HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Plan Bay Area 2050 - Priority Development Areas (PDA)____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: June 15, 2020
Disposition: Resolution 14829
Agenda Item No: 5.a
Meeting Date: June 15, 2020
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Paul Jensen (EG)
Community Development Director
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: PLAN BAY AREA 2050 - PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDA)
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A LETTER OF INTEREST NOMINATING THE NORTHGATE AND SOUTHEAST SAN RAFAEL/CANAL NEIGHBORHOODS AS PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS AS PART OF THE PLAN BAY AREA 2050 PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution
BACKGROUND:
MTC/ABAG, the regional planning organization overseeing the development of Plan Bay Area 2050, uses
a Letter of Interest (LOI) process to allow jurisdictions to nominate eligible areas of the jurisdiction for a
Priority Development Area (PDA) designation. The current Letter of Interest nomination phase opened
on March 13th, 2020. Jurisdictions were required to submit a Letter of Interest signed by the City Manager
or Planning director by May 31st, 2020. For new PDA areas, jurisdictions are also required to adopt a
resolution authorizing the submittal of these LOIs by June 30th, 2020. The adoption of this resolution is
the action that finalizes the LOI submittal and the proposed PDA nomination.
On May 18th, 2020, the City Council directed the City Manager to submit a Letter of Interest nominating
two new PDA-designations: the Northgate PDA and the Southeast San Rafael/ Canal PDA. Letters of
Interest were submitted on May 29, 2020 and can be viewed at the links below:
•Northgate PDA Letter of Interest
•Southeast San Rafael/ Canal Letter of Interest
•Southeast San Rafael/Canal Letter of Confirmation
•Letter of Interest Attachments and Corresponding Documents
The City Council also directed staff to develop and implement a community outreach plan to obtain
community feedback and recommendations on the proposed PDAs.
ANALYSIS:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Based upon community feedback, staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the
submittal of a letter of interest nominating the Northgate and Southeast San Rafael/Canal Neighborhoods
as Priority Development Areas.
The proposed Northgate PDA and Southeast San Rafael/Canal PDA boundaries (Attachment 2) reflect
City Council direction from May 18th, which reflects feedback received from public correspondence. As
seen in the PDA boundary maps, the proposed Northgate PDA includes Northgate Mall, Northgate III,
Northgate I Center, and the Las Gallinas office and gas station areas. The proposed Northgate PDA does
not include Mt. Olivet Cemetery, PDA-eligible areas east of Highway 101, and the PDA-eligible areas
immediately South and West of the Civic Center SMART Train Station. There was some community
interest to include the parcel immediately adjacent to the west of the Civic Center SMART Train Station.
Staff has not included these parcels at this time, but these areas could be added in the future as part of
a Specific or Precise plan process.
The proposed Southeast San Rafael/ Canal PDA includes the majority of San Rafael’s southeast city
boundaries following closely the Canal Neighborhood boundaries defined in the City’s General Plan 2020.
These boundaries differ in two ways:
1) The proposed PDA northwest boundary follows Woodland Avenue to the intersection of
Lindaro Street and Andersen Dr.
2) The proposed PDA boundaries do not include the Spinnaker/Bay Point subdivisions.
Next Steps
If the City Council adopts an authorizing resolution, staff will finalize the submittal of LOIs for a Northgate
PDA and Southeast San Rafael/Canal PDA. This submittal will be finalized and sent to MTC/ABAG staff
by June 30, 2020.
Once received, the MTC/ABAG Board will consider all locally nominated PDAs for approval. Approval
consideration by the MTC/ABAG Board is expected for August or September of 2020. If approved, the
Northgate PDA and/or Southeast San Rafael/Canal PDA will be included in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final
Blueprint analysis.
If the proposed PDAs are approved, staff does not anticipate work to begin on a community-planning
process until funding for such a process is secured. MTC/ABAG staff anticipates releasing a Call for
Funding for such a planning process in approximately September 2020. This funding would be
designated for PDA planning, similar to the Downtown Precise Plan. Additional planning funding is also
likely after the Plan Bay Area 2050 is adopted in 2021, with funding tentatively available in 2022.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Following the May 18th, 2020 City Council meeting, staff began setting up opportunities to facilitate virtual
community outreach. Community Outreach was required to be conducted virtually due to the current
Shelter-in-Place public health order in effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A four-pronged virtual
community outreach plan was launched on May 27th, 2020 and included 1:
• Designated Priority Development Area City Webpage
1 Staff purposefully chose not to conduct a survey regarding the proposed PDAs due to concerns regarding the accuracy of
such a survey. PDAs are a nuanced and complex topic due to the many state laws and regional agencies involved. These
complexities made designing an unbiased survey and achieving the sample size necessary to achieve a representative sample
extremely difficult and cost prohibitive. Staff believed more accurate and representative feedback could be obtained through
qualitative efforts such as virtual community meetings and one-on-one interactions with interested community members. These
efforts allowed staff to engage with residents directly and receive more detailed input regarding this topic.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
• Designated Northgate PDA and Southeast San Rafael/ Canal PDA Public Comment Sites
• Community Question Submittal Form and Corresponding Frequently Asked Questions
• Seven (7) virtual community meetings
o Three (3) meetings for the proposed Northgate PDA,
o Three (3) meetings for the proposed Southeast San Rafael/Canal PDA, and
o One (1) meeting with the League of Women Voters Transportation/Land Use/ Housing
Committee
Announcements of this community outreach were included in Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, Nextdoor,
Instagram), a PDA specific newsletter to the City’s email listserv, and a mailed Public Notice (Attachment
3). All outreach materials and online announcements were written to emphasize readability and to
increase accuracy of translation available through Google Translate on all websites created by staff.
Over the period of May 27th, 2020 to June 7th, 2020, staff achieved the following community participation:
• Frequently Asked Questions- staff received ten (10) submission with questions regarding PDAs.
Staff developed thirty-one (31) FAQs posted on the City’s PDA webpage responding to these
submissions.
• Virtual Community Meetings- 96 participants
o Canal PDA Virtual Community Meetings- 24 participants
o Northgate PDA Virtual Community Meetings- 57 participants
o League of Women Voters Transportation/Land Use/ Housing Committee- 15 participants
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact of nominating a PDA. As stated in the May 18th Staff Report, PDAs have better
access to designated funding streams for PDA planning and infrastructure projects.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt resolution with staff’s recommended action.
2. Adopt resolution with modifications.
3. Direct staff to return with more information.
4. Take no action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a Letter of Interest nominating Priority
Development Areas for the City of San Rafael.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit 1 to Resolution: Map of proposed Priority Development Areas for the Northgate and
Southeast San Rafael/Canal Neighborhoods
3. Public Notice
4. Correspondence
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 14829
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING
THE SUBMITTAL OF A LETTER OF INTEREST NOMINATING THE
NORTHGATE AND SOUTHEAST SAN RAFAEL/CANAL NEIGHBORHOODS
AS PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS AS PART OF THE PLAN
BAY AREA 2050 PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission in coordination with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (collectively, the "regional agencies") are updating the
regional planning document known as Plan Bay Area 2050; and
WHEREAS, Plan Bay Area 2050 must meet a range of federal and state requirements,
including being fiscally constrained, meeting or exceeding greenhouse gas emissions reduction target
as outlined in Senate Bill 375, and accommodating housing growth at all income levels, with the
parallel Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process being consistent with the ultimate Plan
growth pattern; and
WHEREAS, the regional agencies seek local government partners to create “priority
development areas”, defined as places with convenient public transit service prioritized by local
governments for housing, jobs, and services; and
WHEREAS, the regional agencies released a map of areas eligible for priority development
areas designated as either “Transit Rich” due to their close proximity to a rail station or as a
“Connected Community” due to the level of bus service within the designated area; and
WHEREAS, local governments in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area are eligible to
apply for designation of an area within their community as a priority development area; and
WHEREAS, the regional agencies are committed to securing incentives and providing
technical assistance to designated priority development areas so that positive change can be achieved
in communities working to advance focused growth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
authorizes submitting a Letter of Interest to designate priority development areas for the Northgate and
Southeast San Rafael/Canal Neighborhoods, as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on
Monday, the 15th day of June 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
Page 2 of 2
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
Exhibit 1: Map of proposed Priority Development Areas for the Northgate and
Southeast San Rafael/Canal Neighborhoods
1
Exhibit 1. Map of proposed Priority Development Areas for the Northgate and Southeast
San Rafael/Canal Neighborhoods
Map 1. Southeast San Rafael/ Canal Priority Development Area Boundary
2
Map 2. Northgate Priority Development Area Boundary
NOTICE OF ONLINE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK!
As part of the on-going work for City of San Rafael General Plan 2040, City staff has received requests from community representatives for
programing and funding more detailed planning efforts in the Southeast San Rafael/Canal neighborhood and North San Rafael Northgate area.
More detailed planning efforts typically involve preparing a Specific Plan or Neighborhood Plan, which requires grant funding. A “Priority
Development Area” (PDA) designation is being discussed for these areas, which would bring funding opportunities for community-driven
planning efforts. A PDA is a geographic area that is close to or along transit nodes/connections that are sustainable for concentrated growth.
Should the City continue to pursue a PDA-designation and funding for the Southeast San Rafael/Canal and/or the North San Rafael
Northgate areas?
What areas of Southeast San Rafael/Canal and North San Rafael Northgate should be included in a PDA designation?
What topics would you want included in a North San Rafael planning process?
For more information, visit www.cityofsanrafael.org/PDA. This webpage includes a link to the May 18, 2020 informational report on PDAs to the
City Council.
The San Rafael City Council will review and consider the Priority Development Area (PDA) designations for these two areas at its regular
meeting on Monday, June 15, 2020, 7:00pm. Due to the COVID019 Shelter-in-Place Order, the meeting will be streamed live to YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael.
How to Participate
1. Submit questions, and comments at www.cityofsanrafael.org/PDA
2. We will host multiple virtual Zoom community meetings, starting June 3. If interested, sign-up online.
3. The City will update the Frequently Asked Question section of the website. If you do not see your questions answered, let us know!
4. Attend the June 15, 2020 City Council meeting (7:00pm). Call in or participate via live chat on YouTube.
5. Send a letter or email to: ethan.guy@cityofsanrafael.org
FOR MORE INFORMATION
WWW.CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG/PDA
NOTICE OF ONLINE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK!
As part of the on-going work for City of San Rafael General Plan 2040, City staff has received requests from community representatives for
programing and funding more detailed planning efforts in the Southeast San Rafael/Canal neighborhood and North San Rafael Northgate area.
More detailed planning efforts typically involve preparing a Specific Plan or Neighborhood Plan, which requires grant funding. A “Priority
Development Area” (PDA) designation is being discussed for these areas, which would bring funding opportunities for community-driven
planning efforts. A PDA is a geographic area that is close to or along transit nodes/connections that are sustainable for concentrated growth.
Should the City continue to pursue a PDA-designation and funding for the Southeast San Rafael/Canal and/or the North San Rafael
Northgate areas?
What areas of Southeast San Rafael/Canal and North San Rafael Northgate should be included in a PDA designation?
What topics would you want included in a North San Rafael planning process?
For more information, visit www.cityofsanrafael.org/PDA. This webpage includes a link to the May 18, 2020 informational report on PDAs to the
City Council.
The San Rafael City Council will review and consider the Priority Development Area (PDA) designations for these two areas at its regular
meeting on Monday, June 15, 2020, 7:00pm. Due to the COVID019 Shelter-in-Place Order, the meeting will be streamed live to YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael.
How to Participate
1. Submit questions, and comments at www.cityofsanrafael.org/PDA
2. We will host multiple virtual Zoom community meetings, starting June 3. If interested, sign-up online.
3. The City will update the Frequently Asked Question section of the website. If you do not see your questions answered, let us know!
4. Attend the June 15, 2020 City Council meeting (7:00pm). Call in or participate via live chat on YouTube.
5. Send a letter or email to: ethan.guy@cityofsanrafael.org
FOR MORE INFORMATION
WWW.CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG/PDA
~SAN RAFAEL
~ THECITYWITHAMISSION
~SAN RAFAEL
~ THE CITY WITH A MISSION
1
Ethan Guy
From:Anne Spatola LAST_NAME
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:19 PM
To:Ethan Guy
Cc:anne
Subject:Fwd: PDA 2020
Categories:PDA
Hello,
I just finished reading the Staff Reports for PDA 2020. It seems to be very
comprehensive with a lot of consideration in its development. I have lived in Marin
since 1981, 25 years in San Anselmo and 5 years in San Rafael, off Pt San Pedro. In
these years, I have seen many changes take place in the Northgate and Canal
areas. The need for affordable housing has intensified over the years and the
Northgate shopping district has suffered quite a bit with various downturns in the
economy. I would certainly like to see a return to some level of vibrancy and
improvement in housing in the Canal. I volunteered at the Canal Alliance for a year and
4 years at San Pedro Elementary. I have witnessed some of the effects that lack of
affordable housing has on the community. I have also attended meetings with residents
of the Canal describing the atrocious conditions of those apartment.
At this point, I support Option 2 for the Canal plan and Option 3 for Northgate. So much
will improve in a community when the focus is directed toward creating better housing
options.
Thank you for requesting public input.
Anne Spatola
1
Ethan Guy
From:Lee FitzGerald
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:59 PM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:PDA for North San Rafael
Categories:PDA
Good afternoon,
As a 32 year home owner in Terra Linda, I support the pursuit of a PDA designation and funding for the process at the
Northgate area of North San Rafael.
Best,
Lee B FitzGerald
1
Ethan Guy
From:JOHN GASKIN
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 12:23 PM
To:Ethan Guy
Cc:Jonathan Gaskin
Subject:PDA for the Northgate Mall area
Categories:PDA
Ethan Guy,
Although not new, the idea of a PDA for the Northgate Mall Area is probably a good one. We have an opportunity to
redesign an area with a failing mall that may be accessible to the Civic Center, public transportation, and walking and
bicycling neighbors. However, that assumes the construct of commuting and shopping in person is still in tact after the
current pandemic is no longer a health threat. But the design has to be good and needs to accommodate changing
needs. I would prefer to see small independent shops that are interesting to visit. With more people working from
home, there will be less "rush hour" vehicular traffic and we will need more spacious places to walk or ride a
bicycle. The Smart Train may go under, with mass transit in question. For the Northgate Mall, internet shopping, and
poor design and management of the mall have contributed to its demise. Interestingly, some other malls with more
interesting, smaller shops and without the "anchor store on the ends" 1960's formula, are doing better. Over the years I
have witnessed small shops forced out of the Northgate Mall, and the adjoining strip malls, time and time again, with
lower quality replacements--or empty shells left for several years--a product of greed on the part of the mall
owners. (The mall gets sold, and the new owners--like the current owner--jack up the rents to recoup the
"investment".) Good design needs to be a priority, and it needs to not be overbuilt; because that will kill everything and
rob the neighborhood of its character and safety.
The concept of the PDA for the Northgate Mall Area seems good enough; but I have become skeptical over the years this
is just another developer inspired tool to "fast track" mass building, with many shortcuts to circumvent decent design
requirements; that is a maximize profits at the expense of the neighborhoods gambit.
In the mid and late 1980's, a coalition of homeowners associations worked to develop a plan for the North San Rafael
area, which specifically included "no big box warehouse type stores/Costco" in the area. And here we are, entertaining
a Costco again, no longer at the Fairchild location in a business community away from residences, but now a hugh
eyesore backed up to the street and next to several residential homes. The proposed design would be laughable,
equating underground square footage to a third story build out to the street, were it not so tragic for the homeowners--
who are having the value of their homes sucked out and stuffed into the pockets of some transient developer.
Another issue that is consistently overlooked in planning is that the Northgate/Terra Linda area has already absorbed a
significant amount of low income housing development, rental complexes, senior housing, and group homes.
I just hope this PDA for the Northgate Mall area is more successful and thoughtful for the surrounding neighborhoods,
who are the city of San Rafael, than previous building proposals.
John & Ginger Gaskin
San Rafael
1
Ethan Guy
From:Ms Angela Gott
Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 1:29 PM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:The critical need to build more senior subsidized housing for both workforce AND
seniors
Categories:PDA
Angela Gott
•
Lincoln Hill
m m m m V
I know that in other places (cities, states) under-utilized Shopping Malls have been converted into housing units
above the ground floor retail spaces and these apartments are lived in by retail employees, young adults, and
seniors. Marin county is 30% or more age 60+ and this county has the highest percentage of seniors of all CA
counties.
For a long time there has been a huge need for more senior/disabled housing for seniors in the extremely low
income HUD category of poverty. I have always earned $19,000 to $22,000 a year since moving to Marin in
1986 and I earned six college degrees (5 SUNY Buffalo, including a JD in law and 2 Masters) I never could find
an employment opportunity commensurate with my education. Borders Books was the best job I could ever
obtain and in 2003 entry pay was $7.50/hour but as FT I finally got benefits and access to healthcare, paid
holidays, PTO, guaranteed 32 hours/week, FSA, paid vacation, employee discount, and 401K. It enabled me to
utilize my 6 college degrees and I could finally live like a normal person. I still cleaned houses on the side.
Borders Books went bankrupt in June 2011 as I turned 60 and I was finally up to $10.23/hour in pay. It took me
3 years to find another steady job --I have two and work a total of 32 hrs. /week at $12/hour since 2014. I turned
65 in 2016 and had to get on Medicare. I could not afford to get on Medicare (out of pocket premiums are over
$3,000 a year is why) AND keep my apartment. What "saved me" was I finally moved up the waitlist to get into
Marin Housing for seniors/disabled. I would be homeless but for that.
There are so many seniors like me and so many are women. I am now 69 and still working and waiting to age
70 to collect social security. I earned $20,455.00 in 2019. Because 30% of whatever I earn is what determines
my rent, I finally have an affordable ability to live on what I earn. We need more housing set at 30% income.
There is such a critical need for it.
I have worked all my life since age 18. I even juggled jobs while in college, graduate school, and law school. I
never had children and never married. So that is why I have held off drawing Social Security. (you get 76%
more from age 62 to 70 by waiting.)
2
Once I am 70, despite working 50+ years, due to the lifetime of low pay (inequality in pay based on gender,
marital status, & age discrimination) I will only get $1,392/month. But with senior/disabled housing I will be O.K.
I feel so blessed to have senior/disabled housing. Marin county truly needs more of this so I would love to see
the Mall transformed so that senior/disabled housing is built. Thank you. I wrote this to Nextdoor for San Rafael,
Lincoln Hill
19 May 2020
As a boomer generation senior woman (1946-1964 is the boomer generation) many women
were raised back then to just get married and have kids and were told by older women
relatives that our husbands would support us. Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s and
watching shows like Leave it to Beaver and Bewitched where the housewife/mother -- look
at I love Lucy--she didn't work--this was the roll model imprinted on young women growing
up in the 1950s, 1960s and those were our expectations. Where I grew up women were not
expected to need college or go to college. I was raised in a college educated household and
was raised to get my college degree but even when I went to register-- girls had 3 choices:
Nursing, Education, Home Economics. We passively did not question what school
counselors, parents, teachers, college advisors told us.
We grew up when women rarely worked outside the home. They might do volunteer work or
church charity work but their place was in the home. Our readers from K-garten had
showed us these role models. It was all indoctrination as to how the world worked. We were
expected to marry so it was not considered logical or a good use of family spending to
educate a girl -- especially when she had brothers who HAD to go to college and HAD to
graduate. (Lucky for me I did not have brothers.) So everyone's mothers, Aunts,
Grandmothers, older sisters were living according to this life of the 1950s, 1960s. Most of
us did not question this.
Women in the 1950s, 1960s, did start to get divorced but were awarded alimony and child
support and were kept in the family home and the husband had to maintain the lifestyle
according to how she was accustomed to living. A woman was expected to be a mother and
not work outside the home. That was ingrained too. The legal age was 21 and Judges
routinely forced the fathers to continue to pay for the sons' college educations if they were
in the financial position to pay that and college was dirt cheap back then too. Kids with
dead parents-- as long as they were FT college students they got access to social security
survivor's benefits until age 22 and this lasted until Ronald Reagan ended that in March
1982. This is how and why I managed to get my first BA degree 1973-- my mother died
when I was 19. She had paid into Social Security with a part-time dance teacher ballet
school as "self-employed" and while she did not earn much-- that is how I managed to live
on that while finishing my first college degree.
I always seemed to graduate "in a recession" --I never graduated in an optimal time for
getting access to lots of jobs. I joined the Teacher Corps/Peace Corps as there was a
recession -- why Nixon took the US Dollar off the Gold Standard. The Vietnam War was
bankrupting the US economy. I was shipped to an economically distressed area (WNY) to
teach English and after a year in the program, it was decided that Afghanistan was too
unstable to ship 23 English teachers (most of them women) to so I was then a NY Resident
only paid $360 a month so I became eligible for Nixon's Higher Education Assistance Act of
1972& Amendments 1973 which NY Governor Nelson Rockefeller had fully implemented.
3
This is how and why I wound up earning 5 more college degrees (SUNY Buffalo) and I
figured at the time that adding on all these additional degrees would make me more
employable, have more to offer employers. There was a huge recession after Reagan got
elected and no one was hiring. I had been working for City of Buffalo legal department on a
CETA (federal jobs act program) funded slot and was laid off. I stayed in higher education
too long and found out that once these recessions were over-- employers hired the most
recent graduates, not the casualties from two or 3 years back-- and I fell into age
discrimination for entry level career path hiring programs as I was 32, 33 by the time the
economy began to pick up again and corporations with new hire trainee programs did not
hire people "that old" but took those under 25.
So my life became all about survival. I regularly worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time, whatever I
could find and these all paid minimum wage. As a college graduate with graduate degrees I
could always manage to get hired but it was always minimum wage, part-time, no benefits.
My girlfriends who had not finished collage--maybe had one year-- but who were married
with kids and who had starter marriages and divorce battles and on and on looked at my
situation as I had no social life and worked nights, holidays, weekends, etc. I worked when
I was sick. I never called out. They said that with all my education and skills that if I could
not find a good paying job, what chance did they have?
My generation was the first that in many cases women no longer got alimony and could
barely get their former husbands to pay child support. Access to college for their kids was
no longer a given either. Higher education became extremely expensive under Rea ganomics.
So the boomer generation of women--whether we never married or we we married several
times-- generally has had a difficult time and most women had lives of never ending
struggle for themselves and their kids.
The Social Security Administration, under the Reagan Congress, did very bad changes in
1980s that went into effect for our boomer generation starting around 2008 when those
who were born in 1946 turned 62. And, 10,000 a day began turning 62 every day so that is
how many boomers there are. We were in the Great Recession and subprime lending
mortgage crisis in 2008 and as they turned 62, many women turned to claiming their social
security. Whereas their older sisters, Aunts, Mothers, Grandmothers Social Security had
spousal support or survivors' checks which had been based on their husbands' work
histories, the boomer generation women were hurt by the SSA two major ways-- The rules
for "bonafide marriage" defined by 10 years & a day for getting spousal support or
survivor's benefits based on the former husband's work history-- were done so quietly that
Family Court Judges and Divorce Lawyers were not even aware of it when my generation of
women began wanting out of bad marriages in late 1970s & early 1980s, after about 7
years of marriage on average. None of these women were told about the 10 year rule and
only found out about it decades later when the SSA told them they were not eligible for any
benefits from a former spouse and any SSA would be based on their work history and
figured up for 35 years too, which most of them did not have.
Everyone was clueless in those days and the focus was on best interests of the children and
creating a plan for the wives to get access to job training, or maintenance for a number of
years, so they could go to work and help pay for what it took to raise the kids, etc. So the
length of the marriage was not really considered with regard to old age access to spousal
support and survivor's death benefits when these women in their late 20s & early 30s
5
They were laid off from full-time jobs, but made too
little to get unemp...
Millions of U.S. workers make their living off tips. Now, some are
finding they don't qualify for jobless benefits.
Throughout most of the USA wait staff (both sexes) are paid $2.13/hour plus tips for
restaurant jobs and they actually earn too low for eligibility for unemployment. This is why
so many service industry workers in the Southern states especially, who applied for
unemployment in March have not received it. This is outrageous because when these
women go to get their social security they are going to find out there is hardly anything
there--their employers never paid into social security the way they were supposed to even
on the little $2.13/hour income.
So this is why so many women in their senior years are winding up out on the streets in
their 70s, 80s, 90s, ----This is why City of San Rafael really needs to finally do something
nice for my boomer generation and build housing for seniors/disabled and the NG Mall
would be the perfect location. Please do something for my generation of boomers. Most of
Marin's homeless were born and raised in Marin County. Their parents and grandparents
are buried here. They graduated from high schools in Marin and how they all wound up
this way is not really their fault. We need housing for my generation of seniors. It is the
right thing to do. Thank you.
Angela Gott
Marin Resident since 1989,
CA resident since 1986 (I moved to CA when I was 35--best decision ever ! )
1
Ethan Guy
From:Claire Halenbeck
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 4:32 PM
To:Ethan Guy; Paul Jensen
Subject:Please add our comments to the City Council briefing on the PDA
Categories:PDA
Hi Paul and Ethan,
We have lived at in Terra Linda for 25 years. We raised 4 children who attended San Rafael
Schools. We are strongly invested in this community and value our quality of life in Terra Linda. Claire attended an
informative zoom session this week and we have made up our minds about the Priority Development Area at Northgate
in Terra Linda.
We support creating a Priority Development Area in the Northgate area of Terra Linda for a number of reasons:
1. Northgate 1 and 3 have both been in serious trouble for years and are currently run down and a terrible eyesore in
our neighborhood.
2. Merlone Geier promised to create a town center for Terra Linda at the Northgate properties but have literally put no
time into planning the site for the future. Even if it must be completed in phases, we need to see what the phases are
exactly and how they will work together to create this vision.
3. We believe that housing should be planned for this site for 2 reasons - A. to support the mall shops and services and
B. to create badly needed housing for San Rafael. Right now, there is no indication where the housing will be planned.
4. The PDA if approved, will provide funding in a time when it will be hard to find funding from other sources for this
type of community planning.
5. We believe it is critical that we act now and not 4 years from now to finally create a specific or precise plan that we
have have been consistently envisioning in all city planning efforts since 1997.
We understand that there is resistance from some in Terra Linda but believe this is based in unfounded fears. We
believe an inclusive process will greatly benefit our neighborhood and also the City of San Rafael . In these uncertain
times, it would be very positive to have this process get underway as soon as possible to give us all hope of finding a
better solution that looks forward with vision and is not just reactive to whatever comes along for these properties. If
we do it correctly, we can all be proud of what we are leaving to those that come after us in San Rafael including our
children, grandchildren and those of our neighbors.
very sincerely,
Robert and Claire Halenbeck
San Rafael, CA 94903
M m
m
Claire Halenbeck, IIDA, CID
2
principal
415.720.7090 | www.rma.studio
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 10:27 AM
To:Gary Phillips; Andrew McCullough; John Gamblin; Maribeth Bushey; Kate Colin
Cc:Paul Jensen; Ethan Guy
Subject:Re: Insufficient outreach during a time of distraction by BLM & a pandemic to apply for
a PDA at Northgate
I did already share the link to the main PDA, but as you know full well the community could not be more distracted right
now. Now is not the time for such a major decision.
The engagement this topic merits - deciding whether or not a PDA is desired - simply cannot be achieved by June 15th.
Richard
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 09:19:11 AM PDT, Kate Colin <kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Thanks Richard for caring about San Rafael; I'm right there with you on that! I'm hoping that in addition to
your polls, you could also share the below on NextDoor so folks have a place to look if they want to read for
themselves about PDAs. We both want to have as much input as possible and with your extensive
connections, it would really support yours and my desire to improve engagement.
Main PDA webpage here https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/priority-development-areas-2020/
Here's a link to the Neighborland Sites to post comments:
-Northgate https://neighborland.com/sanrafael2040/plan-bay-area-2050-northgate-pda
-Canal https://neighborland.com/sanrafael2040/plan-bay-area-2050-southeast-san-rafael-canal-pda
Thanks so much for helping to get the word out.
Kate Colin
Vice Mayor, City of San Rafael
Connect with me! 415 205-3119 cell
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:06 AM
To: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough
<Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey
<Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>; Ethan Guy <Ethan.Guy@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Insufficient outreach during a time of distraction by BLM & a pandemic to apply for a PDA at Northgate
Kate & members of the city council,
2
I want to bring your attention to the lack of engagement happening around the Northgate PDA - normally hundreds
respond to outreach meetings by council and polls I run on Nextdoor - but at a time when people could not be more
distracted by first a pandemic, and now BLM, only a few dozen have chimed in. People were only given 48 hours notice of
Zoom meetings during the working day which were consequently only attended by the same cast of characters from
activist groups and the general plan committee.
Valid points that I made during the Zoom meeting were summarily and invalidly dismissed by staff (which seems to be the
tone of the council after Maribeth chastised me in a General Plan meeting), ensuring a prevailing narrative that was pro-
PDA dominated these meetings.
I did run another survey on Nextdoor and directed people to the Neighborland site, the survey clearly shows the
community is split on whether they want a PDA:
https://nextdoor.com/news feed/?post=150647680
As you can see 49% support a PDA, while 51% oppose or say they have not had enough time or information to form a
decision:
3
4
Furthermore I have a Marin Voice submission that they intend to publish to make more people aware of the situation,
addressing misinformation from a prior Marin Voice piece by Shirley Fischer. The Marin IJ tell me this cannot run before
June 15th when you make a final decision. Again - insufficient time has been provided for outreach, and insufficient
outreach has occurred.
Please do not apply for Northgate / North San Rafael to be made a Priority Development Area - people are highly
distracted and there has been insufficient outreach and engagement on this topic. People are much more focused on a
once in a century pandemic and major civil rights protests.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Ethan Guy
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:12 AM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:RE: Insufficient outreach during a time of distraction by BLM & a pandemic to apply for
a PDA at Northgate
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:07 AM
To: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough
<Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey
<Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>; Ethan Guy <Ethan.Guy@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Insufficient outreach during a time of distraction by BLM & a pandemic to apply for a PDA at Northgate
Kate & members of the city council,
I want to bring your attention to the lack of engagement happening around the Northgate PDA - normally hundreds
respond to outreach meetings by council and polls I run on Nextdoor - but at a time when people could not be more
distracted by first a pandemic, and now BLM, only a few dozen have chimed in. People were only given 48 hours notice of
Zoom meetings during the working day which were consequently only attended by the same cast of characters from
activist groups and the general plan committee.
Valid points that I made during the Zoom meeting were summarily and invalidly dismissed by staff (which seems to be the
tone of the council after Maribeth chastised me in a General Plan meeting), ensuring a prevailing narrative that was pro-
PDA dominated these meetings.
I did run another survey on Nextdoor and directed people to the Neighborland site, the survey clearly shows the
community is split on whether they want a PDA:
https://nextdoor.com/news feed/?post=150647680
As you can see 49% support a PDA, while 51% oppose or say they have not had enough time or information to form a
decision:
2
Furthermore I have a Marin Voice submission that they intend to publish to make more people aware of the situation,
addressing misinformation from a prior Marin Voice piece by Shirley Fischer. The Marin IJ tell me this cannot run before
June 15th when you make a final decision. Again - insufficient time has been provided for outreach, and insufficient
outreach has occurred.
Please do not apply for Northgate / North San Rafael to be made a Priority Development Area - people are highly
distracted and there has been insufficient outreach and engagement on this topic. People are much more focused on a
once in a century pandemic and major civil rights protests.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:42 PM
To:Kate Colin
Cc:Dick Spotswood; Leyla Hill; Gary Phillips; Paul Jensen;
Shirley Fischer; Ethan Guy
Subject:Your words on the record from Sept 6th 2013 special council meeting "PDA sets an
expectation" [of growth]
Kate,
Want to bring to your attention your prior words on the topic of PDA in Terra Linda from 2013 - the parallels and
contradictions could not be more startling. You state:
"Planned Development Area doesn't set an obligation it sets an expectation and that's clear to me - we
expect to have additional growth here" - Kate Colin, (3h 19m)
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/public-meeting-archives/
To view your words, select "City Council Special" and view the video for Sept 6th 2013. Jump to 3h 19m.
"I have grave concerns that we're going to have more strings attached going forward. .. when approved in 2008 we
were told it was a funding mechanism. Fast forward 5 years and thjere are housing and job compponents that
ccame through very strongly. It would be a different discussion back in 2008 if those numbers had been part of the
original discussion. ... That makes me nervous....
If we have expectations handed down to us I'm concerned we won't be able to have the control that we want. The
issue has been well vetted and researched. We had three meetings in addition to many one on one meetings with
individuals."
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:20 AM
To:Paul Jensen
Cc:Dick Spotswood; Kate Colin; Andrew McCullough; Gary Phillips; Ethan Guy; Maribeth
Bushey; John Gamblin
Subject:Staffer Paul Jensen 9/16/2013 on the record: "PDAs create an expectation of growth",
Sept 6th, 2013, 35 mins mark
Paul,
Following up on city council's unanimous decision last night to designate an area of Terra Linda to be a "Priority
Development Area" in a letter of intent to be submitted to ABAG before the May 31st deadline, once again without
appropriate outreach to the community. Was nothing learned from 2013?
I am looking back at my notes and see that you stated in your presentation on PDAs in a city council special meeting on
September 6th 2013 not once but twice that the PDAs designation creates an expectation of growth and an intent for the
local jurisdiction to build high-density housing. Jump to around the 35 minute mark. This is further substantiated in the
slides that you shared. Yet none of this is covered in your staff report of May 18 2020. The report makes no mention of
"accelerated growth" or "high density".
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/public-meeting-archives/
(Go to September 6th 2013, Council Special Meeting, skip to 35 minute mark).
Here are your slides...see last bullet:
2
See last bullet:
3
Where is this acknowledged and shown in the report to council made on Thursday?
This seems to have been obfuscated and not detailed in the staff report distributed on Thursday last week. Even in the
report given in 2013 the same claim "there are no strings attached" is mentioned.
Why was the above not disclosed in your staff report last week? Council and residents have not been briefed accurately in
the staff report sent out only on Thursday.
This is inconsistent - how can decisions be made on inconsistent information? Process is not being followed, people are
not being represented. Council and staff are failing to perform their job.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:11 AM
To:Gary Phillips; Andrew McCullough; Kate Colin; Maribeth Bushey; John Gamblin
Cc:Paul Jensen; Susan Kirsch; Dick Spotswood; Ethan Guy
Subject:Council vote last night to submit LOI for Northgate PDA
Given last nights rushed, once again poorly publicized, unanimous vote to progress a PDA at Northgate through a Letter
of Intent, despite widespread and overwhelming opposition by the community both in 2013 and for the few who knew
about it this last week, please would you now lay out a program of the series of meetings - for which Zoom is not an
acceptable medium - either a series of in-person meetings with the community must occur or the Northgate PDA
rescinded (again).
It would seem that the council (and staff) was once again tone-deaf to:
- the current COVID-19 situation inhibiting and preventing effective outreach
- a preposterously imminent decision date of June 30th which the city should have known about long ago
- what occurred in 2013 which was a long run battle between residents and council to overturn a major decision
- continued pressure and changes to definitions in Sacramento to zoning and planning amplifying intent
- repeating a process where a major decision was made in 2009 without sufficient time or outreach
...that the council is not listening to the community, but rather to organizations such as SMART (referenced by Mayor
Phillips) and non -transparent non-representative groups without a mandate such as Responsible Growth in Marin. The
city should not be serving SMART, or advocacy groups that happen to be inside council member's bubble.
We now need MANY HOURS of the planning team's time between today and June 30th, deproproritizing COVID-19 so
that the due process and engagement that did not happen in 2009, did not happen yesterday is not repeated and
progressed yet again for a long term commitment that should have waited.
As with the Quiet Zone, can we please have 3 well publicized in person community meetings in the Terra Linda Area
before June 30th and if this is not possible reject the Civic Center PDA. Given prior repeated failures in outreach the city
this time around needs to make extended and protracted efforts through mailers and email within the next week so that
people in the area can become aware of the major decision that has been made for them.
Staff and council SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON COVID-19 and NOT LONG TERM PLANNING on a matter that stirred up
a hornets nest in 2009.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Ethan Guy
Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:34 AM
To:
Cc:Paul Jensen
Subject:RE: PDA Questions
Richard,
Paul is in a meeting and asked me to follow-up with your email below.
We are in the process of finalizing the email and social media messages which will include several resources answering
your questions below. You should begin to see this information on the various platforms and in your inbox by midday
today.
On the website you will see that there are several ways to participate in this discussion, and we encourage you to submit
questions or comments through those channels.
Thank you,
Ethan
Ethan Guy | City of San Rafael
Principal Analyst
Community Development Department
1400 5th Avenue, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
415.458.2392
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 8:42 AM
To: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Re: PDA Questions
There is nothing posted on Nextdoor.com. I searched for "PDA" and "Priority Development Area" and nothing came up
except the posts I made months back.
The only outreach I have received is the one call from you just 6 days before a decision was to be made about submitting
an LOI.
Richard
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 07:59:23 AM PDT, Paul Jensen <paul.jensen@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
2
Good morning Richard-
I am preparing for an 8:00am meeting so I will respond to yo PDA website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/priority-
development-areas-2020/ur email and questions after this meeting. You should have received a notice through several
social media sources (including Next Door) about the Outreach Program and PDA website that went live yesterday. Here
are the links:
PDA website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/priority-development-areas-2020/
* Northgate- https://neighborland.com/sanrafael2040/plan-bay-area-2050-northgate-pda?preview=668ba8d1b4b25a79
* Canal- https://neighborland.com/sanrafael2040/plan-bay-area-2050-southeast-san-rafael-canal-
pda?preview=668ba8d1b4b25a79
Will get back to you later.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:04 PM
To: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: PDA Questions
If you ever want to restore the situation and be on good terms you need to:
1) tell me how the PDA was put on the council agenda, why and by whom? RGM did not appear to directly ask for a PDA,
the topic of financing sources may have arisen and a PDA touched on... but there seems to have been a leap of logic
2) why was the entire PDA fight forgotten? Why are we repeating 2009 where there was almost no outreach, when again
we were told there were no strings attached?
3) why did your staff report omit what you Yourself had said on sept 6th 2009, that PDAs create the expectation of
development
4) why are you rushing this through during a pandemic?
5) if the deadline was already known many months ago why did this suddenly come about?
Richard
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 4:03 PM
To:Ethan Guy; Paul Jensen; Kate Colin
Cc:Glenn Bossow; Bernick Lea Ann; Susan Kirsch
Subject:Feedback to your North San Rafael PDA questions
You presented the following questions in today's Zoom meeting that few attended or were aware of.
2
3
I do not support the proposed PDA
The boundaries are moot, I do. not want a PDA
The planning process is moot, there should not be a PDA designated in North San Rafael.
How are you possibly getting unbiased responses to these questions given most people had less than 48 hours notice of this zoom meeting, attendance was the
usual cast of pro growth characters (highly over-represented)
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:53 PM
To:Paul Jensen; Kate Colin
Cc:Ethan Guy; Susan Kirsch; Glenn Bossow; Bernick Lea Ann
Subject:Offensive and condescending response to my Q comparing Quiet Zone application to
PDA application
I found staff's response condescending and offensive about the Quiet Zone designation and the San Rafael PDA
designation as "apples and oranges". It was manipulative.
The Quiet Zone, requiring 6 months of meetings, was also an application for a "designation" just as is the NSR PDA is an
application for a "designation". Once an application is made it is much, much harder to rescind that designation (as the 3
years fighting the Civic Center PDA demonstrated) - momentum is in place and I can already see the conversation
progressing to the presumption that there is a community mandate for a PDA (this is the tone conveyed). So hey, let's
now just focus on the precise plan.
This can only be addressed if the first 6 months of conversations after Shelter In Place finishes there are in-person
community meetings solely focused on "does the community want a PDA in North San Rafael?".
Only once an unbiased discussion on this sole topic occurs, for sufficient time (6 months, 6 in person meetings) and a
referendum or unbiased vote taken by the community can we transition to a precise or specific plan, should the PDA be
supported by the community.
Please can city council and staff stop acting and responding as if you have a community mandate for a PDA in North San
Rafael, you clearly do not. I have run polls showing hundreds oppose this designation. You only have a mandate from the
usual cast of pro-development activists (as demonstrated by the attendees of the Zoom call) who will likely be over-
represented on any precise plan committee.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:58 AM
To:Kate Colin; John Gamblin; Gary Phillips; Andrew McCullough; Maribeth Bushey
Cc:Paul Jensen; Ethan Guy
Subject:Prohibitively short engagement period during SIP inhibiting democratic discussion of
North SR PDA
Kate, city council & staff,
In the time allowed to even try to get the word out about PDAs I have submitted a Marin Voice article. But the time allotted
for input - until June 15th (with input Zoom meetings running through this week) - just simply isn't enough. Please read the
response below from the Marin IJ below.
We have the council and activist Shirley Fisher sharing what may be misinformation that the PDA is back to only being a
"funding mechanism" in a one-sided (not balanced) article advocating PDA approval, there is not enough time to affirm if
claims "it's just a funding mechanism" is true (at this particular point in time) or ascertain if this will change (yet again).
For the Quiet Zones there were 6 public meetings over the course of 5 months. This was a lesser, with QZ supporters
limited to those affected - people living near the train tracks bothered by the noise. The Terra Linda PDA application
affects the entire North San Rafael community.
How many people weighed in - attending meetings or writing - during the Quiet Zone process, and by comparison how
many people have weighed in on the PDA? If only a tiny fraction weighed in on the PDA that should be ringing alarm bells
that insufficient outreach and engagement has occurred and this matter should be shelved.
I received a mailer from the city on June 2nd - it referenced meetings for input occurring the very next day and the day
after - not enough for people to rearrange their calendars. For many, the mailer may have arrived too late. 24 - 48 hours
notice is not good outreach!
The message below provides concrete evidence that not enough time has been set aside for proper democratic process -
outreach, engagement, fact-checking (are PDAs just a funding source for now? won't this change, again?) and opinion
forming.
In the meantime, at this very moment Senate Bills such as SB-995, SB-1085, and AB-1279. Pls support SB725, SB 1120,
SB90 are progressing through the state legislature that inflate and distort local control and intent during planning, such as
further inflating bonuses and streamlining CEQA and community engagement. There is strong evidence definitions and
intentions are being changed at the state level.
In the meantime I continue to see no intent to run surveys by the city ascertaining the true sentiments of the community on
growth around Northgate, but instead, to progress a process dominated by an appointed committee - we know how that
movie ends, it's not balanced outreach. It fails to garner input of those happy with the current status quo of slow, low-
density growth.
Richard Hall
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dave Allen <dallen@marinij.com>
To: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020, 10:01:40 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Intent to submit Marin Voice responding to Shirley Fisher's June 1st piece
Thanks, Richard.
Thank you for your Marin Voice submission.
2
We are working through a high volume of submissions right now. In fact, I have more than 50 under
consideration today. Lately, I am getting an average of nearly four submissions per day. There are only six
slots per week.
Your column will be considered for publication by the editorial board ASAP. If approved, the process may still
take longer than three weeks.
If your submission includes material that could become dated, please let me know or rewrite it so we can
consider it for a longer period of time. Right now, resubmitting as a letter to the editor at 300 words is a quicker
route for print. Let me know if you’d like to resubmit as a letter.
I appreciate your contribution to our page. Talk to you soon.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:23 AM Richard Hall wrote:
Dave,
Heads up - I have drafted a response to Shirley Fisher's June 1st Marin Voice piece “Priority Development Status is
Overdue for North San Rafael” .
I am having this reviewed by a few others but my hope is you can run it ahead of June 15th when city council meets to
make a final decision on PDA application.
Richard
San Rafael
--
Dave Allen Digital Editor/Opinion Editor | Marin Independent
Journal
dallen@marinij.com
415.382.7206 Direct | 415.726.1891 Mobile
M m
m
bayareanewsgroup.com
Over 5 million engaged readers weekly
M m
m
M m
m
1
Ethan Guy
From:Richard Hall
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 9:25 AM
To:Paul Jensen; Ethan Guy; Kate Colin
Cc:Alan C. Scotch; Glenn Bossow; Bernick Lea Ann; Greg Knell; John Gamblin
Subject:Re: Misinformation, failed outreach & pushing a pre-determined outcome for the North
San Rafael PDA
What is interesting, if not remarkable, is that the comments received on the Neighborland site are, with the exception of
my own, directly contradictory to polls responded to by hundreds of residents in the immediate community on
Nextdoor.com where the majority oppose the PDA designation. This raises major questions about the ineffectiveness of
the city's outreach.
Reviewing these comments it's clear that so far the only outreach that has been achieved has been to activist groups like
Responsible Growth in Marin and the General Plan committee.
I have posted the following, attempting to balance out misinformation / selective information shared by the city with
references to Marin Post articles that help provide balance.
I think we can conclude based on what we are seeing that OUTREACH HAS FAILED - unless the goal was to only secure
selective input from activist and pro growth groups.
3
4
On Friday, June 5, 2020, 09:02:05 AM PDT, Kate Colin <kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Thanks Richard for caring deeply about the future of San Rafael. I am hopeful you will use your connections to
continue to bring people into the discussion - which is what you and I both want. Info is below and I
appreciate your help.
And for the others copied on this email, it would be awesome if you could help get the links out below. The
main page also has links to FAQs which I know from my participation on the PDA calls capture many of the
questions out there.
The main PDA webpage here https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/priority-development-areas-2020/
The “How to Participate” section lists the ways we’re are collecting comment. We are asking people to also
use our Neighborland Sites to post comments:
-Northgate https://neighborland.com/sanrafael2040/plan-bay-area-2050-northgate-pda
-Canal https://neighborland.com/sanrafael2040/plan-bay-area-2050-southeast-san-rafael-canal-pda
Note, there are also “Quick Links” to these sites at the top of the page.
Thanks again.
Kate
Kate Colin
Vice Mayor, City of San Rafael
Connect with me! 415 205-3119 cell
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:24 PM
To: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>; Ethan Guy
<Ethan.Guy@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Alan C. Scotch Glenn Bossow <Bernick Lea Ann
Greg Knell John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Misinformation, failed outreach & pushing a pre-determined outcome for the North San Rafael PDA
Kate,
It was clear from today's zoom call that the only people that the city has been able to engage on the PDA issue in the very
limited timeline, during shelter in place, is the cosy bubble of the general plan committee and perhaps a few others. I
heard Bill Carney, Jeff Rhoades, Kate Powers, and then the activist group Responsible Growth in Marin's Grace Geraghty
and Shirley Fisher.
If true outreach was intended it appears to have failed - the voices of the silent majority happy with continued slow growth
were never consulted or polled. If the intent of outreach was to confine the effort to selected voices sympathetic to growth
and easily persuaded by one sided guidance then mission accomplished.
5
Obedient pro development voices seeking to appease the council preposterously even claimed on the call that there was
a lot of misinformation being perpetrated - directed at PDA opponents.
I heard misinformation spread by yourself that even if a lot of units are planned these never seem to happen, citing San
Rafael's existing zoning and the 100 units built in the last few years. You dismissed that any significant number of units
would ever be built, with no ability for others to respond. There was no opportunity or other side of the coin shared that
Merlone Geier, owners of Northgate, are HIGHLY ACTIVE and added 998 units.
- In Laguna Hills MG asked for 2,100 units but settled for 988 units, none of which were affordable
https://www.ci.laguna-hills.ca.us/482/Five-Lagunas-Update
- in Mountain View MG built 330 units, none of which were affordable:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/10/02/developers-sell-apartment-complex-at-the-village.html
Worse yet there was discussion and requests to refer to the housing crisis, but no reference to whether the market rate
units likely to be build would have any impact, instead serving to absorb SF tech companies ever growing appetite for tech
workers. Furthermore we don't know what shape the housing market will be in post COVID-19, who is to presume there is
still a crisis?
The entire process appears designed to squelch community opposition and drown out voices that might perpetuate slow
growth, sewing misinformation and serving a like-minded body of pro-growth supporters in the General Plan and
Responsible Growth in Marin groups. Instead voices aligned with the council and staff's pre-determined path pave the
way.
As mentioned, I found Ethan Guy's inappropriate dismissal of the Quiet Zone 6 month 6 meeting process before the
application and comparison to the PDA application as "apples and oranges" particularly manipulative and detrimental to
today's discussion.
You can do a lot better, the city is not listening or conducting outreach except to those aligned with its goals.
How to remedy this:
- conduct a clear poll of a random set of North San Rafael residents asking if they want development of housing at
Northgate to be made a priority
- ask how many additional units would be acceptable, asserting a specific affordable mix
- if you insist on pushing ahead with the application the first 6 months of the process needs to be the council conducting
proper outreach to first affirm if a PDA is wanted and supported NOT shifting immediately to a precise plan that presumes
this mandate has been obtained
Please rectify this matter and restore proper outreach, instead of pushing down a pre-determined path and silencing
opposing voices.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:Andrew McCullough
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 5:37 PM
To:Richard Hall
Cc:Paul Jensen; Dick Spotswood; Kate Colin; Gary Phillips; Ethan Guy; Maribeth Bushey;
John Gamblin
Subject:Re: Staffer Paul Jensen 9/16/2013 on the record: "PDAs create an expectation of
growth", Sept 6th, 2013, 35 mins mark
Richard,
If you want to engage in a thoughtful way, call me. We can sift through the distortions and figure out what
works best in a representative democracy.
Andrew
Andrew Cuyugan McCullough
San Rafael City Council
andrewm@cityofsanrafael.org
T (415) 448-8421
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 5:13 PM
To: Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>; Dick Spotswood Kate Colin
<Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Ethan Guy
<Ethan.Guy@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin
<John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Re: Staffer Paul Jensen 9/16/2013 on the record: "PDAs create an expectation of growth", Sept 6th, 2013, 35
mins mark
Andrew
Will you commit to a 6 month engagement process for the community to decide if it even wants a PDA designated.
It’s clear that you want the PDA in place then you can channel all conversation into a precise or specific plan assuming
PDA funding is a given - that’s not acceptable.
Richard
On May 19, 2020, at 3:00 PM, Andrew McCullough <andrew.mccullough@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
2
That's not correct. June 30 is actually the beginning of a much longer process which, at any
point, can be terminated by the City. June 30 is simply the date by which the City must
(following a public hearing, of course) adopt a resolution nominating a PDA for consideration by
the MTC. Should the MTC approve our nomination later in the summer, and should the City
Council choose to move forward, then a public planning process will start and will take many
more months.
My point, Richard, is that there will be more noticed public meetings, with ample opportunity
for public input. If you remain alarmed by all of this, call me. I can't continue to type away and
hope do this topic justice.
Andrew
Andrew Cuyugan McCullough
San Rafael City Council
andrewm@cityofsanrafael.org
T (415) 448-8421
<Outlook-2qspa0hs.png>
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:33 PM
To: Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>; Dick Spotswood Kate
Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Ethan Guy
<Ethan.Guy@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John
Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Re: Staffer Paul Jensen 9/16/2013 on the record: "PDAs create an expectation of growth", Sept
6th, 2013, 35 mins mark
Am I not to understand that the PDA process completes on June 30th?
Please lay out the extensive public outreach that took months for the quiet zone and years to finally
occur and unravel the prior instance of a PDA being instantiated in a rushed and non transparent
manner again without outreach.
Are we to believe that short term acute issues of covid-19, the financial implications on the city and its
business are all solved so that an unprecedented degree of outreach and effort will be made by planning
team and council between now and June 30th, all whole we continue to be in shelter in place?
Richard
On May 19, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Andrew McCullough
<andrew.mccullough@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Richard,
3
The issue you identify (added development) was featured in our meeting and
was obvious in the staff report, if not stated in the manner you would have
preferred.
A PDA, as is obvious from its name, anticipates "development" within the
designated area. The Northgate Mall option that we identified last night as an
area of interest for a potential PDA designation is under-utilized, has been
languishing for years, and would benefit greatly from a community-driven
planning process. That process, if pursued, would ultimately identify the types
of development embraced by our community.
As to your general criticism that indequate notice has been given to the
community about this potential planning effort, you may be right that too few
currently understand what an eventual PDA might entail. For that reason, we
made it clear last night that issuing a letter of interest is only the first step in a
long and public process towards a future development plan. If we fail to engage
with transparency during that process, then we deserve criticism. Until then,
though, I don't think your criticism is warranted. Nothing that occurred last
night commits us--or the community--to a course of action.
Andrew
Andrew Cuyugan McCullough
San Rafael City Council
andrewm@cityofsanrafael.org
T (415) 448-8421
<Outlook-i0evzbgm.png>
From: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Dick Spotswood Kate Colin
<Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough
<Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips
<Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Ethan Guy <Ethan.Guy@cityofsanrafael.org>;
Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin
<John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Staffer Paul Jensen 9/16/2013 on the record: "PDAs create an expectation of
growth", Sept 6th, 2013, 35 mins mark
Paul,
Following up on city council's unanimous decision last night to designate an area of Terra
Linda to be a "Priority Development Area" in a letter of intent to be submitted to ABAG
before the May 31st deadline, once again without appropriate outreach to the community.
Was nothing learned from 2013?
I am looking back at my notes and see that you stated in your presentation on PDAs in a
city council special meeting on September 6th 2013 not once but twice that the PDAs
4
designation creates an expectation of growth and an intent for the local jurisdiction to
build high-density housing. Jump to around the 35 minute mark. This is further
substantiated in the slides that you shared. Yet none of this is covered in your staff
report of May 18 2020. The report makes no mention of "accelerated growth" or "high
density".
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/public-meeting-archives/
(Go to September 6th 2013, Council Special Meeting, skip to 35 minute mark).
Here are your slides...see last bullet:
<1589907576074blob.jpg>
See last bullet:
<1589907893036blob.jpg>
Where is this acknowledged and shown in the report to council made on Thursday?
This seems to have been obfuscated and not detailed in the staff report distributed on
Thursday last week. Even in the report given in 2013 the same claim "there are no strings
attached" is mentioned.
Why was the above not disclosed in your staff report last week? Council and residents
have not been briefed accurately in the staff report sent out only on Thursday.
This is inconsistent - how can decisions be made on inconsistent information? Process is
not being followed, people are not being represented. Council and staff are failing to
perform their job.
Richard Hall
1
Ethan Guy
From:
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:26 AM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:Comment: Proposed Priority Development Areas
Categories:PDA
NO! Proposed dense development will create more congestion, worse traffic and add to greenhouse gas emissions. You
and the City of SAN RAFAEL are fooling yourselves if you think this will help the planet or Marin. Tell the Regional
Planning Czars to Shove It.
---Peter Hensel, Corte Madera
2
many people have weighed in on the PDA? If only a tiny fraction weighed in on the PDA that should be ringing alarm bells
that insufficient outreach and engagement has occurred and this matter should be shelved.
I received a mailer from the city on June 2nd - it referenced meetings for input occurring the very next day and the day
after - not enough for people to rearrange their calendars. For many, the mailer may have arrived too late. 24 - 48 hours
notice is not good outreach!
The message below provides concrete evidence that not enough time has been set aside for proper democratic process -
outreach, engagement, fact-checking (are PDAs just a funding source for now? won't this change, again?) and opinion
forming.
In the meantime, at this very moment Senate Bills such as SB-995, SB-1085, and AB-1279. Pls support SB725, SB 1120,
SB90 are progressing through the state legislature that inflate and distort local control and intent during planning, such as
further inflating bonuses and streamlining CEQA and community engagement. There is strong evidence definitions and
intentions are being changed at the state level.
In the meantime I continue to see no intent to run surveys by the city ascertaining the true sentiments of the community on
growth around Northgate, but instead, to progress a process dominated by an appointed committee - we know how that
movie ends, it's not balanced outreach. It fails to garner input of those happy with the current status quo of slow, low-
density growth.
Richard Hall
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dave Allen <dallen@marinij.com>
To: Richard Hall
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020, 10:01:40 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Intent to submit Marin Voice responding to Shirley Fisher's June 1st piece
Thanks, Richard.
Thank you for your Marin Voice submission.
We are working through a high volume of submissions right now. In fact, I have more than 50 under
consideration today. Lately, I am getting an average of nearly four submissions per day. There are only six
slots per week.
Your column will be considered for publication by the editorial board ASAP. If approved, the process may still
take longer than three weeks.
If your submission includes material that could become dated, please let me know or rewrite it so we can
consider it for a longer period of time. Right now, resubmitting as a letter to the editor at 300 words is a quicker
route for print. Let me know if you’d like to resubmit as a letter.
I appreciate your contribution to our page. Talk to you soon.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:23 AM Richard Hall wrote:
Dave,
Heads up - I have drafted a response to Shirley Fisher's June 1st Marin Voice piece “Priority Development Status is
Overdue for North San Rafael” .
I am having this reviewed by a few others but my hope is you can run it ahead of June 15th when city council meets to
make a final decision on PDA application.
Richard
San Rafael
3
--
Dave Allen Digital Editor/Opinion Editor | Marin Independent
Journal
dallen@marinij.com
415.382.7206 Direct | 415.726.1891 Mobile
M m
m
bayareanewsgroup.com
Over 5 million engaged readers weekly
M m
m
M m
m
1
Ethan Guy
From:Mike Leonard
Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:19 AM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:Northgate Area
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Categories:PDA
I oppose any other building or changes in the Northgate area. The city has already approved changes off of Freitas
Parkway by the gas station and hotel. We do not have the infrastructure in place for a Costco with a gas station as well
as the high density housing.
I would love to know what had been proposed in the areas where our city council members live and the mayor. Probably
none because they ensure those areas are not impacted Sent from my iPhone
1
Ethan Guy
From:Elaine REICHERT
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 1:48 PM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:Enough is Enough: No PDA for Northgate
Categories:PDA
With hundreds of high density apartments already in the pipeline for Northgate area, any additional
development poses a severe threat to our quality of life. I suspect the only and real reason behind this
cynical resumption of a proposal we rejected in 1998 is the token funding San Rafael might receive
from local alphabet orgs.
Costco is not a fit for this area. The Mall is probably on its last legs after the Covid shutdown so
reusing that site could offer some real opportunity to move into the 21st Century with a real
community plan.
How very sad and cynical it is to see a 180+ room hotel approved in the Canal area instead of the
desperately needed affordable housing for that area. Where will the low wage hotel workers live? Or
will their cars add to congestion as they commute from more affordable areas? Sick planning.
1
Ethan Guy
From:Cynthia Sjahsam
Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:59 PM
To:Ethan Guy
Subject:San Rafael Northgate PDA - too rushed!
Categories:PDA
Hi Ethan,
I am opposed to a PDA for the Northgate area.
This decision, with a deadline on June 15th, is not reasonable. The community has no time to organize and discuss due
to SIP restrictions.
I do not want a PDA at all. At a minimum, please postpone the decision to allow for proper community involvement.
I am a homeowner near Northgate, with two elementary age children in the school district.
Thank you,
Anne
1
Ethan Guy
From:Lindsay Lara
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 2:16 PM
To:Paul Jensen; Ethan Guy
Subject:FW: Support Designating the North San Rafael/Northgate as a Priority Development
Area
Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC
Office: (415) 485-3065
Mobile: (415) 827-3806
-----Original Message-----
From: Isabel Lydon
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:05 PM
To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Support Designating the North San Rafael/Northgate as a Priority Development Area
Good Afternoon,
As a long time resident of Terra Linda, I support designating the North San Rafael/Northgate area as a Priority
Development Area.
Please support long forgotten Terra Linda too.
Thank you,
Isabel Lydon
San Rafael, Ca 94903
1
Ethan Guy
From:Kate Colin
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:26 PM
To:Carol Mack
Subject:Re: For inclusion in Public Record
Hi Carol - Thanks for taking the time to write the Council and give input on the potential of a PDA designation
for the Northgate area. I agree with you that deliberate planning is preferable to just reacting to what comes
our way.
Warmly,
Kate
Kate Colin
Vice Mayor, City of San Rafael
Connect with me! 415 205-3119 cell
From: Carol Mack
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:12 PM
To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate
Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: For inclusion in Public Record
I support designating North San Rafael/Northgate as a Priority Development Area. I believe it is important to create a
specific plan for North San Rafael/Northgate area for the 2040 San Rafael general plan.
Thank you for all your work in helping the city of San Rafael including the Northern area.
Carol Mack