Marin County for Sale thanks to Marin County High Density Advocates, Politicians & the Bicycle Coalition

Marin County High Density & Bicycle Coalition

Marin County Bicycle Coalition members are being surprised to find their organization volunteering their neighborhoods for high density housing. Are they being used as pawns in the high density housing wars?

The Marin Cyclist’s Dilemma

While I’ve been outspoken regarding the need for bikers to follow traffic laws, I remain a  big fan of bikes – cycling all around my home county of Somerset as a child on my Raleigh Arena racing bike. Now as I raise our 2 children to embrace bikes I face a dilemma:

- we want to join an organization that teaches our kids bicycle road safety
- we do not support high density housing

However the one organization here in Marin claiming to perform the first item – the Marin County Bicycle Coalition – has become one of the most ardent supporters of urbanizing Marin with high density housing.

Throwing Terra Linda Under the High Density Bus

Letter from MCBC to the City of San Rafael advocating support for the Civic Center PDA and Station Area Plan

I live in Civic Center / Terra Linda. Residents of 10+ Terra Linda neighborhoods fought long and hard for over a year to rescind the Civic Center Priority Development Area (PDA) and turn back a wildly ambitious high density zoning plan called the “Civic Center Station Area Plan” to something reasonable with a modicum of new affordable housing units and retain the area’s low rise, suburban character . The community eventually succeeded –  but only despite groups such as Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) pushing for the PDA to be approved.

Here is what the Marin County Bicycle Coalition had to say about the Civic Center Priority Development Area:

The Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) would like to express our support for City Council approval of the Final Civic Center SMART Station Area Plan…MCBC urges the City Council to accept the SAP as presented.

It would have seemed reasonable and acceptable to me if MCBC had focused specifically on the bike lane parts of the Station Area Plan, instead of supporting a plan that would nearly have doubled the number of housing units in our area.

Strawberry in Mill Valley Gets the MCBC Treatment

An MCBC resident and Strawberry resident questions MCBC’s position
Click to watch video

Strawberry in Mill Valley faced a similar challenge – while it did not suffer from a SMART “Station Area Plan” (which is always primarily about building high density housing, the name seems to omit this primary aspect), Strawberry was also designated a Priority Development Area (PDA) targeted for high density housing.

During the Board of Supervisors meeting that reviewed this PDA status an MCBC spokesperson clearly conveyed their organizations unreserved support for the PDA designation.

The video, linked to on the right, shows a MCBC member and Strawberry resident stating how he was never consulted and would not have supported MCBC’s position that targeted his neighborhood for development. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

Larkspur Gets the MCBC Treatment

Most recently the city of Larkspur has been the target of high density – with both a PDA designation as well as a SMART “Station Area Plan” proposing 920 high density housing units, a hotel and over 100,000 sq ft of retail and commercial space.

The letter sent by MCBC to the Larkspur City Council. Click to view a larger image.

Resident opposition to the Larkspur plan could not have been greater. In a meeting in mid May over 700 residents packed a council review meeting of the plan – perhaps 30 or fewer attendees supported the plan, almost none spoke to support the massive high density proposed. Based on the sea of red shirts worn by plan opponents  ~95% opposed the plan.

Even members of the special interest group CALM could read the writing on the wall and instead of pushing for the entire plan with the high density housing to be accepted focused on salvaging improved circulation and bike paths.

But MCBC again was unperturbed – submitting a letter back on February 15th, 2013 to the City of Larkspur clearly supporting the Larkspur Station Area Plan stating:

MCBC has been active in advocacy for 15 years in Marin County. The [Station Area Plan] SAP encourages higher-density residential and transit oriented development, new retail and additional employment. This higher-density development in combination with public transit and key transportation facilities in the area necessitates the need for safe and interconnected active transportation facilities that will successfully provide for, as well as encourage, an increase in biking, walking and use of public transit within and through the Station Area.

Conclusion

MCBC does not appear to be clearly advising its members of the positions it has been taking. If one reviews MCBC’s mission it would be a leap of logic to conclude that this organization was an ardent supporter of high density development and rapid urbanization in Marin. This is the closest that it comes to declaring this position to new and existing members:

• reduced road congestion and greenhouse gas emissions [but the high density housing surely has the reverse effect?]
• influencing transportation policy and legislation
• representing cyclists at public meetings

MCBC members are being taken by surprise as they find themselves speaking as individuals against this organization made up of thousands of members to which they belong.

As an organization MCBC should either reconsider its advocacy of high density development, or if it wants to continue with this advocacy then surely it should seek approval from its members? It should do this in the realization of the series of events that have served to demonstrate the immense opposition in Marin to high density:

• The striking down of Strawberry and Civic Center PDAs
• The immense opposition to the Larkspur Station Area Plan
• The election of Damon Connolly who opposed high density housing

Any potential member such as myself, or existing member might question their support of an organization that so strongly pushes for high density in Marin.

Can someone please point me to the local bicycle advocacy group that can make the roads safer, help my kids to ride knowing the rules of the road, but that does not commit me to financially supporting a position which I deeply oppose – that of bringing more high density housing to Marin?

[Important note: The author continues to support affordable, low density housing in locations that are appropriate. He was pleased when an additional reasonable number of affordable units were planned in his neighborhood in Terra Linda that were low rise]

Visit www.planningforreality.org and www.marinpost.org

Green Fraudsters with Phony Renewable Energy Ponzi Scheme.

In Colorado, a green fleecing worth millions

How hundreds of Front Rangers got scammed.

At a 2009 conference in Centennial, Colorado, Wayde McKelvy, a former offensive lineman at the University of Northern Colorado stood in front of a room full of potential investors for a green startup called Mantria.

Mantria was building the country’s first “carbon-negative” housing development in rural Tennessee, powered entirely by renewable energy, investors heard. What’s more, it was developing a substance that turned garbage into usable materials and produced something called biochar, a carbon-negative fertilizer made from charcoal.

The company was “on the cusp of revolutionary technology that’s going to change the world,” McKelvy promised, “and you guys can benefit from it by putting money in and getting stinkin’ wealthy.”

McKelvy was the pitchman for a green utopic offered by Mantria’s two founders, Troy Wragg and Amanda Knorr. And if Mantria’s promise sounded too good to be true, that’s because it was: a few months after the conference in Centennial, the Securities and Exchange Commission shut down the company, alleging Mantria had bilked investors out of tens of million of dollars in a widespread ponzi scheme. Now, after years of legal delays, federal prosecutors have indicted McKelvy, Wragg, and Knorr with wire and securities fraud and conspiracy.

For Westerners, white-collar crime might seem a distant threat, relegated to the East, to Bernie Madoff and wolves of Wall Street. But the details of the case reveal how the green sheen of Mantria created a vision well suited to Denver, where capitalism and environmentalism often align. 

Denver's Rocky Mountain backdrop. A trio of fraudsters took advantage of the city's booming green business culture to run a $54 million ponzi scheme

Matt Santomarco/Flickr

“The scheme alleged in this indictment offered investors the best of both worlds — investing in sustainable and clean energy products while also making a profit,” U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger said in a statement.  “Unfortunately for the investors, it was all a hoax.”

Scams work best when they play on some form of vanity of the target, and in that regard, the denizens of Denver were perfect marks. The city has in recent years tried to reinvent itself, edging away from its oil and gas past toward an entrepreneurial haven in the Rocky Mountains. The shift meant embracing a new green identity, on display in places like Green Spaces, a shared working space in downtown Denver’s trendy RiNo Arts District that bills itself as “a place for eco and socially conscious entrepreneurs to connect and grow.”

Meanwhile, the Front Range has attracted a growing number of clean tech ventures, like the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in nearby Golden, and Vestas Wind Sytems, the largest wind turbine maker in the world Out here, green means money in more ways than one, a message that resonated with Mantria’s investors, most of whom resided in Colorado.

It’s very common for whatever is the most trendy business opportunity to be part of the story line in investment scams — whether it’s oil and gas, or hedge funds or green energy, says John Walsh, U.S. Attorney for Colorado, who specializes in white collar criminal cases. “When there’s a sense in the media that a particular industry is taking off, investment fraud guys will say 'I have the best way to get in on that.'”

McKelvy operated what he called “Speed of Wealth” clubs, which advertised on television, radio and the Internet; they also held seminars for prospective investors and promised to make them rich. Along with his former wife, Donna, McKelvy targeted elderly investors or those approaching retirement age to finance Mantria’s “green” initiatives.

According to the indictment, McKelvy convinced investors to liquidate their assets, such as mutual funds and 401k plans, to take out as many loans as possible, such as home mortgages and credit card debt, and invest all those funds in Mantria. The company, he claimed, was already producing large amounts of biochar and would turn consumer waste from the Tennessee real estate developments into biochar. Investors could get paid “by just owning land and spreading this stuff [biochar] all over your field, because this stuff pulls the toxins out of the atmosphere.” According to McKelvy, it was “the biggest wealth-building opportunity that I believe has ever come across in your lifetime.”

In fact, Mantria never produced biochar of sufficient quality to sell on the market, according to the indictment. In addition, there was no way consumer waste from the residential development would generate enough carbon to be turned into biochar. But even building the houses looked impossible: McKelvy never told investors that the land they hoped to develop had significant problems, including a lack of potable water, and the possibility of unexploded artillery shells.

During those seminars and other programs, Wragg, Knorr, and McKelvy raised over $54 million from investors, promising returns as high as 484 percent.

In the end, Mantria brought in almost no revenue from its actual operations, saddling their investors with millions of dollars in losses. It turns out, saving the world is not that easy—or profitable.

"These promoters fraudulently exaggerated Mantria's green initiatives and used high-pressure tactics to convince investors to chase the promise of lucrative returns," said Don Hoerl, director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office. "In reality, the only green these promoters seemed interested in was investors' money."

Editor's Note: Beware of slick salesmen selling "too good to be true" renewables like "FREE  solar power".  There is no thing as a free lunch.  Check their credentials, financials and double check their engineering assumptions. The sharks are swimming waiting to take advantage of the naive.   Our CSD is now considering a 25 year solar contract that many informed people consider dubious. 

How Marin Was Ruined

Ai Weiwei on Beijing - From the Guardian Cities/Tate Series 'The Artist and Their City' from Max Duncan on Vimeo.

Parking Problems Plague Portland from Foolish Zoning Laws

Parking problem spreads in Portland

As more people move in, tensions rise over increasingly scarce spaces for cars

Nigel Duara

John Golden, an opponent of a plan to build a four-story apartment building that comes with no parking spaces, explains the potential fight for spaces if the building is constructed in Portland.

By Steven DuBois, Associated Press

Saturday, March 23, 2013

  

  digg submit

Don Ryan

AP

A motorist passes an 81-unit apartment building under construction in Portland.

Don Ryan

AP

A bicyclist and motorist pass an 81-unit apartment building under construction in Portland.

Don Ryan

AP

A four-story, 81-unit apartment building under construction at right shares a quiet side street with older houses in Portland. The building will include scores of bicycle racks but not one parking space for automobiles.

PORTLAND — Though Portlanders are remarkably united when it comes to protecting the environment, a property on aptly named Southeast Division Street has provoked an unexpected backlash against the city's progressive approach to housing its burgeoning population.

The general reason for the controversy — insufficient parking. But how this got to be a problem on Division Street typifies Portland, a place proud of its plastic shopping bag ban and global warming "action plan" but still struggling with how to grow while staying green.

A developer, Dennis Sackhoff, last year demolished what had been the city's landmark lesbian bar and started construction on a four-story, 81-unit apartment building that will include scores of bicycle racks — but not one parking space for automobiles.

It's one of about 30 parking-free apartment buildings that have been recently completed or are in some stage of development in the city, mostly in the cozy neighborhoods on the east side, across the Willamette River from downtown.

Developers such as Sackhoff are capitalizing on one of the nation's tightest rental markets while following Portland zoning rules that require them to provide parking for bicycles but not cars.

The people who already live in these neighborhoods worry about increased traffic and an inability to find parking in front of their places. And though the apartments are intended for those with a bicycle-first mentality, most of the new tenants are not choosing a car-free existence.

"The developer says he is trying to give Portland what it says it wants, but in reality, Portland wants it both ways," said John Golden, a high school teacher trying to stop, or at least reduce, the size of another four-story apartment building in the works near his northeast Portland house.

Sackhoff, who declined to be interviewed, is the developer on that project, too.

Not easy being green

Portland has carefully charted a course that has made it one of the most environmentally friendly urban areas in the country. Its strategic planning emphasizes the use of alternative forms of transportation, such as light-rail, a streetcar, skateboarding and bicycles. A major bridge is under construction across the Willamette that will be off-limits to cars.

The zoning rules and planning goals that spawned the surge in parking-free apartments were meant to discourage people from owning cars and also entice developers to build apartments closer to downtown, limiting the type of farmland-devouring sprawl seen in many U.S. metropolitan areas.

Mayor Charlie Hales was on the City Council in 2002 when it approved a zoning change that allowed housing to be constructed without parking if it's within 500 feet of a bus or light-rail stop with frequent service. That's defined as an arrival every 20 minutes.

Hales said he envisioned developers building condominium- or townhouse-sized apartments on top of retail stores. He did not expect boxy, four-story buildings packed with studios and one-bedroom apartments.

For almost a decade, his vision was right. But then Portland found itself with an apartment shortage following the condominium boom and ensuing real-estate bust, and developers saw a chance to fill the desperate need.

Hales said he remains a champion of "density," a word you hear a lot in Portland, but the city has to make adjustments so that future buildings better "fit into the urban fabric."

"It is a good thing that we're building up and not out," Hales told The Associated Press. "But we also have to be pragmatic in the present day. People still own cars."

The city's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has proposed that developers of larger buildings — those with at least 40 units — include at least one parking space for every four units. Hales said he has yet to decide if that's the right target.

Joe Zehnder, Portland's chief planner, said the city is looking for a middle ground that takes some pressure off of streets like Division but does not create so much parking that the city is one day awash in unused spaces.

Car-sharing programs are proliferating and the national trend, especially for younger people, shows a decline in vehicle ownership, he said.

Justin Wood, a developer and associate director of the Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, said Zehnder's idea is a good compromise for a city that wants to limit sprawl, steer people away from driving and have relatively affordable apartments.

According to city estimates, it costs developers $3,000 per space for surface parking, $20,000 per space for structured parking and $55,000 per space for underground parking. Wood notes that many of the planned buildings are on small lots, making it a challenge to install parking spaces.

Distaste for suburbia

Wood said he wouldn't like to see a four-story building with no parking rise next to his house. But the only other way the city could handle the newcomers is to embrace the suburban-style growth that makes most Portlanders cringe.

"You're not going to stop people from moving to Portland," he said.

City leaders want to see them in neighborhoods with a mix of residential and commercial structures, so people can be a quick walk or bike ride away from restaurants, coffee shops and grocery stores.

A city survey of residents in the parking-free buildings found that 72 percent own cars, but only half that many drive to work. They keep a vehicle for trips across town or weekend getaways.

Ryan McGuire, 30, moved to Portland from St. Paul, Minn., last year and lives in the 50-unit Irvington Garden Apartments. The building in northeast Portland has more than 50 bike racks but no parking. McGuire said he and his girlfriend both have bikes and share one car. As the city survey suggests, McGuire said he keeps a car to go snowboarding and "haul stuff."

On-street parking also does not appear to be that difficult to find on Division Street, the epicenter of the apartment boom. Ample spaces were found during three recent visits to the neighborhood, on different days and at different times.

That, however, will likely change when more of the planned apartment buildings reach completion, including the 81-unit building that is the largest project on what has become a trendy stretch of the city. Construction on that building has stopped, at least temporarily, because of an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ruling that involves a technicality unrelated to the lack of parking.

Elisabeth Varga, who lives near the building and was one of the people who filed the Appeals Board complaint, emphasized that she and other opponents favor density, as long as it's done responsibly.

Zehnder, the city planner, said Portland's policy goals of becoming less car-dependent while growing taller instead of wider appear to be working, but he understands why it may be alarming to residents such as Varga.

"Now you're seeing it," he said of the density. "And it's one thing to think it hypothetically, it's one thing to see it happen and it's another thing entirely to see it happen as much at one time as they're seeing it on Division."

Editor's Note:  The "smart growth" planning fad began about twenty years ago in Portland, Oregon.  The city has been on a massive building binge of "compaction and densification" inside the "urban growth boundaries. The city is upzoning suburban areas with apartment buildings destroying suburban neighborhoods (aka "Sprawl" to the chic set) in the belief that people will take more mass transit.  We can expect upzoning to come along the "101 Urban Corridor" now pushed by Susan Adams and the rest of the Board of Supervisors.  Replacing our suburbs with dense urban living is the ultimate objective of Plan Bay Area.

81 unit building on a tree lined street with no parking.

Will parking near Marinwood Village look like this?

Editor's Note: The meeting on April 25th with Supervisor Adams, Department of Public Works, and the California Highway Patrol revealed to the public that Miller Creek Avenue median strip is being narrowed to make room for a bike lane and parking. This is most likely for overflow street parking from the proposed Marinwood Village low income housing.  We bring you this quick clip of the Canal district to show you what parking on may look like Miller Creek Avenue between 101 Freeway and Las Gallinas in the future.

Take a quick trip to the Canal District and try to find a parking space with us.   You'll find no matter where you drive, you'll find bumper to bumper cars parked on every street.  Even though the apartments have parking, the streets are always packed with additional cars. 

Bridge Housing argues that low income residents don't need as much parking because they prefer public transportation.  The reality is they need cars as much as anyone else.  Because they often live several families per apartment, they typically have MORE cars per household.

If Marinwood Village is built, it is a reasonable to expect the surrounding neighborhoods will be packed with parked cars. Miller Creek Avenue from Marinwood Ave. to Las Gallinas is being widened to allow for more street parking and a bike path. 

Do you want Marinwood to become another urban neighborhood, with Big Box apartments and wall to wall cars? 

Join us to stop the supervisors from turning us into Marinwood City.

St Vincent/Silvera Ranch development controversy in 2007

St. Vincents School for Boys

Editor's Note: Supervisor Susan Adams was swept into office with the promise to limit unbridled development at Saint Vincents and Silvera Ranch. She was considered an ardent environmentalist and one of our neighbors.  With the declaration of the Marinwood Priority Development area which she helped create  and promote while a vice president of ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments),  she no longer can be seen as any of these things.  The vision of creating six high density affordable housing developments, creating an increase in our population by at least 25% plus expected rezoning for addition compact development she must be seen as pro growth (at least for low income housing.)  The huge financial impact of these very low income developments  will burden our  Dixie schools and community services forcing the costs on Marinwood/Lucas Valley residents.

Funny,  I don't recall her mentioning the Marinwood Priority Development Area,  arguably her most significant "achievement" for Marinwood/Lucas Valley in the last election cycle.

What is YOUR vision for a successful future for Marinwood/Lucas Valley?  Find out more.  Attend our Monday meetings  at 6:30 PM. Email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com for details.



 

Marin IJ Article in 2007 on St Vincents/Silvera Ranch

 

Rival groups back compromise on St. Vincent/Silveira site

Brad Breithauptmarinij.com

Posted: 10/17/2007 12:08:53 AM PDT

Environmental leaders and housing advocates stood together Tuesday in support of a compromise plan that could lead to the construction a large senior village on ranchland at the north end of San Rafael.

After a six-hour hearing, county supervisors unanimously endorsed plans that would set a traffic-based development cap for the 1,110 acres owned by St. Vincent's School for Boys and Silveira Ranch.

Supervisor Susan Adams, a staunch critic of previous development plans for the acreage, supported the compromise. She said it sets the stage for "an Italian style kind of thing rather than a Southern California kind of sprawl across the hills."

For the second time in less than a month, more than 500 people attended the county hearing on new long-term growth guidelines for Marin's unincorporated areas.

Supervisors endorsed the controversial 221-home cap on the future development of the two properties. But they also opened the door for building a large senior village, much larger than 221 units, as long as it wouldn't exceed the commute-hour traffic generated by a conventional single-family home development.

Two prominent environmental leaders - Marge Macris of Campaign for Marin and Barbara Salzman of the Marin Audubon Society - stood when St. Vincent's spokesman Gary Giacomini asked backers of the compromise to rise.

The Silveira family, who run a dairy ranch on the adjacent 340 acres, objected to the cap, claiming it unfairly erodes the potential value of their property.
 "The harm to the Silveira family has already been done," said the family's attorney, David Trotter of Walnut Creek.

300-First Battle Scene. "This is where we Hold them"

Clean up of the Paint Spill at Grady Ranch appears to be going Well

The clean up of the 1000 gallons of paint looks like it is going well. There is still trash on the site but otherwise looks good. 

360 photo: https://theta360.com/s/i8KmfmeVHQq8DwAtf...

Dick Spotswood: Power play over control of Bay Area’s regional governance

Dick Spotswood writes a twice-weekly column on local politics for the Marin Independent Journal. (IJ photo/Robert Tong) 

POSTED: 09/12/15, 10:38 AM PDT |

0 COMMENTS

The Bay Area is in the midst of an audacious bureaucratic power play that, if successful, will change the face of the region. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is making its long-predicted move to gut the Association of Bay Area Governments, converting itself into the Bay Area’s de facto regional government.

A vote is expected soon enabling MTC to assume ABAG’s planning and housing allocation function. That would make ABAG’s financial model untenable. ABAG, long the high-density housing bogey man, has surprisingly morphed into a bottom-up operation respecting concerns of municipalities.

That’s due, in part, to two Marin council members, Novato’s Pat Eklund and San Anselmo’s Doug Kelly, who’ve taken an aggressive role reforming ABAG. It’s aided by ABAG new deputy executive director Brad Paul — a Greenbrae resident — who honors the long-touted but often-ignored policy that regional agencies push their high-density, transit-first housing agendas only when local communities concur.

See the full article in the Marin IJ HERE

See the Marin Coalition Lunch Program with Pat Ecklund and Steve Kinsey Debate HERE

Is Silicon Valley in Another Bubble . . . and What Could Burst It?

With the tech industry awash in cash and 100 “unicorn” start-ups now valued at $1 billion or more, Silicon Valley can’t escape the question. Nick Bilton reports.

BY 

• NICK BILTON

One Thursday morning in early June, the ballroom of the Rosewood Sand Hill hotel, in Menlo Park, was closed for a private presentation. The grand banquet hall appeared worthy of the sprawling resort’s five-star designation: ornate chandeliers hung from the ceiling; silk panels with a silver stenciled design covered the walls. Behind a stage in the 2,800-square-foot room, a large sign bore the name of Andreessen Horowitz, one of Silicon Valley’s most revered venture-capital firms.

As breakfast and coffee were offered, the company’s partners mingled with the men and women who endow their $1.5 billion fund. The investors were dressed invariably in business casual, with the top button of their dress shirts noticeably undone. (A mere handful of men stood out in a suit and tie.) Off in the distance, you could make out the faint purr of Bentleys and Teslas ferrying along Sand Hill Road, depositing the Valley’s other top V.C.’s at their respective offices—Greylock Partners, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and Sequoia Capital, to name just a few—for another day of meetings with founders, reviewing the decks of new start-ups, and searching for the next can’t-miss company.

After some chitchat (Mitt Romney had addressed the group the previous night) Scott Kupor, a managing partner, took the stage to tell the assembled investors what was going on with their money. A16z, as the firm is commonly known in the Valley, had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in some of the industry’s biggest companies—Instagram, Facebook, Box, Twitter, and Oculus VR—along with a number of upstarts, such as Instacart, a grocery-delivery business that had been recently valued at about $2 billion. After the guests found their seats, Kupor began moving through a series of slides depicting the past and present of the tech sector, using data that would help inform the firm’s investments in the future. Each set of numbers had been meticulously researched and culled from sources that included Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and the National Venture Capital Association.

Yet the presentation, which adhered to a16z’s gray-and-deep-orange palette, seemed to have an ulterior motive. Kupor, his hair neatly parted, was eager to assuage any worry about the existence of a tech bubble. While he conceded that there were some eerie similarities with the infamous dot-com bubble of 1999—such as the preponderance of so-called unicorns, or tech start-ups valued at $1 billion and upward—Kupor confidently buoyed his audience with slides that read, “It’s different this time,” and charts highlighting the decrease in tech I.P.O.’s, the metric that eventually pierced the froth in March of 2000. Back then, a company went public almost every single day; now it was down to about once per week. This time around, he noted, the money was flowing backward. Rather than entering a company’s coffers in the public markets, it was making its way to start-ups in late-stage investments. There was little, he suggested, to worry about.

See the full article in Vanity Fair HERE

Can a renters group sue an East Bay city for cutting 270 units out of a project?

Can a renters group sue an East Bay city for cutting 270 units out of a project?

The San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, a pro-density tenants group, is moving to sue the East Bay city of Lafayette after it supported replacing a plan for 315 apartments with one for 44 single-family homes.

Activists from the group, known as SFBARF, said that the downsizing of the project, the Homes at Deer Hill by developer O'Brien Homes, is another example of suburban communities blocking housing and contributing to an imbalance in supply and demand that has exacerbated housing costs throughout the region.



Sonja Trauss, the founder of the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation

“We feel it's especially egregious,” said Brian Hanlon, an organizer with SFBARF, which has launched a website called Sue the Suburbs. It says it may pursue legal action against other cities as well.

SFBARF is arguing that Lafayette's move is illegal under the state's 1982 Housing Accountability Act, which says that projects that fit within existing zoning cannot be reduced unless the city finds a “specific adverse impact on public health or safety." Lafayette approved the 44-unit plan in August and has a second and final reading of the project scheduled on Sept. 14. SFBARF would have 90 days to file a suit, so its deadline would be around Dec. 13.

San Francisco Magazine first reported the potential lawsuit.

There is a precedent for using the Housing Accountability Act to win approval for projects. Land use attorney Andrew Junius of Junius & Rose, who is advising SFBARF, notes that the San Francisco Board of Appeals ruled in favor of a 12-unit development at 1050 Valencia St. in the Mission based on the act.

The group has to find plaintiffs before filing a lawsuit, likely potential renters that wanted to live in a larger project. Hanlon said he was talking to the United Educators Association for Affordable Housing Inc., which includes teachers in the Bay Area seeking affordable housing options, as a potential partner.

Sonja Trauss, a former private school math teacher, founded SFBARF in the spring of 2014 after she saw numerous examples of opposition to new housing. Trauss, a Philadelphia native who lives in West Oakland and was priced out of San Francisco, believes that new market-rate housing will help alleviate the supply crunch – even if she can’t personally afford any of it.

The organization's goal is provide a voice for renters around the region, whom she feels have historically been marginalized in the planning process, which is typically dominated by local residents who oppose new housing. “I want them to feel that they are on the wrong side of history,” said Trauss. The group writes letters to public officials, attends public hearings and holds informative panels on housing. Last week, about a dozen of members of SFBARF spoke in support of 75 Howard, a 120-unit waterfront project that was approved by the Planning Commission.

Trauss is establishing a non-profit affiliate to SFBARF called the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CARLA-EF), which would file the Lafayette lawsuit. Since the Housing Accountability Act is a statewide law, it could lead to more legal action throughout the Bay Area and in other areas including Southern California.

SFBARF will need more money. The group has previously raised money from Jeremy Stoppelman, the CEO of Yelp and the San Francisco Moderates. Trauss estimates the cost of litigation to be $500,000 over three years. She is planning to raise $250,000 as soon as possible, and has a commitment of $50,000 from a tech source that she declined to identify. She also plans to apply to the incubator Y Combinator's nonprofit program, which awards $100,000.

The group has gained national media coverage as the Bay Area's housing market becomes more expensive, including stories in the Washington Post, Vox andVice. Its Twitter account has grown to 1,800 followers, up from around 200 in January.

Critics have called the group a “shill” for developers, but the group is composed of a core group of 10 to 15 volunteers and has a 400-member Google Group. Trauss is the only full-time, paid member of the group and occasionally hires help on a contract basis.

Lafayette city officials strongly disagree with SFBARF's approach. "I don’t really get it," said Brandt Andersson, the mayor of Lafayette. "We need more housing. The way they’re going about it is wrong."

He notes that SFBARF first got involved in the planning process days before the City Council vote and four years after the process had started, and the group immediately threatened to sue them.

He notes that the city didn't reject the denser plan, and began processing the larger application in 2011. But there was negative feedback from residents and city officials to the denser plan, and developer O'Brien Homes proposed the smaller project after discussion with city officials. Since the city didn't reject the larger plan, Andersson said a lawsuit had "no legal basis." O’Brien Homes didn't immediately return requests for comment.

Andersson said that the site's higher density of 15 homes per acre dates back to the Contra Costa County zoning when the land was unincorporated. After the city passed a General Plan and 2012 Downtown Specific Plan, it decided that denser housing should be closer to the downtown and BART station, which would give more residents access to retail and public housing. "If you’re doing multifamily housing, you should do it downtown," said Andersson. "It’s closer to transit. It’ll be more affordable."

The O'Brien Homes site, at Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill Roads, is about 1.6 miles from the BART station and is surrounded by single-family homes.

Andersson is critical of SFBARF's last-minute involvement and lack of knowledge of the city's downtown plan. "That’s just not the way planning has been done here for the past 50 years," said Andersson.

He also notes that Lafayette is building more housing. The city has around 370 units in its pipeline over the next eight years, after only growing to 23,893 people in 2010 from the 23,501 in 1990.

Andersson said that SFBARF's legal challenge ignores the city's efforts to support denser housing in more appropriate areas. "They have a position. There are no nuances there," he said.

But SFBARF is undaunted and said that the fact that O'Brien Homes took four years to gain approvals is a sign of how dysfunctional the planning process is in the Bay Area, with most cities failing their regional allocations for housing.

"Almost every Bay Area municipality is out of compliance. The net effect of that is Latino grandmothers get evicted in the Mission," said Hanlon. "Lafayette is the beginning. Lafayette is not the end."