Category Archives: Land Development

Smart land use revolves around linking transit to land use that includes concepts like Pedestrian Pockets, SunTrain, solar, affordable ownership housing, etc.

Common Sense Opeds, Land Development

How affordable housing goes in Marin

Leave a comment

News Pointer  April 5–11, 1989

 One Point of View

Dwayne Hunn, Community contributor

Often Individuals claim to be for “pro-affordable” housing but against the density of every proposed development. They claim that density causes traffic. Sometimes that’s what I read between the lines of the “pro-­affordable housing” Coastal Post.

Affordable housing in the County is a joke. it IS an endangered specie. There isn’t much of it now, and there will be less in the future… Affordable housing does not ‘result as a byproduct of housing construction. It certainly hasn’t to date. It must be a separate goal with, clear, creative and unusual strategies to make it achievable.

(1-16-89 Costal Post editorial)

Without widespread support successful strategies often take money. In Mann widespread support for affordable housing is usually only verbalized. Where support counts the most in the production of affordable housing is before city councils. The support that appears too often before City Councils is that of NIMBYS (Not-in-My-Back-Yard).

Let’s take an  example of  what  NIMBYs do to projects throughout the county.

Years ago a not-so-attractive average acre of land in Marin sold for  $100,000. That land was zoned for 17 units per acre. Before that builder turned one shovel of dirt, the price of each of those units was 17 units divided into his $100,000 land cost, or $5,900.

Under that zoning this for-profit builder would build 2 units of housing affordable to households who earn $35,000 or less, which was direly needed by those who commuted through this community  searching for afford­able shelter. By just spreading his land cost to the remaining 15 units his per unit land recovery cost only went to $6,600.

What typically happens to projects like this? The NIMBYS ‘fight to reduce  it to 5 units per acre. When they are successful, Which Is often, the cost of each unit Jumps to $2O,000, before a shovel of earth is turned.

Now just because the builder’s land cost has been increased 300% does not mean that his infrastructure costs like sewers, streets, utilities, and fees have been reduced by anything. Usually the NIMBYs have drawn out the approval process  for a year, two or more and this has inflated  construction and financing costs.

Now we all know that in good times in healthy economic markets the big car companies feel safer making profits by selling fewer big cars rather than many small ones. Marin is a healthy economic market because a lot of people enjoying  good economic times desire to live here.

Understanding the economic principles of the auto market, the Law of Supply & Demand, and the fact that 3 out of 5 of his fellow builder/developers are out of the business in 7 years, is it so difficult to understand why he builds a lavish home? principles of the auto market, the Law of Supply‘& Demand, and the fact that 3 out of 5 of his fellow builder/developers are put of the business In 7 years, it isn’t so difficult to understand why he builds a lavish home?

Now the numbers used as examples above happen over and over. The numbers were also happening just up the road in Marin. Two Novato council members supported by a petition carriers want to reduce what was once 3550 residential units to 1000 or less on 215 residential acres where per acre cost was about $102,000.

Very few people have a backyard at Hamilton Field. At Hamilton Field, Berg, Revoir, and Howard try to address community housing, traffic, and employment concerns in an integrated mixed-use development on blighted, stagnant property, on a railroad line, near the Bay, far from a freeway from which you can’t even see their project.

For NIMBYs backyards spread a long way. NIMBY’s must take a great deal of credit for FCFC–Freeway Congestion For Commuters

Dwayne Hunn works on affordable housing projects as Assistant Executive Director of Novato Ecumenical Housing.)

Land Development

Points in favor of Hamilton

Leave a comment

Marin Independent Journal March 26, 1989

 By Dwayne Hunn

MARIN VOICE

Dwayne Hunn is assistant ex­ecutive director of Novato Ecu­menical Hous­ing and co-di­rector of the North Bay Transportation Management Association

 Opponents of the Hamilton project have used their interpretation of Novato’s redevelopment agency financing to lure supporters to their camp. They would benefit by contemplating Arthur Vandenberg’s wise words from the past.

It is less important to redistribute wealth than it is to redistribute opportu­nity. If the Hamilton project is rejected by the voters in June, the costs of doing business as usual will continue, forcing long Sonoma commutes that gridlock Highway 101, depriving the region of in­creasing and balancing the supply of jobs with affordable housing, and weakening the possibilities of making the train eco­nomically viable on the Northwestern Pacific right of way.

Rejecting the Hamilton project will force us to find more expensive means “to redistribute wealth to regain those lost opportunities in the future.” From this perspective I address some of the is­sues raised by the opponents.

The 400-plus acres purchased by Berg and Revoir for $45 million will be a mas­ter planned community. Opponents compare Hamilton to non-master planned communities where haphazard, piecemeal development at higher densities has occurred.

The Hamilton project calls for 215 acres to have 2,550 housing units, about 12 units per acre. Seventy acres have been set aside for parks, open space, lighted ball fields and so on. Woven throughout the project are bike and walking-running paths.

Hamilton Field’s boarded-up barracks, unused and rundown hangars and decay­ing underground utilities make it a blighted, stagnant area. Hamilton gener­ates no tax revenue to the city of Novato, which has the lowest tax revenue per person of any city in the nine Bay Area counties.

In 1985 the use of redevelopment agency bond financing was an option available to the purchaser. Then, the cost estimates to improve the freeway and frontage road and to add inter­changes (which until the Hamilton pro­ject have never been required of a private developer) were S7 million. In 1988, those cost estimates are $24 million.

The costs to totally replace sewers, electrical and water utilities, drainage and flood control improvements —which benefit the extended region in which Hamilton lies, including the Lanham Village, the mobile home park and the Hamilton School — also increased.

When these escalating redevelopment costs were added to the $33 million of Berg-Revoir site improvement costs, fi­nancial logic dictated that available re­development agency bond financing be requested.

Opponents claim that using redevelop­ment financing will steal Novato taxpay­ers’ dollars. The law says:

“Blighted areas are an economic and social drag upon the community and it is good public business to eliminate them. By the adoption of this constitutional amendment, it will be made possible for the property to pay its own way and if­nance the cost of redevelopment without any additional levy upon the already overburdened taxpayers.”

Project opponents claim there is same deep, dark conspiracy involved in rede­velopment funding. Those weak sisters whom opponents must believe were blindfolded and arm-twisted into giving support include the Novato city staff, the Novato Unified School District, the san­itary district, the fire district and the po­lice department, as well as every member of the Mann County Board of Supervi­sors.

After every new Hamilton-generated city service— every police, fire, school, park and road expense— is paid for, the city will annually receive about $165,000 in general revenues for about 30 years while the redevelopment agency bonds are paid off. After that, the city will re­ceive between $2 million and $2.5 million per year. In addition, the city’s sales-tax revenues will jump by about $500,000 a year.

Perhaps most importantly, redevelop­ment agency financing will generate $32 million (non-inflated) or $92 million (in­flated) to assist on-site workers in own­ing or renting at Hamilton. This assis­tance, mandated by the Community Redevelopment Act, along with the de­velopment and use of the adjacent rail­road lines, is a strength that wasn’t even considered in the environmental impact report, which estimated the amount of traffic Hamilton could generate or the number of workers who could live on site.

In one fell swoop of about 10 years, Hamilton does more than 100 smaller projects to balance jobs and housing, to increase Novato revenues, to encourage the first of many needed pedestrian pockets which will promote transit use and traffic reduction, and to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Why is it that so many of the tradi­tional naysayers want to push those op­portunities off onto future generations where the cost will be much higher?

Land Development

  Building a better Marin

Leave a comment

Marin Independent Journal    Friday, December 16, 1988

 By Dwayne Hunn, Co-Director of North Bay Transportation Association

TWO guys, an avid health nut and an ex-Vietnam helicopter pilot, return to Marin.

From the rough-and-tumble of life, they have learned to be pleasant gents and not pushy cowboys. In reputed red­neck Novato, they are refreshing fellows.

On their return, they venture about as far west as they can, buy 400 acres and propose to build 3,500 homes and 7,000 jobs at Hamilton Air Force Base.

They knew they had emptied their pockets. They didn’t know they had put their necks in a noose laid by self-appointed posses.

When the necktie party started, the noose wasn’t too tight. Coolly these two listened and responded to concerns from community activists, Marin and Sonoma officials as well as the typical Marin naysayer.

Sometimes they backed off, totally changing their plan to mollify Sonoma officials. Other times they stood eyeball-to-eyeball with the Department of Defense and wouldn’t flinch, forcing a toxic bowl to be cleaned.

Now, long before the rubber hits the road of 101, and while their feet are still on the ground and not dangling from a tree, other peoples’ boots are starting to step on theirs. “Too many rentals! Too much traffic! Too many households earning less than $35,000 a year — what a troublesome ghetto It’ll be. Too much biomedical research! Too few bird sanctuaries!” All this because two pleasant gents want to go back to the future.

Part of the reason the Old West was won was because we had men with steel nerves who found that steel rails were a more efficient means of sending trade, doing commerce and cutting through frontiers to build the future.

Every now and then, a city with shops. schools, businesses and homes grew up around the rails of the Old West. Then and for some time thereafter, America was known as a “can-do nation.”

Then America had no choice but to become melting pot of rich and poor, colored and clear to get a job done and build a future. Do Marin, Sonoma and Novato want to go back to the future?

America has become great from the strength it built during those bursts when it acted with vision. Hamilton should be looked on as part of a vision. Hamilton should not be just another de­velopment that the gang of naysayers attacks as though no answers exist for any problem that bedevils us.

You want to deal with the lack of affordable housing? Allow solid residential intensities to be built into projects that also set aside a lot of adjacent open space and that provide recreation and child-care facilities.

To fund city services? Use funds from the Hamilton Redevelopment Agency to fund essential city services as well as generate rental subsidy and affordable housing financing.

To deal with 101 gridlock? Build these intense residential projects along another transit way — like the Northwestern Pacific right of way.

To cut the single-occupant-vehicle commute? Build office and commercial space within this residential community and build 10 to 12 of these along the NWP right of way so that people are given both opportunity and reason to climb aboard a train, work at one rail stop and live arid love at another.

America is weak when it fails to turn problems into opportunities. Mean when it shuts its doors as an answer to problems. Hamilton is a microcosm of problems faced in the North Bay and America. If the Berg-Revoir Hamilton development results in  a small number of exclusive homes or an enlarged military barracks, Novato had voted for the America  of weakness and meanness.

The 21st century will not be controlled by nation, that generate the most law-’suits or commute the farthest to jobs and affordable housing. If American communities choose the weak-and-mean route, then America can expect Arabs to fuel our inflation as Japan buys our productive facilities and real estate.

Participatory democracy gives its participants precious gifts. Moderate-income households, renters, commuters, and those who ignore the intricacies of housing development should learn about and support projects like Berg-Revoir’s.

All of Marin and Sonoma’s projected population growth could be housed in 20 mixed-used projects built along the Northwestern Pacific rails. If we take that route we will be emulating the visionary periods of America when steel nerves turned problems into opportunities that built our nation’s strengths.

 

Land Development

Rail/Highway alternative best with development “pockets’

Leave a comment

News Pointer September 7-13, 1988

One point of view

DWAYNE  HUNN Community Contributor

The 101 Corridor Commit­tee has been meeting since 1986. It is now finalizing cost estimates for either rail/highway or bus/ highway construction that will take the 101 corridor into the 21st century. Their consultants’ esti­mates show rail/highway having higher capital but lower operat­ing costs. The bus/highway has lower capital but higher operating costs. The result is that both are estimated to cost about $1 billion dollars. That money could be obtained by ratifying a 1 cent sales tax in Marin and a 1/2 cent sales tax in Sonoma.

Chief consultant to the 101 Corridor Study, Bob Harrison, succinctly sums up years of research and discussion when he says, “The costs are about the same. What’s important is how you want the corridor to develop In the future.”

Three reasons make me hope the train/highway option is our choice.

1) By continuing to over-rely on the automobile, America dis­regards good logic that tells us to not rely on Middle East oil and to seriously begin dealing with our atmospheric degradation., Car­bon dioxide produced by the in­ternal combustion engine is one of the big villains in destroying our ozone level.

2)America should lead, not be led, in the high tech manufac­turing areas of the 21st century. The United States not just, Japan, France and Disneyland, ought to be noted for effective, efficient long-lasting trains..

3) Marin is one of America’s most beautiful counties. From almost anywhere in the county, one can ride his/her bike for five minutes and be in open space agricultural reserve or a national park. Only a little of the 19% of land that can be developed re­mains to be developed, and much of that land lies adjacent to the101 right-of-way and just hap­pens to butt up to the North West Pacific right-of-way. Already apartments, business centers, and residential units are planned along the eastern side of Marin’s portion of the 101 corridor that runs from San Rafael to points further north.

Many argue that we should stop all that development. In America that means buying the land at fair market value, which is not feasible. Many argue that we should downzone what is pro­posed — reducing tax revenues for the involved cities and forcing the prices of the allowable homes up even higher. This produces
more suburban sprawl and con­tinues our over-reliance on the automobile.
Hopefully, Marin will not be burdened with years of debates and delaying tactics over how the eastern portion of 101 should be developed, it only delays the needed tax revenues, allows pro­ject costs to escalate and continues the inefficiencies that long commutes promote.

What is planned by devel­opers of the eastern portion of 101 are a series of development “pockets.” Can this develop­ment movement be joined Into something that is positive for all concerned?

Yes, with some coordina­tion. These pockets could be developed in a Mariner that would fall within the efficient land use patterns that are propos­ed by Sausalito architect Peter’ Calthorpe in his “Pedestrian Pockets.” Such development could also serve as the start for pocket developments all the way up the existing railroad line.

Calthorpe’s “Pedestrian Pockets” call for dense, mixed use development within a 1/4 mile of the railroad right-of-way with, large open spaces surrounding the development. A series of such developments through Marin and Sonoma’ would allow increased opportunities for people to live and~ work at one of the mini-neighborhood pockets. This would increase the likelihood that they would hop a train to go to and from work, as well as to shop and socialize. The proposal Is so logical, efficient and sensible that it is bound to cause debates, ar­guments and lost opportunities.

Dwayne Hunn is a member of the Board of Directors of the Canal Community Alliance and’ is Assistant Executive Director of Novato Ecumenical Housing.

Land Development

  East San Rafael’s needs

Leave a comment

Marin Independent Journal Sunday, June 12, 1988

 

By Dwayne Hunn

During many of the meetings on that San Rafael general plan, we heard vari­ous citizens talk about reducing density in their neighborhoods. Maintaining their neighborhood’s character is one of the reasons often given for allowing less density in the future.

This attitude has spawned strong dis­cussion among East San Rafael resi­dents. The discussion goes something like this: Other neighborhoods have for a long time had political representation on the City Council and Planning Commis­sion. East San Rafael has not. This area hears the other neighborhoods demand less density, less diversity more exclusiv­ity. In East San Rafael, that plea sounds like NIMBY — not in my back yard.

While NIMBY echoes around the city, the city’s fundamental needs remain:

  • More affordable housing to offer more opportunity to balance the jobs-housing imbalance and reduce traffic.
  • More tax revenues.

Where then must the city look to sup­ply the fundamental (not the parochial or often selfish) desires of individual neighborhoods and needs of the larger community? The city’s political structure forces it to look to two neighbor­hood.: St. Vincent’s-Silveira and East San Rafael.

Many East San Rafael community leaders look at infill lots in more exclu­sive neighborhoods and believe more affordable units should be built in those ar­eas. That doesn’t happen because of the NIMBY attitude, the political structure and the belief that maintaining neighborhood character is some kind of constitutional guarantee plugged into the general plan.

So in more exclusive neighborhoods, fewer homes are built on larger lots to guarantee that what exists today appreciates astronomically in value tomorrow.

It would take tremendous political courage to do what is best for the larger city and county community and put more affordable housing in the more ex­clusive neighborhoods. The present Political structure does not make that seem likely. So when these frustrated East San Rafael discussions move to the reality phase, what does that neighborhood want?

Does East San Rafael want other areas to pay a fairness assessment and send the money east to help subsidize the afford­able housing the other neighborhoods will not allow?, Yes, East San Rafael would see a program that buys and up-grades existing units for affordable owner­ship and/or rental as fair and equita­ble. Can such a program be implemented? Yes, if the political will exists to wrestle with a neighborhood political powder keg.

If East San Rafael is going to bear the brunt of the city’s tax-generating enter­prises and much of its future housing—affordable and otherwise—then the city should implement programs that reflect some fairness and equity. Implement is an important word here.

Socially conscious words written in a general plan are not enough. The city should enact programs that will give East San Rafael additional resources to carry the ex­tra burden placed on this neighborhood to carry density, diversity and tax-gener­ating activities that others have success­fully locked out of their neighborhood.

Citizens from more exclusive neigh­borhoods have complained about not baying their trees cut enough. From less politically wired East San Rafael have come the anguished cries of residents

Saying they want drugs and crimes cut. East Rafael does not understand the cost effectiveness of removing a limb that blocks the sunshine when it is pitted against a budgetary line item that can re­move a drug pusher who will take the light from a little child’s life.

Bringing more affordable housing and even more affordable ownership to low-income families in East San Rafael will help deter crime, keep the streets clean­er, raise smart, healthy kids and bring pride to the city.

Dwayne Hunn of MW Valley is a assistant ex­ecutive director of Novato Ecumenical Hous­ing and a Ca­nal Community Alliance Board Member.

Common Sense Opeds, Land Development

Address our housing needs

Leave a comment
Marin Independent Journal   January 27, 1988

Opinion

Address our housing needs

By Dwayne Hunn

Dwayne Hunn chairs the Ma­rin Housing Development

Trust Fund Task Force. 

A recent Marin Independent Journal editorial accurately said:

“Marin land is pricey to the point of exclusivity. We are at risk of becoming a single-class society of landed gentry, served by outsiders who commute be­cause they cannot afford to live where they work.”

In that editorial, the U called for the establishment of a permanent relation­ship between the Marin Community Foundation and a network of non-profit affordable housing associations.

In 1984, when the San Francisco Foundation administered the Buck Trust, a group of affordable housing pro­viders began to develop such a program. Pursuit of this concept consumed sub­stantial amounts of organizational time, showed few results and produced much frustration.

After two years, at Novato Ecumenical Housing’s urging, Supervisor Robert Stockwell convened the Canal Commu­nity Alliance, the Ecumenical Association for Housing, Marin Community De­velopment Block Grant officials and the, Marin Housing Authority to resurrect the idea of a Marin Housing Develop­ment Trust Fund. These organizations have provided the staff and funding for a housing development’ proposal.

More than 70 percent of the speakers at the foundation’s community forums expressed affordable housing as their primary need and concern.

As part of the process following their community forums, the foundation is now discussing specific goals for the fu­ture in their Consultation Group meet­ings. Those of us involved in producing affordable housing are confident that the 38-page development trust fund proposal will be given attention by the new foun­dation.

What would a Marin Housing Devel­opment Trust Fund do? As proposed it would implement a unified long-term strategy to produce affordable housing by establishing:

  • A revolving low-interest loan pro­gram that would support 100 percent of the trust fund’s

administrative costs.

  • A risk capital program to enable non-profit sponsors to pursue outstand­ing property acquisition

opportunities.

  • A pre-development seed money pro­gram, which would use annual earnings on an endowment to

make loans to get projects started.

  • A grant program, which would sup­plement existing sources of such funds to reduce the up-front costs of housing.

The task force requested $5 million a year for four years to implement this model program. At this time, while the foundation’s, income is low for the next few years, $5 million could amount to 25 percent of the foundation’s yearly in­come — certainly, a lot of money. But when one remembers that most people devote 30 percent or more of their yearly income to shelter costs, that kind of foundation budgeting does not seem un­reasonable.

Drawing $5 million a year from the $400 million corpus and securing it on Marin real estate should also be consid­ered as a profitable strategy and a rea­sonable investment in improving Marin’s quality of life.

Each task force member, as well as the other housing advocates who have pro­vided valuable input to the Marin Hous­ing Development Trust Fund proposal, hope that the New Year will find Marin on its way to answering some of the impassioned pleas for affordable housing that were so often heard during the com­munity forums.

 

Land Development

Visionary Leaders needed

Leave a comment

Marin Independent Journal Tuesday, May 19, 1987

By Dwayne Hunn

      Forty years ago, the United States was so productive that America felt compelled to rebuild most of Europe and Asia so that nations there could recover from war and be profitable enough to buy our goods. Today, our trade deficit, rather than our productivity, sets world records. Once our educational system stood out for the world to emulate. We proudly proclaimed bow ready our youth were to face the world’s challenges. Today, we look to copy not only other nations’ production techniques, but also how they teach and mold their young. The proud inflection of the “Can-do nations!” now leaves many with the hollow sound of the “Can-do-nation?”

For many of us living and working at the local level, these national and international issues seem too large to handle. Many who read and think about these issues may be upset that America has been slipping, but if we don’t feel our local efforts have an impact on national and international issues, we only cringe and go on with life.

We seem to have forgotten the roots of America’s democratic and economic structure. We have forgotten that local politics is the source of America’s strength and long-term resiliency.

Just consider the long-term effect of an actual Marin local government decision, as it is played out numerous times throughout one of the richest counties of America.

A Novato developer wants to build a significant number of affordable housing units so that a better jobs/housing balance can help reduce freeway gridlock. The developer is blocked because the neighbors oppose the density, or question the fumes from parking cars in the neighborhood, or distrust the “low income” people who will reside there. The neighbors win. Does their victory serve Marin and Sonoma? Does it bring America closer to energy self-sufficiency? Does it allow commuters to use their wasted commute time for skill-building, educational enrichment, or more quality time with their families?

Each time one of those projects fails or is delayed interminably, all of £he following happen:

  • The extended commute to Sonoma, Napa, etc., increases the pollutants in the air our children must breathe.
  • America’s reliance on expensive imported fuels increases as does the national debt we pass on to the young.
  • The percentage of household income that goes to housing and transit climbs while the money and time available for skill, education and family time declines proportionally.

Marin has one of the higher percentages of single-parent households in the nation. Thirteen percent of Novato’s households are run by single parents whose median income is $15,676. These households desperately need affordable housing in Marin. Are local officials aware of how their decisions on issues like parks, child care centers and affordable housing have an impact on these important parents and children? Are they aware of how their decisions form the foundation of a strong America, whose core is a secure family, or a shaky America, whose footing teeters over a troubled family?

In an increasingly competitive world, enlightened leadership requires much more than concern about one’s neighborhood or high-sounding speeches about what ‘America’s’ world role should be. Visionary local officials must make decisions that reflect concern about the long-term strength of this nation. Patriotic local leaders must weigh each of their decisions in terms of how they help prepare those of lower and middle incomes in Marin to compete among the 5 billion who now inhabit the increasingly interdependent nations of Planet Earth.

It is more difficult for local leaders to avoid the immediate consequences of their decision than it is for those cushioned by the miles to Washington, D.C. Therefore, it is often easier for local leaders to follow the desires of vocal advocates of self interest. Too many local leaders fail to recognize that a constituency larger than neighborhood groups ends their leadership, namely —the children of tomorrow, single parents, the American family structure, and all of us negatively affected by our nation’s declining competitive capacity and increasing trade deficit.

Leadership isn’t easy. It is difficult to lead because in order to lead without too much pain the education of those led’ must move in step. Christ exemplified the pain of leadership out of sync with- the masses. Churchill learned how tortuous trying to educate others to lead can be, as he tried to mobilize his lethargic peers to action.

Far-sighted leadership for the common good is difficult. For America to grow strong, however, more courage an& vision and less parochial and petty rationalization must go into local decision making.

Dwayne Hunn, a former Peace Corps volunteer, has a Ph.D. in Public Finance & Administration and has taught at the college level in Southern California.

 

 

Common Sense Opeds, Land Development

Innovations at Novato’s Skylark project

Leave a comment

Marin Independent Journal  Friday, January 31, 1986

By Clark Blasdell and Dwayne Hunn

JUST UP THE ROAD from the Marin Independent Journal, 15 more families soon will be moving in at the Skylark housing project, another development by Novato Ecumenical Housing.

This Ignacio project will set a state record when 19 of its 37 homes are sold at below-market rates to first-time Marin homebuyers who. earn less than 80 percent of the county’s median income of $27,500.

There are several innovations connected with this project. Itemizing them gives us an idea of how difficult it is to build affordable housing in Marin.

With a balance sheet of zero, Novato Ecumenical Housing received a $350,000 California Housing and Community Development loan — one of their largest single commitments. Coupled with Community Development Block Grant funds and in-lieu fees from developers, NEH now had enough funds to purchase the site on Alameda del Prado near the Skylark Motel.

The city of Novato’s Housing Opportunity Program encourages affordable housing development by allowing certain sites to be built at the top of the density range, thereby reducing a developer’s per unit cost. One of these sites, was found.

By using the $350,000 predevelopment loan, NEH was required to make half of the development affordable to low-income households — those with earnings from $19,250 to $27,500. After eight lending institutions rejected NEH’s construction-loan application because of the project’s financial complexity, Citicorp granted a $2.35 million loan in February 1985.

NEH’s contribution was to come from $973,984 in grants it obtained from nine different funding sources.

Also part of the funding package was $2.754 million of first-time homebuyers’ mortgage money through the $22 million Marin County Tax Exempt Bond Pro gram, issued at a fixed 30-year rate of 10.5 percent.

To obtain this money, points (prepaid interest) had to be paid to the bond broker. These fees were paid by another block grant allocation.

Through the process, NEIl was determined to build the best project possible. We began by choosing California’s 1981 Affordable Housing Design winner, Mike Moyer, as project architect. He integrated all-redwood siding, solar domestic hot water beating, all-gas appliances, extremely high-efficiency gas furnaces, thermo-paned windows and edible landscaping into the one and two-bedroom designs. PG&E later awarded Skylark its Energy Conservation Award.

To make we homes affordable and to ensure that pride of ownership would be maintained, NEH created second trust deeds (mortgages) with deferred principle and interest, along with a shared-appreciation program for the below-market-rate buyers.

As an example, suppose such a buyer purchases a unit at $100,000, but can only finance $60,000 (down payment plus first mortgage). The remaining $40,000 in value is carried by NEH as a “sleeping” second mortgage requiring no payments until the unit is sold.

At that time, the first and second mortgage are repaid and the appreciation beyond that is split between the original buyer and NEH. This split, in essence, is NEH’s deferred interest.

For market-rate buyers, NEH provides interest-rate buydowns. For example, suppose a first-time homebuyer purchases a unit at the 10.5 percent interest rate. NEH may do a 2-to-1 buydown, which means it pays part of the interest for each of the first two years.

This means that in year one, the interest is 8.5.5 percent, in year two it is 9.5 percent and for the remaining 28 years it’s 10.5 percent. This often helps the buyer qualify by reducing initial monthly payments.

To cost-effectively carry out the design and ensure hometown accountability, a Novato builders’ consortium of respected builders was formed– Grippe, Parode, and Timmer.

As NEH enters its second full month of marketing, prices start at $88,000 with uniquely designed two-bedroom units available at $105,000. Spacious two-bedroom townhouse design s are priced at $114,950. A few below-market-rate units may also still be available.

Interested people should contact Home and Land Realty (454-9900) to take a look at the spectacular and affordable record-setting project that NEH and the community of Novato are proud to have created for Marin.

More than half the units at Novato’s Skylark housing will be sold at below market rates

 

Blasdell

Hunn

Clark Blasdell is executive director of Novato Ecumenical Housing. Dwayne Hunn is assistant director and Skylark’s project manager.

 

Land Development

New project offers affordable housing

Leave a comment

Novato Advance  Wednesday, November 20, 1985

 By CLARK BLASDELL and DWAYNE HUNN

Novato Ecumenical Housing.

 Novato Ecumenical housing began marketing an unusual — and record breaking — housing project this month.

Skylark Meadows, located at Alameda Del Prado and Cielo Lane, sets a California record because 19 of Its 37 units are affordable to low-income households.

No ownership housing development with both market-rate and below-market-rate units has ever come close to making such a high percentage of its units affordable to low-income households.

The marketing of Skylark marks a significant breakthrough in affordable housing. In July, the average sales price of a home in Marin was $200,000. This means few teachers, policemen, firemen. clerks, etc. can afford to own a Marin home. Many of these people look for homes in Sonoma County. in 1970 the average daily traffic that crossed the Marin-Sonoma County line was 31,000. Last year, that number was up to 58,000.

Young, starting families find it almost impossible to qualify top~. chase a home in Marin. Consequently, families with children arc becoming a rarity in Marin. Since 1970, Marin’s average household size dropped 18 percent.

Skylark is one attempt to reverse that trend. Beginning with architect Mike Moyer, winner of California’s 1981 Affordable housing Design Competition, Skylark has retained high quality and affordability. Every inch of Skylark has been done in premium exterior redwood siding — even the signage is in redwood.

Edible and native landscaping. which uses only about 40 percent of  water consumed by traditional residential project plantings, covers the ground.

And, though an initial design concept called for electric resistance heating, which is cheaper and easier for the developer to install, NEHs final choice was to create an all-gas project. As a result, the homeowners’ operating costs are likely to be cut in half.

All 37 Skylark units have active solar water heating designed to provide about 70 percent of the domestic hot water load.

In addition to reducing energy costs for residents. Skylark is NEH’s small effort to ease Highway 101 gridlock.

In setting a state record, NEIL hopes to use this as a flagship for other affordable housing projects that will provide homes to families who are the working backbone of a community.

We hope that these families, instead of spending tedious hours on  an air-polluting freeway commute will Jive near where they work.

Few projects in Marin offer 608 to 1,3)0 square feet of premium housing, with market values ranging from $78,500 to $114,950. Fewer yet offer first-time homebuyers 10.5 percent fixed rate 30-year Marin County Bond financing. None, that we know of, offer two- year interest buydowns on the first 10 two-bedroom units sold.

This means that the interest rate in year one Is only 8.5 percent. In year two It increases to 9.5 percent and is fixed thereafter at 10.5 percent for the remaining 28 years.

Novato Ecumenical Housing is especially interested in offering Skylark units to families of three with incomes of about $24,750, and families of four with incomes of about $27,500.

For more information about buying at Skylark, call 892-8136 or 454-9900.

Contractor Rick Timmer (left), Clark Blasdell and Dwayne Hunn looked over Skylark Meadows plans shortly before the development was completed.  Skylark units went on sale this month.

 

Common Sense Opeds, Land Development

Posada Del Sol Is Not A “Ghetto”

Leave a comment

NEWS/POINTER                  OCTOBER 1, 1980

 Posada Del Sol Is Not A “Ghetto”

 To the editor:

For your Mr. Horshwitzky’s information, Denis Hemmerle’s suit against the City of San Rafael is not “for blocking his 281-unit housing complex.”  Denis brought it because the city “discriminated in its housing plan vs. individuals on the basis of age and economic status.” The suit defines some of these as:                –

  1. San Rafael’s own civil servants: who are almost all of low or moderate-income and are unable to find low or moderate-income housing. Only 15 percent of such persons live in San Rafael.
  2. Thousands of San Rafael’s former young adult residents of low or moderate-income who, in the past six years. have not been able to find low or moderate-income housing in San Rafael.
  3. Thousands of San Rafael’s former over age 85 residents who, in the. past six years’ have been unable to find housing appropriate to the needs of the elderly in San Rafael.
  4. San Rafael residents who rent who are mostly persons of low or moderate-income. Said persons are impacted in San Rafael by an extraor­dinarily low vacancy rate which results in said persons paying inordinately high rents.

Denis’ 281-unit Solar Energy Retirement Community with contracted lifetime medical care and congregate services on 33 acres amounts to 8.1 units/acre, which is less than R-1 zoning. While covering a quarry scar, it leaves 82 percent open space which is fit for park use. This is not quite a “ghetto.” Incidentally, the Martinelli Elderly Housing Complex and San Rafael Commons have densities of 90 and 95 units per acre.

In closing, I’d like Mr. Hershwitzky to answer a few questions. Is there something bad about having the elderly as neighbors in an affluent community? Is it irresponsible try to build a national model of energy efficient housing? Does building six millionaires’ estates on 33 acres, ac­cording to the probable interpretation of Sun Valley-Fairhills Neighborhood Plan, deal more honestly with our nation’s energy and housing crisis?

Dwayne. Hunn

NewsPointer                 September 3, 1980

 Letters

Can Hemmerle Be Sued For Defacing The City?

 To the editor —

Regarding Denis Hemmerle’s law suit against San Rafael (on behalf of senior citizens) for blocking his 281-unit housing complex in Red Rock Quarry — my heart goes out to Denis and his righteous concern for seniors (I am sure his deal is non-profit). I really love this kind of concern for our community.

Just think 28 units on 30 acres. Mr. Hemmerle’s heart is in the right place — just about where he would find his wallet.

If in fact this shabby proposal goes through and turns into another over-built ghetto, can 1, on behalf of  San Rafael’s citizens sue Mr. Hemmerle for defacing our city?

— Phil Hershwltzky

San Rafael-