Marin supervisors reject pleas to halt Marin City housing project

Marin County supervisors have rejected pleas to attempt to block a 74-apartment, five-story development in Marin City — despite complaints the project amounts to “white supremacism” or “rape.”

Critics from the community turned out at the supervisors’ meeting on Tuesday, asking them not to facilitate the project financing. Opponents of the project at 825 Drake Ave. say it will increase gentrification of an area that contains the county’s largest concentration of African American residents.

Nevertheless, in a 3-2 vote, the supervisors approved the issuance of $40 million of tax-exempt revenue bonds that will be used to help underwrite the complex.

The bonds are being issued by the California Municipal Finance Authority, a joint powers agency of some 350 California counties, cities and special districts. The authority assists local governments, nonprofits and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt financing. Marin County is one of the authority’s members.

Marin County Counsel Brian Washington said that under federal law on tax-exempt financing, a government whose territory includes the location has to approve the bonds. As a result, Washington said, only Marin County or “theoretically the state” could provide the necessary approval.

According to Washington, the finance authority says “the state has no mechanism set up to hold this hearing.”

Asked during Tuesday’s meeting if the supervisors could deny authority’s request to approve the bonds, Washington hedged his response.

“Generally you have broad discretion to make decisions,” Washington said. “You can’t abuse that discretion. You have to have a bona fide rationale for your decision. There are factors here that I think limit the range of discretion more so than typical discretionary hearings.”

At the conclusion of the 3½ hour meeting, Supervisor Katie Rice said, “I just don’t see we have the grounds to deny issuance of the bonds.”

Because of Senate Bill 35, the project, which is in unincorporated Marin, is exempt from local zoning laws and review by the county Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. It also does not have to conform with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Rice noted there are SB 35 projects moving forward in other parts of the county as well, including three in San Rafael, two of which are significantly larger than the one at 825 Drake Ave.

Rice said that due largely to SB 35’s supersedence of local control, “I expect that any large multi-family project that comes forward to our board is going to be objected to by the local community.”

Supervisor Dennis Rodoni, who also voted to approve the bonds, focused his criticism on SB 35 as well. Rodoni encouraged the public to let Gov. Gavin Newsom and members of the state Legislature know how they feel about this project.

“Because they’re the ones making these rules that we have to follow,” Rodoni said.

Supervisor Mary Sackett, who cast the third vote for approving the bonds, said, “I wish Scott Weiner were in the room today to hear how this plays out in real life.”

Weiner, a state senator from San Francisco, has played a leading role in crafting new laws to limit local control over housing decisions in an effort to address the state’s shortage of affordable housing.

Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, whose district includes Marin City, said, “I’m angry about this, and the community is angry about this. This is not the outcome that was anticipated with SB 35.”

“It was not to build affordable, dense housing in mixed communities that already have a lot of dense housing,” Moulton-Peters said. “I cannot support this request.”

Supervisor Eric Lucan, who cast the other dissenting vote, said he couldn’t support approval of the bonds because he lacked detailed financial information about the project, even though the county will bear no financial responsibility for the bonds.

“I really would have liked to see more updated numbers prior to this meeting,” Lucan said.

In addition to SB 35, the project’s developer, AMG & Associates of Encino, is using a relatively new state density bonus law. The law awards an 80% density bonus to developers who make 5% of their residences affordable for very-low-income residents, or 10% affordable to low-income residents. As a result, AMG is able to build 74 apartments at the site instead of the 40 the property is zoned for.

During the meeting, however, several members of the public questioned whether the apartments will be affordable to people now living in Marin City.

“That simply isn’t true,” said Marilyn Mackel, a Marin City Community Development Corp. board member. “The bottom line is that very few would be available for people who currently live in Marin City.”

Beverly Freeman, who lives at Golden Gate Village, a public housing complex in Marin City, said, “I think this is the second or third gentrification move in Marin City.”

Royce McLemore, who heads the Golden Gate Village resident council, said, “You’re gentrifying, gentrifying and gentrifying it more.”

The Rev. Rondall Leggett of First Missionary Baptist Church told the supervisors, “We’re tired of you telling us that your hands are tied and there is nothing you can do. This project is abusive. It’s a rape job. Any time you force something on somebody without their permission, that’s rape.”

Bettie Hodges, one of the founders of the Marin City Community Development Corp., told supervisors, “If you approve this bond, I hope every time you say the word equity, you choke.”

Jamie Whitington of Sausalito said the project is the “too familiar story of a politically dominant white population exploiting a population considered to be powerless in order to achieve their own priorities.”

Whitington, who is White, added, “One of the problems with the white supremacist attitude embedded in this line of thought is that it is delusional.”

Nevertheless, Alexis Gevorgian of AMG, said 53 of the apartments would be priced as affordable to families with low, very low and extremely low incomes.

In the last fiscal year, that would have meant that for a family of four, 16 of the apartments would have been available to no household earning more than $49,800 per year; eight to no household earning over $83,000; and 29 to no household earning over $99,600. Twenty of the apartments would have been affordable to four-person households earning up to $116,200.

Leelee Thomas, deputy director of the Marin County Community Development Agency, said the Marin Housing Authority is allocating vouchers to the project so 25 households will be guaranteed to pay no more than 30% of their income for rent.

Thomas said the affordability of 49% of the apartments will be guaranteed in perpetuity, while the rest will be locked in for 55 years.

Kimberly Carroll, the housing authority’s director, said the apartments will provide additional options for residents of Golden Gate Village who are being forced to move because their family size has diminished and there are no appropriately sized apartments available in the neighborhood.

Marin County Administrator Matthew Hymel kicked off Tuesday’s meeting enumerating the various financial allocations recently made to Golden Gate Village: $3 million for renovation pre-development costs, $2 million for a residents’ endowment fund, $650,000 for new lighting, $600,000 for short-term repairs and $250,000 to hire a director of resident services.