Loading...
CD 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