising to unlock the secrets of "countering public opposition against development". Of course, we have been under assault by the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Developers, Bankers and Housing activists for several years. Their dream is to turn Marin into a urban "smart growth" Shang-gi-la while most Marinites are happy with the human scale, garden communities close to nature we have today. We are happy to grow when it occurs the "Marin way" with concern for the total community, not just for developer dollars. For your amusement, try to identify all of the techniques being used on us.

How to Fight the ‘Not in My Back Yard’ Syndrome

Steps to mitigate opposition, build community support
By Al Maiorino | May 10, 2012
From Ethanol Producer

You have plans to build a biorefinery. Jobs, tax revenue, and much more are the benefits that will resonate with the community. At the first public hearing, however, opposition arises due to fears of having such an industry in the community. The entitling agency takes notice, and now you must build support, long after you have announced your plans and opposition has solidified


Why? Residents near the proposed site have created an opposition group to fight the project. Despite the fact that the new plant would generate renewable energy for many communities and improve the local economy, the community doesn’t seem to understand these benefits. The residents say the new facility would be too close to their homes and may potentially be hazardous to their health. They say it would create too much noise, pollution, and traffic, and would obstruct their views. You realize the opposition is a roadblock that may halt or even destroy the project. Now what do you do?

This problem is not so uncommon. This practice of communal opposition to development— the “not in my backyard” syndrome, or NIMBYism— blossomed in the 1980s. During that time, community concerns were often reasonable and justified. While those days are gone, the sentiment of opposition remains, and the “backyard” has grown so vastly that NIMBYism affects companies all over the world. With modern technology and strict government regulations, however, the inconvenience caused by any sort of development is usually reduced to a minimum.

Get the Message Out

Very often, the opposition stems from misinformation and poor communication between project representatives and the community. In this case, it is better to play on the offensive. Instead of waiting for the opposition to grow, present it with the facts.

It is necessary to look for local support and build allies to form a supporter coalition. First and foremost, identify and create a database of local residents who are in favor of, against, or undecided about the project. A good way to begin is by carrying out a poll or a phone bank, asking local residents about their view of the renewable energy industry in general and your development plan in particular. The survey results may be published to showcase the positive attitude in the community toward the venture.

Once the database is created, it should be maintained and updated frequently for the campaign management to be aware of changes in local opinion. One way to do this is through a targeted direct mail and/or advertising campaign. A strong social media campaign is modern and necessary to spread your message, reach out to the community, and provide supporters with a communication outlet.

Organization of a database is crucial to the success of a campaign. Whether the identification process is achieved through direct mail, radio, phone calls or email, having an unorganized list of supporters and undecided residents doesn’t do your campaign any good. By inputting your supporters into a database, you can then separate them by town, county and legislative district for effective grassroots lobbying.

Now that you have distinguished supporters from opposition, the next step is to reach out to third-party groups that support the development. These groups could be anything from small businesses to a local decision maker. Companies or groups with whom you have had a positive relationship or who will benefit from your project should be encouraged to participate in the campaign. Do not focus only on third-party groups for support: Third-party groups are critical for your efforts, but often a few dozen “regular citizens” showing up to hearings and meetings can benefit your project tremendously.

Residents should express their support through writing letters to their elected officials or newspapers. Those who are looking to support further can attend public hearings, where they can speak about the benefits of the project. Most likely, an independent pro-group will have emerged by now and will actively participate in all aspects of the campaign.

Grassroots campaigns create a support group of members from the local community that can assist in your efforts. The support group can actively promote your project through social networking. Proactive support groups are also a great source of volunteers and as they volunteer, they’ll feel more committed and supportive of your project.

Campaigns should be designed based on several factors including the size of the population you are targeting, the level of opposition, and the length of the entitlement process. Many of these campaigns should research their territory, identify supporters, code them into a database, not rely solely on email, not focus only on third-party support and always be transparent.

Regardless of the industry or location, NIMBYism always presents itself in an attempt to curb a proposal. It can attack any project no matter how big or small. Employing proper campaign tactics and developing the right grassroots campaign can counter NIMBY opposition to your energy projects.

Be Proactive

Companies frequently wait until opposition arises to hire a public affairs firm. By then residents have solidified their positions on a project, making it all the more difficult for them to change their minds in your favor. While some may feel the “added cost” of a public affairs firm is not worth it to the project budget, think about how much it costs a project to be delayed weeks, months or years, or to be outright denied approval. You may choose to fight NIMBYism on your own. Experience shows, however, that hiring a specialized firm will provide you with the necessary tools and tactics to ensure a victory for your development. Trained professionals from a grassroots firm will make sure that the correct message from your company is being distributed to the community and that the silent majority is heard.

The way you approach the situation will make all the difference. You can choose to ignore the NIMBY fight, avoid communicating with the local community, and take the situation to an unnecessary level of tension. Or, you and/or a specialized team can develop a strategy, engage in conversation with the community, and encourage project proponents to voice their support.

Report on the Board of Supervisors Meeting August 18, 2014

Katie Rice, Marin County Supervisor



Kate Sears, Marin County Supervisor



Steve Kinsey, Marin County Supervisor



Judy Arnold, Marin County Supervisor



Brian Crawford, Marin County Community Development Director and Matthew Hymel, County Executive in foreground.

Brent Ainsworth, Marin County Communications Consultant, photographed dissidents in the audience.

Report from the August 18, 2014 Marin County Board of Supervisor's meeting

by Peter Hensel

At the sups meeting, before Marin Community Development Director Brian Crawford gave his presentation, at least two of the sups---Katie Rice and Judy Arnold---seemed to take some pleasure in rankling high density foes sitting in the back of the chambers.

"I see a lot of familiar faces and a familiar color--red," noted Rice. She said she was glad we were taking an interest in the proceedings and the issues but chided us to make our comments "fact-based". Her tone was outwardly pleasant but the import held a lecturing, schoolmarm-ish edge.

Judy Arnold went one better on Rice. She said, from the rostrum, that the sups have been receiving lots of email which echoed the message of Community Venture Partners. (CVP is a new grassroots activist group with some land use expertise and legal clout, boasting stellar environmental attorney Ed Yates as one of its members).

Arnold opined that Community Ventures Partners seems to be little more than "a recycled version of Citizen Marin". She then proceeded to read aloud---and into the record---a letter written by an unnamed citizen that urged the supervisors to go forward post haste with an uber ambitious housing element plan that would sanction building in Marin's unincorporated areas as much as four times the number of units mandated by the state, which is 185.

She euphemistically referred to that massive cushion as a " buffer"---which theoretically would facilitate prompt state certification of the Marin County Housing Element.

The other sups, Katie Sears and Steve Kinsey, sat listening impassively. They didn't volunteer any opinions diverging from those of Rice and Arnold. Kinsey especially seem to be preoccupied with a personal sheaf or papers on the rostrum countertop.

Steve Kinsey, typically does not look up from his papers to acknowledge the audience during meetings.

It was only after this intro, followed by Crawford's fifteen minute presentation lauding the merits of the HE plan, that the high density foes---some wearing red, some not---were invited to form a line and each given three minutes to speak from the floor.

The facial expressions of the sups changed at that point, from confident to mildly ill at ease. Could it be that real listening is not their strong suit?

Activist Stephen Nestel of Save Marinwood went first.

"Mr. Kinsey, this (visioned) high density building (along and near the 101 corridor) would not be in your backyard, would it?" Kinsey, who lives in West Marin, did not reply.

Ms. Rice," Nestel continued, "this high density building would not be in your backyard, now, would it?.."
Silence from the rostrum.

And so on down the line.

Supervisor Susan Adams was spared Nestel's scrutiny because she was absent on 20th. Adams, of course, was voted out of office last spring. In the same election, incumbent Judy Arnold only very narrowly survived a challenge from upstart Toni Shroyer.

But that didn't stop Arnold from throwing out her public dig at Pat Ravasio and Corte Madera Council as the public hearing portion of the meeting ended and the activists headed for the door.

One might ask, if Arnold disses Corte Madera Council (and she does) why does she now support upzoning in unincorporated Marin that would potentially allow building four times the number of units now rising on the ill-fated WinCup property?

Brian Crawford, Director of Community Development lectured Marinwood/Lucas Valley about the importance of low income housing in our community. According to the 2010 census, the median HOUSEHOLD income in our neighborhood is slightly below the Marin County "low income" designation ( $88,000 for a family of four) at $85,444. This means our average household "deserves" taxpayer supported housing.  But half our property owners who earn LESS than low income but will pay MORE property taxes for TAX FREE developments to house people who earn MORE than us. This is an outrage.

Life is good for Mr. Crawford though.  According to the public employee salary database TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA he earned $241,697.07 in salary and benefits in 2013 . LOOK IT UP HERE.  Other top planners in his department earn well over $150,000 in salary  and benefits.

These are the people lecturing us about "social equity"?

 The Unholy Trinity of Public Sector Unions, Environmentalists, and Wall Street

By Ed Ring On May 6, 2014 · Leave a Comment

Taken at surface value, there ought to be minimal identity of interests between these three special interests. But if you follow the money and power instead of the rhetoric and stereotypes, you will find this unhealthy alliance is alive and thriving. For example, unions use “greenmail,” the threat of a lawsuit on environmentalist grounds, to block developments until the businesses involved concede to union demands. Once they back down, the environmental problem magically disappears.
California’s much vaunted high-speed rail and delta tunnel proposals are also examples of the unhealthy rapprochement between unions (public and private) and environmentalists. Because the construction unions, God bless ‘em, want thousands of good new construction jobs, and the only big projects that are environmentally correct are these monstrosities. The unions have a choice – fight the environmentalists in order to lobby for public works that actually yield economic benefits to society, or enjoy their considerable support for a couple of misguided mega-projects.
Beyond obvious examples, how unions, environmentalists, and America’s overbuilt financial sector collude – often unwittingly, does not lend itself to emotionally resonant, simple narrative. It can’t be expressed in a few declarative sentences. But because this web of collusion is stunting the economic growth of America and systematically destroying its middle class, it is a story that must be told. Here are some points that all exemplify the chain of cause and effect, linking the interests of public sector unions, environmentalists, and Wall Street.

• Public sector unions demand, and get, over-market compensation and benefit packages. This causes budget deficits which, in turn (1) enables environmentalists to more easily fight and defeat infrastructure investments, and (2) creates hundreds of billions in business for Wall Street bond underwriters who finance budget deficits.
• Politicians controlled by public sector unions declare new infrastructure – freeways, utility upgrades, improved water infrastructure, upgraded grid, investment in airports and seaports, etc., to be environmentally unsound. The real reason, however, is they want the tax revenue to go to increasing pay and benefits for public employees.
• Wall Street investment firms work with pension funds to convince public sector unions that it is financially feasible and reasonable to enhance pension benefits – or not reduce them, as is more recently the case. As hundreds of billions each year of taxpayers money pours into these funds, investment firms make huge profits. If they don’t earn enough, they raise taxes.
• Environmentalists come up with a “market-based” way to curb dangerous greenhouse gasses, an “emissions auction” plan, which in turn (1) enables Wall Street trading firms to collect a fee on literally every BTU of fossil fuel consumed in America, and (2) empowers public sector agencies to redefine their jobs (mass transit workers, firefighters, code inspectors, teachers – even police since crime increases during hot weather) as coping with, educating about, or mitigating the effects of global warming, allowing these government agencies to collect the proceeds of the emissions auctions.
• Without an endlessly appreciating asset bubble, every public employee pension fund in the United States would go broke. To pump up this asset bubble, environmentalist restrictions artificially accelerate price appreciation for land, housing, gasoline, electricity, and other basic needs. And of course, financial institutions reap spectacular profits during periods of rapid asset appreciation.

It is reasonable at this point to wonder – what about business? What is their role in this? That is simple – big business benefits, by being able to afford to comply with excessive regulations and by being able to afford a unionized workforce. In general, smaller companies, innovators, emerging competitors, are crushed by the power of unions and environmentalists, just like the middle class.
There are consequences of an unexamined, unchallenged yet powerful de-facto alliance between public sector unions, environmentalists, and the financial sector that ought to animate anyone claiming to care about America’s working middle class – whether they adhere to the ideology of the Occupy movement, or the Tea Party movement. Because the consequences are a higher cost of living with minimal economic growth and new opportunities. The consequences are an increasingly monopolized, anti-competitive private sector, a perennially swollen financial sector, and an increasingly authoritarian, self-interested government. Public sector unions and Wall Street use the environmental movement for cover. This factor should temper any assessment of environmentally inspired policies.
Unions in the private sector, were they to adhere to their ideals and even their most cherished pragmatic goals, would use their considerable influence to rein in the unchecked power of environmentalists. Only then will their desire for more and better jobs, building tangible assets that are actually beneficial to society, be best realized. Public sector unions, on the other hand, whose entire reason for existence is inherently in conflict with society at large, should be illegal.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.

The Marin County Housing Element Show at the Pickleweed Community Center in San Rafael on May 3, 2014

The Community Development Department of Marin County brought their Housing Element roadshow to the Al Boro Pickleweed Community Center in the Canal District in San Rafael.

Less than forty people attended.  About half present were county employees either employed as facilitators or acting as "concerned citizens". About a quarter were paid housing activists, architects, tenant activists and builders who will financially benefit from taxpayer subsidized housing and a few regular citizens concerned about the  over development of Marin.

The event was staged to produce a predetermined outcome while creating the illusion of public participation, utilizing the Delphi Technique.  Participants were not allowed to question the data, the housing locations or the basic underpinnings of their methodology.

The video is just the introductory session and promotional video. The second part of the exercise is when everyone breaks out to small groups were the real manipulation happens.

With an overwhelming presence of housing planners and activists, there is certainty that the outcome will be for an aggressive campaign to build more tax payer subsidized affordable housing. (Wall street bankers and mega corporations purchasing the tax benefits are thrilled by our "generosity")

It is best that you review the Delphi Technique video/article to place the above video in context.

See related posts: 

How you will be manipulated at the Housing Element meetings using the Delphi Technique

and video

The Delphi Technique

Planning Director, Brian Crawford defends the high concentrations of affordable housing in Marinwood-Lucas Valley, Tam Valley and Strawberry

for the full meeting see June 24, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting

Editors note: 3/22/2014 When I published this last year, it caused a minor sensation in Marinwood-Lucas Valley.  It showed the absolute hubris of the county to assume that a community that is populated as our neighborhoods should be a target for affordable housing development because our land values are lower than the rest of Marin.  The planners and politicians show their cards that their objectives is profits for the developer is more important than the needy people they serve or the community that hosts them. The video clip was mysteriously deleted or altered. I have not checked if it is still available in the full meeting clip.  The County government removes embarassing material regularly.  If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.  We will Save Marin Again! 

The urban Brian Crawford earned $239,525 in 2012 according to Marin IJ HERE to tell us all how we should develop our communities.  Isn't he special.  He'll get to retire early too at up to 90% of his salary.
The median Household income for San Rafael in 2011 was $71,510. He earns roughly 3 times this amount.
Who are the real elitists?

One of the more outrageous aspects of the Housing Element for unincorporated Marin is that 78% of all affordable housing is located in Marinwood-Lucas Valley which is just 0.6% of the entire county.   The planners and politicians justify this as "public policy" and "available land"..  blah, blah, blah.

Doesn't it make sense to integrate the needy throughout the county evenly?  Won't this provide opportunity and fairness and integration?

Of course, this makes too much sense.  The self style "elites" in other parts of Marin  make excuses to shirk their responsibiliy, complain that they are built out and can't possibly take their fairshare,  The housing allocations get pushed onto the weakest political districts without representation - like Marinwood-Lucas Valley.

Question Authority.

Silvestri: The Great PDA Debate Part II

The Great PDA Debate - Part II

Posted by Bob Silvestri , March 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM

The Win Cup Project in Corte Madera

Read The Great PDA Debate - Part I

When Marin County prepared its Housing Element and proposed how much multifamily development should occur in the future, they adopted the "default density” offered by state law.

The default density for Marin is 30 units per acre. Adopting the default density alleviates the County's need to do any kind of study or research to support what actual density might be required to fulfill their obligations under their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) quota. In other words, if a city or county has a lot of potential building sites available, they could argue that even a density of 10 units per acre would fulfill the RHNA quota. This would mean that building lower densities would be justified in their area and HCD would probably have to accept that if the total RHNA was addressed adequately.

This is essentially what Mill Valley and Novato did. They produced their own analysis to prove that they had plenty of development and rezoning opportunities available to satisfy their RHNA numbers, at lower than 30 units per acre. Accepting the default density for the Housing Element, as the County did, is the lazy man's way to do it.

The recent Marin IJ Voice by Sharon Rushton does an excellent job of explaining all this. And as noted by Glen Campora, Assistant Deputy Director of HCD, in his letter of March 18, 2013 to the Novato Homeowners Association:

“Flexibility was increased in 2004 when Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3) was amended to provide all jurisdictions the option to adopt the applicable statutory default density deemed appropriate for a rural, suburban, or urban jurisdiction to accommodate housing for lower-income households. “

“In updating its housing element, Novato has the flexibility to choose to (1) provide an appropriate analysis demonstrating how its adopted densities can accommodate development of housing affordable to lower income households or (2) adopt the default density of 30 units per acre.”

This flexibility is quite broad and is particularly important because Marin is presently mis-classified as an “urban” area by HCD, rather than being classified correctly as “rural” and “suburban.” So the efforts by our BOS and County staff, on our behalf, were really needed when the County

The Great PDA Debate - Part I

Posted by Bob Silvestri , March 11, 2014 at 03:22 PM

On February 25th the Marin County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing about whether or not to remove the Priority Development Area (PDA) in the Strawberry neighborhood. A PDA is a land use designation that a city or county can assign to indicate a desire for high density growth in that location.

The hearing was led by Kate Sears, the Supervisor for the Strawberry district, who lectured the public in chatty, schoolmarm tones through an ever-present grin that seemed oblivious to the community’s need for her to at least emotionally acknowledge the seriousness of the issue before them.

As the Grateful Dead song Truckin goes," You've got two good eyes but you still don't see.."  Supervisor Kate Sears refused to put the Strawberry PDA on the Board of Supervisor's agenda for 14 consecutive meetings despite hundreds citizen requests. She is seen here at the Feb 25, 2014 meeting. She expressed disappointment that it could not have been made smaller and blamed the public for misinformation.

For months Ms. Sears had tried to dismiss, deflect and derail the need for such a hearing. At first she tried to divide and conquer by refusing to attend any large community meetings: she would only meet with small groups to diffuse dissent. But her attempts didn’t work. She had ignored requests to put the topic on the agenda of the weekly BOS meetings for 14 consecutive weeks, but the public wouldn’t let up. She had even tried to shift the decision’s responsibility to entirely different agency, the Transportation Authority of Marin, but to no avail. Her curious obstructionist tactics only fanned the flames. By now her constituents were fully informed and actively engaged in making their opinions known.

And so it began.

After a variety of somewhat long winded, defensive and off topic remarks by most of the Supervisors it was time for a presentation by Community Development Director, Brian Crawford.

Mr. Crawford’s staff report was ostensibly about the history, locations and ramifications of PDAs in Marin, but it ended up being a good deal of confusing disinformation and “planner- speak” gibberish (see video here: Item 16). But as innocuous as his report may have seemed, it was in some ways one of the more important things that occurred at the meeting because it touched on, or perhaps more appropriately failed to touch on, larger issues we are facing about PDAs.

No Wonder Everyone Is So Confused

The urbane, highly paid Brian Crawford, explains to the Board of Supervisors and the hundreds of Citizens about the Highway 101 PDA Corridor that was "volunteered" by the Community.  Despite the intense protest of residents, Smart Growth and Plan Bay Area boosters claim that we must urbanize Marin.

Mr. Crawford showed the Board a map of the County’s Priority Development Areas. On it, it showed that the entire north-south corridor within a half mile of highway 101 was designated as the “Highway 101 PDA Corridor” (indicated by hash marks).  Mr. Crawford went on to explain that the County had “volunteered” this entire swath of land as a PDA back in 2006 and 2007, during the Pre-Plan Bay Area “Focus” sessions led by ABAG. He then noted that in 2010 to 2011 the BOS had voted to confirm this PDA designation for the 101 corridor and to include what the map called “Transit Neighborhoods,” which included the Strawberry PDA.

Oddly, his presentation and charts made it sound as if (1) the county had the authority to dictate land use for property that was located within other cities in Marin, and (2) that everything within a half like of highway 101 was a PDA, as defined by Plan Bay Area.
This, of course, is completely wrong.

The areas noted as Transit Neighborhoods were in fact the only actual PDAs.  But the map was still incorrect because the outlines of the areas noted as Transit Neighborhoods did not correspond accurately to the areas of the actual PDAs noted in the County’s Housing Element. In places like Marin City, for example, this is significant because his map showed County Housing Authority-owned projects, like Golden Gate Village, as being in a PDA, which it is not.

Why the map was presented at all remains a mystery.

However, predictably, not a single Supervisor raised an eyebrow or seemed to care enough to question his misstatements even though they should have all known that the County’s Housing Element only recognized a few remaining areas as actual PDAs: Strawberry, Marin City and California Park (Marinwood and the Tam/Almonte area having already been removed).

But okay, so the map was wrong. What’s the big deal?

Some Backstory

The ABAG Focus sessions that Brian Crawford referred to happened prior to the passage of Senate Bill 375 in September of 2008. SB375 was the legislation that made the terms “Priority Development Area” (PDA) and “Transit Priority Project Area” (TPA) meaningful legal terms and connected them to federal and state transportation funding. That funding was the primary argument the BOS had been making as to why the Strawberry PDA should remain.

Following the passage of SB375, our metropolitan planning organization (ABAG and MTC) had to craft a “Sustainable Communities Strategy,” which became a known as Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area was not adopted until June of 2013. 

Whatever the County might have done prior to the adoption of Plan Bay Area was not officially connected to federal and state transportation funding that Plan Bay Area brought with it targeted for PDAs.  

It’s important to also know that it was SB375 that clearly defined the state’s intention of promoting and incentivizing zoning changes for high density transit oriented development (TOD). SB375 and Plan Bay Area make it emphatically clear (in fact it’s pretty much their sole purpose) that 80 percent of the TOD that occurs is targeted for

Silvestri: High Drama and the Dark Side of PDAs in Marin County

See Article: High Drama and the Dark Side of PDAs in Marin County

Controversy about Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in Marin has been in the news. After more than a year of growing public protest, focused ... View more mostly on two communities: Marinwood and Manzanita / Tam Valley / Almonte, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) reversed their long standing position and voted this week to remove the PDA designations from those areas.

This leaves three other unincorporated areas as designated PDAs: the Strawberry Village area, the Gateway Shopping Center community in Marin City and the California Park area of San Rafael (other than the fact that in 2007 the BOS designated the entire 101 corridor a PDA, subject to the zoning and planning of the incorporated cities it encompasses).

The only other specific PDA designations remaining in Marin are in the city of San Rafael: downtown at the bus depot and at the Civic Center.

PDAs are land use zoning designations that the Board of Supervisors assigned to these areas in 2007 in the interest of promoting higher density growth and as part of an application for federal and state transportation funds that were designed to encourage that kind of development (the ABAG/MTC “FOCUS” program).

Recently, those designated areas became a part of Plan Bay Area, the regional planning initiative created by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in response to the passage of SB375 in 2008. But, again, the PDAs were not something imposed on Marin by higher authorities or Plan Bay Area. They were willingly volunteered by our BOS in the hopes of getting grants.

 

San Rafael was also responsible for creating its two PDAs. Of late, the San Rafael Planning Commission has vigorously opposed growing community objections to moving forward with developing their PDAs to the fullest extent possible (hundreds of units of 3 to 5 story high, high density, multifamily and mixed use development), regardless of the outsized impacts on infrastructure capacity, schools, or traffic congestion.

What appears to be behind this “stonewalling” is a fear that the $500,000 in study grant money they’ve already taken from MTC (and spent on their planning) would have to be given back if their PDAs were removed.

However, Steve Heminger, the executive director of MTC, has already stated publicly that this would not be the case. So the City of San Rafael’s resistance to being reasonable remains a mystery.

Removing PDAs in Marin

Meanwhile, with regard to unincorporated parts of Marin, for more than a year the BOS took the position that the PDA designations were an essential part of the overall planning process and Plan Bay Area, and that it would be so difficult and potentially costly to attempt remove or revise them, that it could not even be considered. We’ve been told that potential penalties and huge amounts of “transportation dollars” would be at stake if we even considered removing PDAs, even though no one could say with any certainty how much (if any) funding was really at risk.

Endless hearings and debates, both in BOS chambers and in the press, have argued this issue back and forth. The community was put through thousands of man hours of work, organizing, petitioning, researching, writing public comment letters, and attending meetings, all in an attempt to correct what they felt were poor planning decisions and a flawed planning process.

But moreover, the community’s biggest and most legitimate ongoing complaint has been that important planning decisions like these were and continue to be made without any correspondingly broad-based notice to the thousands of tax paying residents throughout the county who would be affected by them. After all, we all get a written notice in the mail when a neighbor a block away wants to do a bathroom addition but for something of this magnitude people got no notice at all.

This failure by local government and elected officials to improve their methods of notifying their constituents and communicating and listening to their concerns about major planning and financial decisions seems to have become epidemic in Marin County government affairs.

A global problem in all this is that the BOS and even most of our City Councils and local agencies need to understand that in our 21st century, 24/7, real time, interactive world, a half inch high “public notice” published in the Marin IJ or worse, one of the Marin Scope papers, does not constitute adequate public notice or solicitation of public input for decisions of this importance.

The "Obstacles" To Removing PDAs

In any case, the impression created by the BOS and County Planning Staff has been that removal of PDAs would be a big deal and at the least require a great deal of negotiation with and “approval” by the “powers that be” at ABAG and MTC and possibly even with Housing and Community Development (HCD) in Sacramento.

This perception continues to be reinforced by the general tone of Brian Crawford’s July 9th “report” to the BOS on the question of whether or not the BOS can remove PDAs in Marin (attached).

However, in his six page report, Mr. Crawford finally comes out and states that “yes” he believes the BOS can remove the PDAs “subject to confirmation from ABAG.” We're led to believe we should all be relieved to learn this.

The problem is that all this has just been political theater.

Pulling Back The Curtain

Attached is a letter from ABAG to the BOS explaining that removal and revision of PDA designations is and always has been completely at their discretion. In particular please note the paragraph on the bottom of page 2 which states that "The County Board of Supervisors can, at any time, modify or eliminate all or part of the Potential Highway 101 PDA."

The truth is there never were any obstacles to removing or revising PDAs in Marin, and no agency has ever had any authority to dictate anything to us, about it.

The BOS could have removed PDAs at any time and can continue to remove PDAs at any time in the future, even after Plan Bay Area is adopted, if that happens. And there is only the "potential" loss of transportation dollars in the future but there is no guarantee than any money is actually at stake.

The bottom line is that the public has been put through intense agony and endless hours of work for nothing. My question is why.

Any one of our supervisors could have simply picked up the phone and called ABAG or MTC’s legal counsel in the past two years (as I did) and gotten that same answer. Or since most of them have actually served on ABAG’s committees in one form or another, they could have just asked.

If they had done so, they would have also learned that it is not “subject to confirmation” by ABAG, as Mr. Crawford maintains, because ABAG cannot deny removal or changes to PDAs. ABAG only asks that they be informed so they can adjust their own maps and internal documents.

The “confirmation” is simply confirmation of receipt of the changes. It’s not an approval process.

What Exactly Are The Supervisors Supervising?

This whole thing is somewhat mind-boggling. What the heck have our “supervisors” been doing all this time? Aren’t they even capable of making a phone call to ABAG on their own? Why have they put the community through so much time, stress and expense when they could have said at the outset that this was within our powers and a community decision that needs to be decided, locally?

It’s no secret that I’m a big critic of ABAG and MTC and Plan Bay Area. But truth be known, they are not culpable here.

Since their decision to remove two PDAs, the Supervisors are attempting to posture their actions as “leadership” decisions and evidence of how hard they are working for us. But they have no place to hide in all this. I guess they can either claim gross ignorance or admit total incompetence for putting the community through so much grief.

Either way, what exactly are we paying them to do, again?

The Devil Made Me Do It

The BOS will argue that Plan Bay Area didn’t exist in 2007, when they created the PDAs, so they didn’t know this controversy would arise. But that makes no difference because the goals of the PDAs are unchanged since that time: to promote high density development focused in very specific communities. Plan Bay Area is just another funding sources for this over-sized transportation oriented development.

The BOS will also naively argue that promoting property entitlements for higher density development, as PDAs so, does not mean the properties will actually be developed and there is still a local planning process to protect public interests. This is nonsense.

Property entitlements are generally considered the most important indicator of what will be developed and where. Entitlements directly impact land values (i.e. more allowable density increases the property’s selling price) and directly impacts what kind of development will be built there (i.e. the highest and best use for the developer).

For Susan Adams to continue to claim that PDA designations do not equate to actual development is equally nonsensical. If she’s right, then all of us who have spent most of our lives developing or investing in real estate assets have been dead wrong. It’s been one of our most important leading indicators about development (i.e. profit) potential.

Further, to continue to claim that a "rigorous" process and review will face any project proposal for property within a PDA designation again smacks of either unfathomable ignorance, questionable competence or flat out deception.

Susan Adams should know by now that SB375 allows private developers, who have an interest in a property (i.e. an option to purchase), to "assume" the zoning they need for "qualifying" project proposals (49 percent affordable), then sue the county for that zoning if it's not automatically granted. And in a reversal of centuries old real estate law, rather than the developer having to argue why his project should be approved under local regulations, the burden of proof (and legal cost) is now placed upon the county (the taxpayers) to make the case for why it shouldn't.

Similarly, under SB226, CEQA is waived entirely for qualifying "infill" projects near public transportation (Marinwood, Tam/Almonte, Marin City, Manzanita). Add to that the potential financial incentives (OBAG grants) and the highly politicized RHNA quota and Housing Element approval processes, and SB375's automatic CEQA "streamlining," and a great deal of county control over its own zoning is already long gone.

Entitlements Are The First Step Toward Development

There is no doubt that a PDA designation or even being designated as an “opportunity site” on a Housing Element site list bolsters a developer’s claim to having the “right” to develop a property. If anyone needs proof of this, they need look no further than Mill Valley, where a developer is currently threatening to sue the city for his “right” to develop a high density project on a site placed on an approved Housing Element list a decade ago, even though that property is not presently zoned for multifamily development.

Still, the larger problem remains about inadequate public notice and participation in these kinds of planning decisions - decisions that can potentially change the character and quality of life in Marin, and even impact the solvency of some of our public services institutions, for decades to come.

Methods of communicating and interacting with residents and integrating community feedback into BOS decision making processes needs to change and change quickly.

But there’s more to this story.

The Dark Side of "Smart Growth"

Now that the BOS has removed half the designated PDAs in Marin, they have unintentionally placed an even greater development burden on those few remaining PDA areas: Strawberry, Marin City, etc. And in one instance those who are most in need, some of our most economically disadvantaged residents, may now be in greater risk of being displaced.

Golden Gate Village is a 292 unit, low income housing project in Marin City. Hundreds of its occupants, who are mostly black and longtime Marin residents, are increasingly fearful that their PDA designation will create increased pressure to demolish their homes and replace them with new high density, “mixed income” development that none of the existing residents will be able to afford to live in.

Their fears may not be entirely unfounded.

Golden Gate Village has been falling steadily in its HUD maintenance inspection report ratings for almost a decade. It is now among the worse rated projects in the state of California with an average maintenance inspection rating of 59.35 percent compared to the state average of 82.74 percent (HUD FindTheData).

A full investigation of this project’s plight is more than can be covered in this article, but suffice it to say the pressure to “improve” their property by replacing it with a more profitable project (i.e. tax credit financed “Smart Growth”) rather than upgrading it, has increased.

This pressure to build only new housing is exacerbated by the fact that there are almost no available sources of funding assistance to renovate existing affordable housing, and ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment quota system doesn’t count renovation of units as “qualifying” units.

This is the dark side of Plan Bay Area and PDAs that’s never discussed.

Having gone the first step, it seems the BOS now has only one choice if they care about social equity and social justice and community based planning. And that is to remove all the designated PDAs in Marin County.

They can do it with the stroke of a pen. They only need to act.