Brian Staley said his mother, an active campaigner for politicians when he was growing up in San Anselmo, had a “deep reverence for the natural,” a sentiment that has influenced his own work in West Marin. Mr. Staley, who describes himself as a planner, designer and builder, has lived with his high school sweetheart-turned-wife in Woodacre since he graduated from Drake High in 1987. He is focused on eliminating toxicity in new construction and can talk at length about the importance of proper caulking to conserve energy or about the effectiveness of denim used as insulation. He’s been involved in the San Geronimo Valley Planning Group—which he currently chairs—since 1991, work that has further informed and shaped his feelings on development.
Some of his positions put him at odds with District Four’s current supervisor, Steve Kinsey, as well as other candidates. He supports the continuation of ranching in the Point Reyes National Seashore and across West Marin, calling it historic. But he has also stated on his campaign website that the proposed update to the Local Coastal Program defines agriculture “so broadly that it includes practically any use on a property zoned for agricultural production, even if uses are actually residential, commercial or industrial.” He also sympathizes with the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, and said that sometimes county policies lack teeth until and unless they are brought before a judge. Mr. Staley sat down with the Light to talk about his work, what has influenced his perspectives on development and environmental policies, and other issues in the race.
Point Reyes Light: Tell us about what you do.
Brian Staley: The best way to describe what I’ve done is sort of broad. I am a planner, designer and builder. I do architectural work, I do planning work for initial site review, not for commercial proposals, all residential. My specialty is in sustainable, low-toxicity and green building and efficiencies. I’ve done everything from the planning aspect to design to actual physical
construction.
Finishes for floors and furniture have historically been extremely toxic and continue to off-gas dangerous chemicals over time. Luckily in California, the focus has been to reduce toxicity of materials. But you can get it down to zero. You’d be surprised at how toxic a house can be.
Light: Did something spark your interest in green building?
Staley: If you’re ethical, there is a little guilt associated with using natural resources and participating in having to remove trees, and that kind of thing. So I think, initially, it was finding not only ways to help people, but to reduce my own impact on the earth. So recycled materials were a big initial concern of mine.
Light: Are there particular incentives the county should pursue?
Staley: The passive house movement, which [began in Germany and] is slowly growing in Marin and California, is not only taking the non-toxic aspects, but taking the efficiency aspects to the point where you can actually heat a house with a single light bulb. No lie. In some cases, if the house is efficient enough, body heat is almost enough to keep the house warm.
Orientation is part of it, but another part is to use windows and doors that are better sealed, and to also inspect the construction process so that all your seams are caulked properly.
The problem is, in most cases, everybody’s in a hurry. They’re not interested in making sure that everything is perfect and tight. So I think that would be a great thing for the county to look at and incentivize.
One of my concerns with regard to the county right now is that there’s only one inspector. There used to be five. I would say that delays as a result of the lack of inspectors and a lack of expertise is a real problem.
Light: Were there projects that came your way on the San Geronimo Valley Planning Group that shaped your outlook on issues in the Valley?
Staley: One of the big ones that happened out here was French Ranch. It happened at the same time that Steve Kinsey was running for supervisor, and it was very political because Steve felt it was appropriate to facilitate development by combining French Ranch with Lagunitas School District in order for [French Ranch] to build a septic system. Otherwise French Ranch would not have happened; it was a large number of what they call “ranchettes,” which are big houses on kind of small properties that look like ranches, but they’re not really.
The amount of division in the community was enormous. Environmentalists were against each other, because some were for Steve and his candidacy and supported the efforts to merge the school with the development; it was intense, and the end result was what you would expect. There were very little requirements for affordable housing. The end result was the kind of thing we don’t really want in West Marin, which is large homes for wealthy people. The kind of thing that changes the character and gentrifies the communities, so you end up with what Nicasio is now. I think something like a third of the houses are visited a couple of times a year.
My biggest takeaway was learning everything there was to know about septic systems and septic regulation. Watching the politics around waste has been fascinating.
Light: What about the proposed group septic system in Woodacre?
Staley: The thing about Woodacre is that it would only be for a very limited number of homes. In the case of Marshall, they found contamination [from septic systems], and that’s a big issue. There is aquaculture. The county mandated that everyone had to participate. In Woodacre, it’s completely different. [The town has] 1,500 households but only 300 could join, and even people who don’t have to repair their septic system can join in. As an incentive, they are allowing a legalization of second units and up to 500 extra square feet, which is pretty shocking.
My concern is that once you start creating these new models, you’re not really helping the problem. If you don’t know who has old septic systems or redwood boxes leaking in the creek, how on earth are you going to address the problem? If a person who wants 500 square feet and has a functional septic system wants to join, they pay whatever they end up charging and get what they want. [But] they could bump out someone that needs it. It’s completely unfair. Plus, there’s a valid concern that when you have a house on the septic next to a house connected to a sewer system, is the house on the septic system going to sell for less? Does that affect the community?
Light: But if there are failing septic systems, what should be done?
Staley: I think the answer is to involve the state and the county and create a loan program where it’s either low or no-interest and made available particularly to people on limited income or to the elderly or disabled. I don’t think it’s fair to push people out of their homes if they can’t repair the septic.
Light: Were there other instructive experiences on the planning group?
Staley: I would say the most interesting—really a study into how the regulatory process works—would be the [David Lee] Hoffman house. It was literally identified in the ’80s as illegal. Here’s a man who has never taken a permit out in his life who has consistently been building, year after year. He has an open cesspool in the middle of the yard. He claims that works. The county says, “Not possible.”
There have been efforts to try to make it into some kind of heritage site or historical thing. But the problem is, because of the way it’s been built, because no engineers were consulted, it’s unsafe. We have no idea if it would turn to rubble in an earthquake. He has guests all the time. As a result of his name recognition, he basically has been able to avoid regulatory processes, which is amazing. And he built on his neighbor’s property. But that really brought home the concept that the outliers don’t really have to follow codes and rules because the codes don’t really have any teeth—unless and until you get before a judge.
Light: The property is now under a court-ordered receivership. What do you think should happen? He has many supporters in the Valley.
Staley: Hoffman is a long-standing community member, so we have to take that into consideration. For me, it’s always health and safety. I would say at minimum a team of engineers should go to the site and determine the most effective way to make the structures California code-compliant. At that point, if other criteria are met, I don’t have any problem with it. But I want to make sure people aren’t getting hurt.
Light: I’ve been asking all of the candidates about the lawsuit against the National Park Service by three nonprofits over the ranch management plan. What’s your take?
Staley: As an environmentalist, I am kind of appalled. Ranches are part of the bucolic and important historic [landscape]. Many of the ranches are over 150 years old. It’s part of what people expect to see, it’s part of our economy. I don’t think [the lawsuit is] going to get anywhere. I do not think there is any indication in any laws or policies that prohibits appropriate historic ranching. I think the environmental organizations that are responsible for the lawsuit are on a fishing expedition, and I don’t think they realize the kind of damage they can do. A lot of people are employed by those ranches. Ranch owners spend their money locally.
Light: Let’s talk about the Local Coastal Program. Ranchers have said they need to be allowed to build intergenerational housing. The draft update allows up to three housing units [up to 7,000 square feet total]. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Staley: It does. The concern, I think, in the environmental community is that [the draft update is] a little too broad. The [agricultural] policy needs to be further defined to make sure it’s limited to what you are talking about. Right now the policy can be interpreted. You could build a storefront. I am absolutely in favor of giving the tools to farmers and ranchers to be able to be viable—super important. These guys are the core of the economy other than tourism. But we don’t want to get carried away. We don’t want to give them the keys to the city and have them do anything they want.
Retail is okay where it’s zoned appropriately. Look at Marin Sun Farms. It’s in a place that can handle the parking and has infrastructure that can deal. When you have remote ranches in the middle of nowhere setting up sales, I can only imagine the craziness, the amount of traffic, especially if someone has a boutique product that everyone loves. I think that it requires a little more detail, a little more nuance.
Light: What do you think about the affordable housing problem?
Staley: Housing prices are insane. A majority of our firefighters and police and teachers can’t even live in the county. They then fill all the streets by commuting. The county’s policies are not to change the rules and regulations, but to try and stop the loss of affordable and elderly housing. They’re not necessarily being proactive; they’re trying to hold ground. In the case of the Coast Guard facility, which is [36] units, they will bring it up to snuff. That’s fantastic. Same thing in the Valley: they acquired the trailer park.
The problem with that is there’s no new aggregate housing. In 2015 there was no net increase in affordable or elderly housing. That’s terrible. Unfortunately, development and real estate interest carry huge weight. I know the real estate industry will be furious with this, but I would say a higher percentage of any large development needs to be automatically required to be affordable.
The other issue with housing is that it is difficult to manage proposals [like] George Lucas’s Grady Ranch proposal. Here we have 200 units, half affordable and half elderly, represented by Gary Giacomini, which is, on its face, a great proposal. The problem is it’s on ranchlands. We don’t want to lose the ranchland. The other problem is that it’s so far off the 101 corridor that there really is a concern about the distance traveled and the routes necessary for those people to get to transportation hubs. But this is something we need to look at.
You asked what experiences I’ve found instructive. One is that the far left and the far right meet at no development of any kind. That is so strange to me. Because the far left doesn’t want any further impact on the environment, and the far right likes Marin the way it is and doesn’t want to be impacted by traffic and more people. They see “affordable” equaling crime, which of course it doesn’t. It’s a little bit frustrating for someone like me, who sees more nuance and understands there are a lot of people who work here and need housing. My question is what do you do about it?
Light: What is your position on the Grady Ranch project?
Staley: I think it can work if it doesn’t create a precedent for other ranches—and that, I think, is a big danger. Maybe we do … some kind of land swap or something closer to the corridor.
Light: Many people talk about the issue of short-term vacation rentals. Contingents from West Marin have come to county workshops saying they want regulations on them. What do you think?
Staley: Airbnb, because it’s such a new model, is completely unregulated. That’s nuts. In circumstances where an individual has an extra room, I don’t think that necessarily needs to be regulated. The big problem is the multi-unit facilities that are Airbnb; that should be disallowed immediately. Condo complexes and apartment complexes or any place where you have more than, let’s say, two units should not be allowed to be a short-term rental. There’s no question that it is a viable economic model, but the state [needs to get] its stuff together and figure out a way to tax that and ensure health and safety.
Again we’re back to health and safety regulations, because normally a hotel has regular inspections. Homes are not required to be inspected at all. What needs to be developed are definitive policies for anything that’s more than two or three units. There needs to be a regular inspection protocol.
Light: In places like Inverness and Bolinas, there aren’t a lot of condos or large multi-units. Still, a lot of people say, “I’m the only one that lives on my street because houses have been turned into vacation rentals.”
Staley: What a lot of people do with their houses in order to prepare them for Airbnb is segment them, often without permits. They do internal remodel so you have external entrances. I think there needs to be a planning process where the individual proves that they are not harming the community by converting a residence to a short-term rental. I would say an additional policy would be warranted for making sure that the homeowner provides evidence that they’re not impacting the community.
Light: What other issues are on your list of concerns?
Staley: Marin has been winding down its use of pesticides, but ranchers are pushing back because they’re having problems with thistle and other things. Now that California has designated glyphosate as a carcinogen, we need to take note of that and recognize that this is something we should not be spraying on open spaces, on anything we have control over, [such as] road medians, because that is the main place they use glyphosate to control weeds.
Looking at the water district battle between Larry Bragman and Liza Crosse, that apparently was the issue that drove his win home. People are really done with spraying chemicals on county land. I am 100 percent there. I think phasing it out is fine, but we need to have a really aggressive process for looking at alternatives, whether it’s managed controlled burns or goats. I think it’s time to stop spraying chemicals. Period.
The primary concern is non-native invasive species. Interestingly enough, eucalyptus is a non-native species. They’re everywhere. You’re not going to make that go away with glyphosate. In the case of sensitive habitat, they’ve had pretty good success manually removing broom. I think there are ways to utilize manpower. I would say nonviolent offenders, that’s a great way. Youth is another thing—in lieu of college fees, that kind of thing. Obviously they’re not cracking the whip, per se. It’s relatively easy to instruct an individual.
Light: Creekside regulations have long been a topic of conversation in the Valley. Kinsey has been critical of SPAWN lawsuits.
Staley: I know Todd. I know their hearts are in the right place. I know that they’re only using the tools they have available. The courts, unfortunately, are not only the last opportunity to fight a fight, but in many cases they’re the only place to fight a fight. SPAWN’s really not allowed to participate in developing policy; they send letters and request changes to certain policies, and it’s never changed. I think there needs to be a middle ground.
The planning group has always been right in the middle. You have the Valley Stewards, who want no one ever to come on their property under any circumstances. They like the creeks, but they don’t want anyone telling them what to do. Then you have SPAWN saying, “No, the laws say that we have to protect this environment.” It seems like the state, as we become bluer and more Democratic, is seeing a trend in the SPAWN direction, and the direction toward protecting our ecosystems.
Right now the burden is on the landowners, and I think that’s where the tension is. That’s why I think politicians tend to side against SPAWN, because they want the votes and they want people to like them and they don’t want to seem like they’re against homeowners. How do you implement the improvement of the ecosystem without majorly impacting homeowners? You have to provide some kind of funding. You can’t just mandate massive expenses and not provide some kind of assistance.