Sunday, December 16, 2012

It is ILLEGAL to dump low income housing in Marinwood/Lucas Valley

 Editor's Note: It is ILLEGAL to dump all the affordable housing in Marinwood/Lucas Valley according to state law.  This is the same state law that angry Novato citizen's used to repeal their aggressive housing quotas last year.  We have been targeted in Marinwood/Lucas Valley because we are politically weak and uninformed.  They are hoping no one notices until AFTER they break ground.  Over 83% of all AFFORDABLE HOUSING (extremely low to low income) is mandated for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  This is illegal.  The state law requires housing to be spread EVENLY across unincorporated Marin.   (I wonder where the "extremely low income" housing will be built in Belvedere?) 

 

California Government Code Section 65584


Legal Research Home > California Laws > Government Code > California Government Code Section 65584


(a) (1) For the fourth and subsequent revisions of the
housing element pursuant to Section 65588, the department shall
determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region
pursuant to this article. For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section
65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing need
shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all income
levels within the area significantly affected by the general plan of
the city or county.
   (2) While it is the intent of the Legislature that cities,
counties, and cities and counties should undertake all necessary
actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of
housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need, it is
recognized, however, that future housing production may not equal the
regional housing need established for planning purposes.
   (b) The department, in consultation with each council of
governments, shall determine each region's existing and projected
housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least two years prior to
the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section 65588. The
appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties
without a council of governments, the department, shall adopt a final
regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional
housing need to each city, county, or city and county at least one
year prior to the scheduled revision for the region required by
Section 65588. The allocation plan prepared by a council of
governments shall be prepared pursuant to Sections 65584.04 and
65584.05 with the advice of the department.
   (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the due dates for
the determinations of the department or for the council of
governments, respectively, regarding the regional housing need may be
extended by the department by not more than 60 days if the extension
will enable access to more recent critical population or housing
data from a pending or recent release of the United States Census
Bureau or the Department of Finance. If the due date for the
determination of the department or the council of governments is
extended for this reason, the department shall extend the
corresponding housing element revision deadline pursuant to Section
65588 by not more than 60 days.
   (d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall be consistent
with all of the following objectives:
   (1) Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types,
tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the
region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each
jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low
income households.
   (2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the
protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the
encouragement of efficient development patterns.
   (3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing.
   (4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income
category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high
share of households in that income category, as compared to the
countywide distribution of households in that category from the most
recent decennial United States census.
   (e) For purposes of this section, "household income levels" are as
determined by the department as of the most recent decennial census
pursuant to the following code sections:
   (1) Very low incomes as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and
Safety Code.
   (2) Lower incomes, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and
Safety Code.
   (3) Moderate incomes, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code.
   (4) Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the moderate-income
level of Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
   (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations
made by the department, a council of governments, or a city or county
pursuant to this section or Section 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.03,
65584.04, 65584.05, 65584.06, 65584.07, or 65584.08 are exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

Saturday, December 15, 2012

300 Danville Citizens "greet" Planning Commission Quotas






Unhappy residents warn that low-income, high-density housing could mean more traffic and crime for Danville

Updated:   12/12/2012 06:58:27 PM PST






DANVILLE -- A sometimes raucous crowd of 300 filled to overflowing Tuesday at a planning commission meeting that rang with complaints over possible low-income and high-density housing in town.
Danville is in the process of updating its general plan, but proposed changes regarding agricultural land-use zoning and increases in land zoned for high density, affordable housing have many residents concerned Danville could lose its small town charm.
Several people in the crowd held signs that said Danville should get out of the Association of Bay Area Governments, which allocates housing requirements to local governments as mandated by the state.
"Why are we allowing unelected bureaucrats of a regional government to boss us around?" longtime resident Anne Blake asked the commission. "The people here in Danville are the top type of people in the nation, the smartest. Why can't we stand up to all of the shenanigans that are going on?"
At least 35 people spoke at the meeting, that stretched late into the night. Many voiced concerns that low-income, high-density housing could increase crime, fire hazards, traffic congestion and overburden Danville schools.
"Build it, and they will come," resident Sheila Truschke said. "But don't build it, and they won't."
The meeting took an occasionally raucous tone similar to a previous meeting on Nov. 27 when the draft environmental impact report for the plan was discussed.
Speakers

Advertisement



voiced skepticism about climate change and some suggested the United Nations is behind the One Bay Area Plan, which is a long-range transportation and land-use and housing plan being implemented regionally.
Some speakers urged the town to follow the city of Corte Madera's lead and leave ABAG.
Town Manager Joe Calabrigo assured the crowd that the town government is committed to preserving Danville's small town character. He said membership in ABAG allows the town to represent its best interests by keeping housing numbers lower than what the state might directly mandate if Danville were to pull out of the association. He added that the town does not want to forgo state and federal funding by leaving.
"Whether we appreciate it or not, the state and regional entities in my time here at the town have become increasingly involved at the local level," Calabrigo said. "Danville has been, I believe, very proactive and very persistent in trying to deal with this dynamic."
Save Open Space Danville members Maryann Cella, Todd Gary and the group's attorney, Stuart Flashman, said the new general plan rewrites agricultural zoning rules to do an end-around Measure S, Danville's Open Space Preservation Initiative, which requires a public vote on general plan amendments that change land use. The group is trying to force a vote under Measure S on a proposed SummerHill Housing project for 70 homes on agriculturally zoned land.
Planning Commission Chairwoman Lynn Overcashier said Wednesday that there is a lot of misinformation and fear over the new general plan.
"We (commissioners) passionately care about our community. We will never look like Dublin. We will never look like Fremont. All the affordable housing in Danville has very strict guidelines and height limits. We're talking about senior facilities, housing for teachers, retail workers, restaurant workers. It doesn't mean that we are bringing crime elements or gangs into Danville."
The commission will hold two more public hearings about the general plan on Jan. 8 and 22. The town council will review the plan and take public comments on Feb. 5. The council will hold a second meeting on the plan on March 5. It could vote to adopt the plan at that meeting.
Contact Jason Sweeney at 925-847-2123. Follow him at Twitter.com/Jason_Sweeney.














Thursday, December 13, 2012

Why are they forcing all this housing when we are not growing?

Marin only added 523 people in 2012 yet will be building up to 4400 units of affordable housing in the county.

 

Editors Note: Does it make any sense at all to build housing at 10 times the housing need in Marin?

Marin population sees tiny bump, state sees modest growth






Marin continued its longstanding pattern of slow growth as the county saw only a minor increase in population over the last 12 months, according to state population estimates released Thursday.
Marin grew by 523 people, a 2 percent change, clocking in with a population of 255,000, as reported by the state's Department of Finance.
Statewide growth outpaced Marin's increase with California's population growing 7 percent over the same period. The state grew by 256,000 people, raising its population to 37.8 million people.
"This level of growth (for Marin) is in line with previous years," said Bill Schooling, the chief demographer of the Department of Finance. "Marin is not usually a fast-growing county."

See full articleMarin population slow growth

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

VIDEO: Don't mess with Heather. Fighting One Bay Area Plan



Sometimes the public forums the Association of Bay Area Governments can get testy.   In this video , Heather Gass,  a homeowner and frequent critic of One Bay Area,  is questioning the seminar leader about "open space".  

When the seminar leader asks the crowd if they want "open space",  Heather astutely asks if "open space" is defined as "government owned" exclusively or if it also means "private, undeveloped lands" as well.

This is a critical point to understand.

The One Bay Area Plan is an aggressive and ambitious plan to control ALL Development property rights by a central regional government.  The plan was developed under the theory of "Smart Growth" which requires a central planner for all property decisions.  It will drastically impact the value of property and essentially eliminate property rights for thousands of Bay Area citizens.

While we are fighting several unwise affordable housing developments and rezoning of our neighborhoods in Marinwood/Lucas Valley,  we must understand our communities plight is part of a larger struggle of fellow communities through out the Bay Area and California.

Larger coalitions of property owners are forming across the region and soon all across California. If you are disturbed at the aggressive government powers being asserted,  first we urge you to educate yourself about the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin.  Next we recommend that you read some of the information about Smart Growth to understand the theories.  Then, we ask you to contemplate the actual impacts on your life and the community around you.  Lastly,  we ask you to share your views with others and join us in the mission to save Marinwood-Lucas Valley from hi density urbanization.  

In the near future, you tree-lined street may become filled with apartment building- especially if you live anywhere close to the 101 freeway.

Unless we stop it,  developers will win.

Join us for our Monday meeting.  email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Calling All Citizens! Defend Marinwood/Lucas Valley!

Marinwood/Lucas Valley is under attack ...

from developers pushing greenwashed "pack and stack" housing in our neighborhoods


Our voices will be heard.
Our freedom to live as we choose will be defended.

Our families will be safe. Our schools will be strong.
 

Our lives will be lived deliberate and free.
And we will defend our Valley from exploitation from developers, planners and politicians who want
bulldoze our neighborhoods to fulfill their high density housing schemes or tax us to death trying.
 
Join us.
 
Monday meetings.
 
P.S. Last night's Meeting went well. Please join us next Monday 6:30-8:30PM

Monday, December 10, 2012

Mighty Moms of Marinwood Meet Mondays! (all are welcome)



Moms are meeting Mondays to save Marinwood.   All are welcome to attend (men too!).   We will be discussing the impact of the Marinwood Village  and other housing proposals on our schools and community.

We recognize that the 2012 Housing Element proposes six large affordable housing development that may increase our population by 25%.  These developments will be largely supported by our tax dollars. The proposed Marinwood Village alone will add 60 to 150 children in our packed Dixie schools. The remaining five developments may increase our total school age population by hundreds, forcing us to build more schools. 

With population growth, we can expect an increase in taxes. traffic, pollution, crime and other problems that come with crowded urban living.

Some feel that  affordable housing will enhance our community.  We will explore these issues in detail too.

We meet from 6:30-8:30 PM. in Marinwood.  Childcare is provided.  If you would like to attend, email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com


P.S. Everyone is invited.  You don't have to be a mom to attend. I just liked the way it sounded in the headline :). Men are welcome too.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

VIDEO: Dream of the 1890s in Portland


Portland is said to be the model  "Smart Growth" city where people live close together in small apartments above local shops, ride streetcars and peddle bicycles everywhere. 
This satiric clip from the 2nd season of the  IFC Cable TV show "Portlandia" is worth a view.

It is time to laugh at the silliness of "Smart Growth".

Enjoy.

Report on the meeting with Bridge Housing, hopeful developer of Marinwood Plaza

 
The Bridge Housing proposal for Marinwood Village was met with "open arms"


 
The Tuesday 12/4 meeting with Brad Wilban VP of Bridge Housing, Supervisor Susan Adams, staff from the Community Development Department, assorted politicians and professional housing advocates with several hundred local residents was a true town hall meeting in our democratic tradition.
 
The bright and very capable Brad Wilban tried his best for the second time to create a compelling vision for our only commericial plaza that abutts the 101 freeway.  He brought beautiful photoshop graphics and concept drawings but warned that the work was still in progress.  His slideshow presentation answered some of our questions but left many more unanswered.
 
 
 

 
Many of the same people attended and many of the famed "Neighborhood Leaders" that met privately for months and gave approval to the plans were missing from the room.  It would be nice to have at least one meeting where all of the leaders could explain their reasons for support of the development.  We did hear from Supervisor Susan Adams, Bruce Anderson, Kelly Smith, Cameron Case, John Hammond, Dr. Ralston and others who voiced strong support of the project.  I commend them since the crowd was 90% in opposition to the development.
 
Several key points were made .  The 82 unit Bridge Housing proposal will have many schoolchildren requiring new portable classrooms at $150,000 or more each.  The original estimate of 1.8 children per unit (150 +/- kids) was revised downward to .8 children per unit (60 kids).  Still with this many school children at least three portable classrooms will be needed and new teachers, administrators, staff will be required.  The $200.000 school mitigation fee will barely cover the cost of a single classroom. 
 
Property tax contributions will be minimal.  Bridge housing will receive a 55 year tax abatement.  Since Bridge Housing is a "non profit" developer,  the they will sell tax credits to provide ultra wealthy investors deep discounts on their tax liability.  Utilizing the valuation of Bridge Housing's recent Emeryville project,  The Marinwood Village project could be worth  40 million dollars. 
 
 
The annual parcel tax fees for Marinwood Village are a paltry $10,000 for all 82 units per year or roughly $ 147 per family.  Many neighbors expressed shock, especially those who purchased their home at the height of the market.  They are nearly paying the same property taxes for their single family home!

Washington politicians tell us that we are on the edge of a "fiscal cliff" and our federal taxes may increase as much as $3500 for the average middle class taxpayer.  We are reeling from the down economy  and high unemployment.  We all have suffered a the loss of 30% of the value of our homes since the crash. 

Now we must pay millions more in local taxes to support this "affordable" development?

Just who is it "affordable" for?  The developers get rich.  The politicians get power. We get .....ed! 
 
Many questions still remain unanswered or only answered superficially.  Here are questions I still have: 
·         Where will 300 cars park?

·         Who is going to pay for the upgrades to the roads, sewer and water?

·         How will the Dixie school district (especially Mary Silvera) be able to accommodate an additional 150 school children (5 classrooms worth)?

·         Does it make sense to place housing within yards of two microwave antenna towers?

·         What will be done about the toxic waste spill site at the dry cleaner?

·         When will we see an environmental impact report of the development?

·         How will the fire department be able to fight a multistory apartment fire without a ladder truck?

·         How will a apartment complex that is 50% taller than the next highest structure in Marinwood affect property values?

·         How many police, fire, teachers, CSD workers will be hired to accomodate the growth?

·         What tax burden for this housing project will be?

·         How much will we be giving the developer in addition to the $1,000,000 improvements already earmarked to provide parking on Marinwood Avenue?

·         What will this development do to my taxes? My property values?

·         When were we made the "Marinwood Priority Development Area for Urbanization"?

·         Who are the secret "Neighborhood Leaders" approving this development?

·         Why didn't "Neighborhood Leaders" tell the rest of us?

·         Who are the local investors, contractors and suppliers for this project?

·         What will happen to the retail space if Marinwood Market pulls out?


Many people who were originally inclined to support the project,  left in doubt.  They saw how much this affordable housing will cost the community.
 
The crowd simply did not accept the proposal despite Brad Wilban's best efforts.  I felt sorry for him.  He is a very nice guy and smart too.  It is just that we don't want our only commercial center turned into housing and we want to make certain that WE can afford "affordable housing".
 


 


 
Supervisor Susan Adams defended the project and her support for infill housing for the Marinwood Priority Development Area she helped create.  Last year she served as the Vice President of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and was instrumental in many of the policy decisions that are creating urban infill housing along the  Highway101 corridor. She came to office years ago with the promise of stopping housing development at Silvera Ranch.  Lately, she has become a Smart Growth advocate and supports 6 low income housing developments proscribed in the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin. 83% of all extremely low to low income housing is planned for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  Terra Linda has many affordable housing units along the Civic Center Northgate Plaza area that will provide homes for thousands of low income residents.  Without a doubt,  Susan Adam's District One will have the majority of government assistance housing for any Supervisor's distict in Marin County.   
 
I believe Supervisor Adams still loves the people of Marin/Lucas Valley and means well.  I believe even she is shocked that we did not approve the project.  I know that she will work with our community for a common vision for our future.  My hope is that she will be able to convince several other Supervisors to improve the plan for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  A great first start will be to pause approval of the 2012 Housing Element until a genuine, open community wide dialogue discussing the actual costs and vision for growth can occur.  She is our neighbor.


If you would like to join our discussions about how we can provide a great future for Marinwood/Lucas Valley, come to our Monday meetings.  Email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com

 

Friday, December 7, 2012

VIDEO: Wendell Cox on Plan Maryland and the folly of Smart Growth

 
Wendell Cox is a leading academic and critic of the "Suburban Renwal" fad called "Smart Growth" which is the theory behind the redevelopment of Marinwood and the "Urbanized 101 Corridor"
 
This clip is provided to provide you a flavor of the intellectual criticism of "top down" style planning and the essential false claims made by Plan BayArea that will destroy our communities. 

Renewed push for a 55 percent threshold to pass parcel tax

Watch out for pickpockets!

Editor's Note: This story is particularly important for every Citizen in Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  Our education fees are expected to climb drastically if the six affordable housing complexes are built according to the 2012 Housing Element Plan. The units would increase our population by 25% and they would pay little or no taxes AND THEY VOTE.   Ordinary tax payers will likely see huge increase in their parcel taxes . We can save our community.  Come to our action meeting on Mondays and find out how you can help.


By

It didn’t take long for a Democratic senator among the newly empowered supermajority in the Legislature to go after a low-hanging fruit: lowering the threshold for passage of a local parcel tax for education.

On Thursday, Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco announced he would introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to pass parcel taxes for school districts and community colleges by 55 percent instead of the current two-thirds majority.

“This change in law would give voters the power to make decisions about public education at the local level, allowing schools much-needed flexibility to improve instruction, fund libraries, music, the arts or other programs, or hire more teachers to reduce student-to-teacher ratios,” Leno said in a statement.

Requiring a two-thirds majority to raise taxes was part of Proposition 13, passed in 1978. However, voters have already lowered the threshold for school construction bonds to 55 percent; they did that in 2000 with Proposition 39. Leno is picking up the banner from termed-out Sen. Joe Simitian, a Palo Alto Democrat who introduced legislation for the 55 percent threshold for parcel taxes during his time in the Legislature. But, despite solid Democratic support, Simitian could never find any Republicans to back it, so his amendment languished.

With last month’s election, Democrats now have the two-thirds majority – 54 votes in the 80-member Assembly and 27 votes in the Senate – to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot or pass a tax on their own. Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez have tempered talk of raising taxes this year, but a constitutional amendment to give voters the right to pass them could be presented as giving voters more local control, a priority of Gov. Jerry Brown.
Parcel taxes are regressive; property owners of castles and cottages pay the same amount. But they have proven popular in those districts that have put them on the ballot, because all of the money raised stays in the district, for uses specified under the terms of the parcel tax. They have ranged from under $50 to more than $400 per parcel in wealthier Bay Area districts.

On Nov. 6, voters passed 14 of 22 parcel taxes. Had the 55 percent threshold been in effect, 19 would have passed. Parcel taxes for community colleges have been harder to pass, and few districts have tried. This month, two out of three failed to get 67 percent; the exception was a $79 tax for the San Francisco Community College District.

Over the past two decades, 55 percent of parcel taxes – 322 of 584 – have passed, according to Mike McMahon, a school board member from Alameda Unified, who has tracked the results.

Full story Renewed Push for 55 percent threshold

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Further proof that Marinwood/Lucas Valley may become the new dumping ground for the region's poor

 
The Board of Supervisors has determined Marinwood/Lucas Valley is the ideal location for affordable housing.


In the latest salvo against our community,  the Board of Supervisors and the Marin Community Foundation is seeking developers for low income housing at Grady Ranch.  In the Marin IJ article  linked below, there is no mention of the extreme financial hardship to our schools, environment and community will suffer as the result of 240 units of housing that pays virtually nothing into the community.  We middle class taxpayers are asked to pay for this "act of charity scheme" dreamed up by the 1%  super rich, The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) , the Board of Supervisors,  crony developers and special interest groups.  This is the second of six large developments that are headed our way as prescribed in the 2012 Housing Element.  Even more are being planned behind closed doors
 
 
Save our beautiful Lucas Valley from exploitation!  Come to our weekly action meetings on Mondays. 

 

 
Save Marinwood/Lucas Valley. 
 

Marinwood Village School children will cost Dixie school Children at least $656, 832 per year





The Marinwood Village affordable housing development will add one to three busloads of kids to Dixie Schools costing anywhere from $600,000 to $2.2 million dollars yearly.
 
Great Schools profile on Dixie Elementary School


Dixie School district profile ranking and per pupil $  $10, 947.21 per student per year. 


In addition each special needs child may cost $100,000 per student per year.

Bilingual instruction for students per child may range from $20,000 up

In California, approximately 1/3 of children are enrolled in bilingual education.  We have no way of telling how many children, special needs and languages spoken for the Marinwood Plaza residents so we provide this rough guide utilizing conservative costs.


60 students,   zero special needs, zero bilingual education $656,832

100 students,  one special needs, ten bilingual education   $1,394,721

150 students,  two special needs,  twenty  bilingual education $2,242,050

Does this "affordable housing" seem affordable to our small Dixie School district?

If you are concerned with maintaining the quality of our local schools, we must demand fair school impact fees from Bridge Housing plus a realistic yearly contribution for each child in the development.

The County Planning department and Board of Supervisors will be considering the Marinwood Plaza application for development as early as next week. 

Voice your opinion on the Marinwood Plaza project by contacting each Supervisor.

Remember, in unincorporated Marin, the five member Board of Supervisors have absolute authority to approve the Marinwood Plaza development.  Incredibly, they have made public statements that they "unequivocally" support the plan without hearing from our community or seeing the application from the developer.

Please sign the petition to request the Supervisors to at least allow a six month period for review by the Marinwood/Lucas Valley community.

If you would like to participate in our weekly discussions on the impacts of  6 affordable housing developments to be built in Marinwood/Lucas Valley and what we can do,  please email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com


Note: we need to revise the impacts upwards.  The Grady Ranch proposal may add another 240 households and  450 children to our Dixie Schools