Welcome to your New Family Home at Wonderful Marinwood Village!

The Toxic Avenger from the film The Toxic Avenger

For years and years, it is alleged that the dry cleaner who leased at Marinwood Plaza, dumped toxic waste down his drain and over the fence behind his store.   The Marinwood Plaza site is now contaminated at unacceptable levels according to state laws.  Although some mitigation measures have taken place the toxic waste site is far from clean. According to State regulators the damage is much greater than previously reported.

The "brownfield" contaminated site now extends under the freeway on ramp and clear across to the east side next to the Silveira ranch.  To properly clean the site,  hundreds of cubic yards of soil will need to be cleaned, replaced and sealed to prevent further environmental damage and to make it safe for human habitation. The containment is PCE which breaks down into multiple toxic compounds. It is now illegal for use in California.

The site is also home to two high power microwave transmission towers

on the southeast corner of the property. 

Microwaves are also a known health hazard

All hidden behind a 16 foot soundwall barrier that will reduce traffic noise

but still subject inhabitants to roadway pollutants.

Would you choose to move your family to Marinwood Village?

We MUST insist that Bridge Housing do a full Environmental Review and treat toxic waste to the highest levels of safety.  We will not allow a "negative declaration" to avoid rigorous review.

If you care about the community, you will care about the health of the residents, the quality of Dixie schools and the financial integrity of the Marinwood Village proposal

Speak up for your rights and your community!

Tyranny Bay Area

 

Randal O'Toole, author, environmentalist, smart growth critic spoke at "Great Debate" in 2013.

Plan Bay Area, a regional plan written for nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay was voted on in Summer 2013. This plan is so poorly written that it makes me proud to be an antiplanner; if I were a real planner, I’d be ashamed to be associated with a profession that could produce such a shoddy plan.

The main problem with the plan is that its main prescriptions were set in advance of any analysis of whether they would be effective. In fact, planners never did analyze whether those or any alternative policies would cost-effectively meet the plan’s goals.

Under California law, the plan must meet two goals: reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make housing more affordable. The heart of the plan calls for densification of dozens of neighborhoods in the region and expansion of rail transit service by more than 35 percent. The plan also calls for tightening existing urban-growth boundaries, so to achieve planned densification and accommodate an anticipated 30 percent population growth, the plan requires the destruction of more than 169,000 single-family homes.

Planners didn’t do any analysis to show that densification and rail transit will reduce greenhouse gases or make housing more affordable. Of the five alternatives considered in the plan, all but the “do-nothing” alternative target neighborhoods for densification and increase rail transit by more than 35 percent. While do nothing does not target specific neighborhoods for densification, it still densifies, and it also increases rail transit by 25 percent. So it is clear that planners really didn’t consider any alternatives other than densification and more trains.

A careful analysis of data in the environmental impact report reveals that densification and transit improvements together are projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by less than 1 percent. All the other emission reductions that the plan takes credit for come from other programs, mostly programs done by other agencies. While the plan does not have any cost data, it is likely that those other programs cost far less than densification and rail improvements.

Even the less-than-1 percent reduction in emissions depends on planners’ optimistic projections that more rail transit will boost per capita transit ridership by 40 to 60 percent; in fact, despite all the rail transit built in the region in the last 30 years, per capita transit ridership has declined by 35 percent and per capita transit passenger miles has declined by 5 percent since 1982.

On top of that, far from improving housing affordability, the plan admits that densification will actually make housing less affordable. The plan calls for mitigating this by subsidizing housing for a relative handful of low-income people, but those subsidies will probably just make housing even less affordable for everyone else.

California law requires that per capita greenhouse gas emissions from autos be reduced by 15 percent by 2040. As it happens, another California law, known as the Pavley law, requires that future cars be more fuel efficient. By 2040, that law will reduce per capita emissions from cars by at least 27 percent.

So how can the plan justify using subsidies to densify scores of neighborhoods and expanding rail transit when those policies will do almost nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Simple. Planners simply ignored the Pavley standards when calculating whether an alternative complied with the per capita emissions standard. Although they also calculated emissions with the Pavley standards, they nevertheless concluded that (without the Pavley standards) the only way to meet the 15-percent-reduction requirement was to densify and increase rail service.

In short, Plan Bay Area planners not only failed to plan properly, they were dishonest with their results. Next time someone asks me why I’m an antiplanner, all I’ll have to do is point to Plan Bay Area.

The Death of St Vincents Plans circa 2002

St. Vincent's Chapel in Marinwood/Lucas Valley St. Vincents Plans Could Be On Hold

[print]

By Richard Halstead Recent developments could spell double trouble for Shapell Industries' controversial plan to develop the 836-acre site owned by the St. Vincent's School for Boys between Highway 101 and San Pablo Bay. At the request of San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, San Rafael is re-evaluating its support for annexation of the county land. Without the services that annexation to San Rafael would provide, the project cannot be built. At the same time, representatives of four key environmental groups - the Marin Conservation League, the local chapter of the Sierra Club, the Marin Audubon Society, and Citizen Advocates for Preservation of St. Vincent's/Silveira - are meeting with county supervisors behind the scenes, urging them to take a more prominent role in determining the property's fate. Shapell's proposal calls for construction of a 766-unit residential subdivision and 124,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. Critics worry that the project would aggravate the county's traffic woes, while proponents stress it would supply crucial housing. Boro said recent developments, such as Susan Adams' upset election to the Board of Supervisors, have called into question whether or not the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission would approve annexation, even if San Rafael approves the project. "I'm getting the very strong impression that it's not annexed to the city yet, and it may never be," Boro said. "I don't want to waste a lot of time and effort." Acting with the support of the San Rafael City Council, Boro has directed San Rafael's city manager, community development director and city attorney to prepare a report outlining the city's options. City Manager Rod Gould said he expects to present the report sometime next month, perhaps in a special meeting. Following Adams' dramatic upset victory, local environmentalists signaled they would make the future of the St. Vincent's property an issue in the elections of three San Rafael City Council members next year. The terms of Boro and Councilmen Paul Cohen and Gary Phillips expire next November. Boro said his decision to re-evaluate had nothing to do with politics. The mayor's surprising move elicited a variety of reactions from local officials. "I don't know what it means yet; I think he wanted to get something on the table so we could talk about it," said Cohen, who lost last month's run-off election to Adams. During the campaign Adams opposed the Shapell proposal while Cohen said he would wait for the completion of an environmental report before taking a position on the plan. "I don't know if we'll change our position or whether we'll just simply accept the report," said San Rafael Councilwoman Barbara Heller. "But I think it is prudent to get all the information you can." Supervisor Steve Kinsey, however, believes the development proposal is headed to the deep freeze for a long period of hibernation. "I think San Rafael is coming to the realization that it will be expensive and ultimately unsuccessful in being able to meet the very legitimate goals it has for workforce housing, baylands protection and support for the School for Boys," Kinsey said, "and as such is on the verge of walking away from the project, which means it will probably lie dormant for as least as long as it takes to get free-flowing traffic on Highway 101."  "I'm very excited about this turn of events," said Adams, who begins her term next month. "I believe the planning of these properties reverting to the county jurisdiction would more fully represent what voters in the district would like to see happen." Practically speaking, however, Kinsey said that if the project went to the county now it would face a "certain and swift demise," because the property's current zoning prohibits such development there. Until now, San Rafael has taken the lead because the St. Vincent's land is within its sphere of influence. If the county assumes that role, it could place the on-going updating of the Countywide Plan at center stage. "It will put us in the position of needing to pay a lot more attention to what the site could be," Kinsey said. San Rafael's deliberations have resulted in yet another delay in approving a contract to perform a costly environmental impact report on Shapell's proposal. The council was scheduled to review the contract on Dec. 16 - after previous dates in October and November were postponed. No new date has been set for considering the contract, Gould said. Shapell vice president Tom Koch said Friday that he had not been notified of the new developments. Koch said there has been no change in Shapell's desire to move ahead with the project. "None at all," Koch said. "It has always been clear to us that dealing with the hyperbole and political rhetoric - that is easy to promulgate and difficult to counteract - would be a major challenge. But we're certainly prepared to move forward." If San Rafael does reverse course on the development proposal, it could render academic the recent efforts of local environmental groups to lobby supervisors. "I think in effect that San Rafael is on the verge of beating the environmentalists to the punch," Kinsey said. "Instead of them saying, 'County take it back' San Rafael is saying, 'County here it is.'" "I don't really know what it means," said Marge Macris, who serves on the executive committee of the Sierra Club's Marin group. She was a member of a contingent that met with Supervisor Annette Rose last week. "At this point, it is just a very general request," Macris said. "We would like for the board to look at what their options are regarding the St. Vincent's project." She acknowledged the 1998 memorandum of understanding between the county and San Rafael, which designated San Rafael as the lead agency for processing development applications related to the site. "Our position is the county ought to take another look at that," Macris said. "The land is of countywide importance and therefore the whole county should have an interest in doing the planning." Rose said, "I honestly don't know if it is possible for the county to reconsider its position that San Rafael is the lead agency here. But we will investigate that." See Related Stories: Does Supervisor Adams still care about Marinwood-Lucas Valley? St Vincents Then and Now

Will we be taxed for a million dollar soundwall for Marinwood Village Sound Wall too?

 Will Marinwood Village be surrounded with a 16 foot soundwall like this? Who will pay for it?

 Will the 101 entrance to  Marinwood be surrounded with a soundwall like this?  Yes!  According to guidelines by Caltrans., just as soon as they have the time and money to build it. These soundwalls currently cost 2.4 million dollars per mile and paid for by funding from the state or LOCAL COMMUNITY*.  see  Cal Trans Soundwall guidelines and  Cost.

The website also specifies :

"Because the demand for soundwalls has far exceeded the funding to build them, a priority waiting list has been developed. This waiting list is based on a formula, which combines noise levels, number of living units and cost effectiveness to produce a ranking."

But soundwalls also kill retail business.  This will make it even more difficult for Marinwood Market to survive. San Juan Capistrano lost many successful businesses after a similar soundwall was built : Soundwall kills business

And what about Graffetti?  Although the Marinwood  sound wall surrounding Blackstone has stayed relatively clean, will the new soundwall create more opportunities for tagging as has been the problem in downtown San Rafael?



Freeway Soundwalls are frequently tagged with  graffetti.

*  From http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/soundwalls/samples/synopsis.htm

FUNDING METHODS

 

Traditional Financing

 

The California Transportation Commission is the approving body for program and project level funding. Recent legislation (SB 45 - STIP Reform) may have an impact upon the programming of soundwalls. During the implementation of SB 45, Caltrans works closely with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to program soundwall projects along with various other transportation needs.

Soundwalls, which come under new or major reconstruction projects, are automatically included as a part of the project design. Soundwalls, which are retrofitted to existing freeways, fall under the Community Noise Abatement Program. Under Commission policy, this program is subject to available funding. Since funding is limited, a priority list has been developed to rank future projects.

Payback Option

State law allows cities or counties to construct eligible soundwalls ahead of the time that they would be built under traditional funding. Then, when the funding priority is eventually reached, CALTRANS would reimburse the local agency for the actual cost. Its important to note that reimbursement does not include interest.

Benefit Assessment District

Some local agencies are considering a benefit assessment district whereby residents in effect tax themselves under some formula to generate funding. Under this method bonding could be used for early construction at the expense of a longer payback.

Special Legislation

Soundwalls have occasionally been funded and constructed by Special State legislation. These have occurred outside of CALTRANS' and the California Transportation Commission's process.