Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Marin County
Marin County Supervisors just removed protections of sensitive environmental areas
In a 3-2 decision on June 4th, the Marin County Board of Supervisors followed staff recommendations to remove lowest density protections in Unincorporated Marin from areas long protected in community plans: the Bay Lands Corridor, the Ridge and Upland Green Belt, and areas without roads or sanitary services. The Board received over 250 letters from the community strongly opposing this action.
The meeting had a confusing technical agenda: a vote was required on Code Amendments to bring the changes made in the housing element into conformance with the Countywide Plan. Tossed in as “footnotes” were two items: increases in height from 30’ to 40’ and 45’ (base heights which can be greatly increased by concessions in multi-unit development), and the removal of lowest density zoning in the most environmentally sensitive areas of unincorporated Marin. Here are my takeaways from the meeting.
ACTIVIST STAFF:
Staff (Jeremy Tejerian and Sarah Jones) have consistently sought to please Sacramento with zero interest in balancing the concerns of Marin — even when possible. They opened the meeting with a mind-numbing PowerPoint presentation that obviously confused the Supervisors further, and obfuscated what the vote would mean. The changes to density that concerned the community were referred to only as “the footnotes.” (PDF below has the strikeout text of the “footnotes”)
But removal of the “footnotes” protections was a big deal — not just for the environmental impact, but for the precedent set by striking out long standing language in community plans integral to our Countywide Plan.
Staff promoted the removal of protections as possibly generating more revenue for the county: more houses equal more fees. This is an odd trade off. And it’s likely not true for multi-unit projects; rules have “de-risked” that type of development to make it more appealing.
IMPACT?
When questioned by the Board, staff brushed off an earlier report that the changes could produce “10x density” as hyperbole, an exaggeration by those who didn’t understand the issue. That comment was made by a very senior Planning Commissioner, Don Dickenson, fully qualified to describe what the repercussions could be.
Tejerian also stressed that only 10% of the Unincorporated Areas even fell into the protected categories, so it wasn’t big deal.
The percentage is irrelevant if the damage can be significant.
The PowerPoint showed only a simple lot split, and did not follow if further lot splits would be allowed, or if the removal of protections allowed larger development. Tejerian waffled about the setbacks from areas like streams as the parcels were whittled down. Staff downplayed landowners’ desire to build in these areas due to expense and difficulty. Supervisor Lucan used the reasoning that since no one would want to develop those areas anyway, why not just vote to remove the protections?
NECESSARY?
As to the issue of whether this was necessary, since it would almost certainly be used only to increase market rate housing, Jones recited the state requirements that the county look for policies that inhibit housing, and eliminate them. In her telling, the state demanded a total rewrite, even for areas that would not produce any kind of affordability. Her priorities were removing any and all barriers, and the lowest density protections of the the Bay Lands Corridor, Ridge and Upland Green Belt, and areas with no road or utilities at lowest density were obvious targets.
DESIGN REVIEW:
Tejerian noted that development would still trigger design review, but did not specify from who. Design Review Boards? I sit as chair on the Tam Design Review Board, and we rely on the Tam Plan for guidance. There are two other County appointed Design Review Boards (DRBs) and many community plans.
By overriding this one area concerning preserving lowest density in obviously vulnerable areas, the County signals that the community plans are utterly subservient, though they contain specificity the County has long relied on for making decisions. Community plans represent thousands of collective hours of work by hundreds of community volunteers over many years.
The Unincorporated Areas are full of challenges and many experts have given their time to carefully map them. Recent changes in law have already shut DRBs out of reviewing multifamily development. DRBs are advisory only, so why the sweeping changes?
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Currently state laws are continuing to gut CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) and new laws coming soon will greatly restrict the ability of citizens and groups to demand or question impact studies. Multifamily housing is already largely spared impact studies, as it is usually eligible for automatic (ministerial) approval. When there is a decision to be made whether CEQA or other studies are necessary, Staff decides.
Based on their record over the last several years, I can’t imagine current staff requiring anything that could slow or inhibit the housing process, no matter how obvious the impacts.
WAS THIS UPZONING?
Tejerian made a point to chastise the public for referring to this as “upzoning.” The changes simply removed protections of lowest density! This feels Orwellian; since the changes create higher density potential, in my mind the concept is still valid.
Support Grassroots Journalism
CLICK HERE to donate to The Marin Post
INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY:
The agenda item was described:
“On behalf of the Marin County Planning Commission, staff recommends that your Board adopt the proposed amendments to the Development Code.”
In reality the Planning Commission had rejected these “footnotes” for years, and voted against approving the housing element in 2023 because of them, noting the impact they’d have on community plans and on the environment. They were totally blindsided by the strikeout “footnotes” at their last meeting, and heavily pressured into voting for these changes. They were vocal about it.
Staff told the Commissioners that legally they had no choice but to approve the changes: to make changers could anger the Department of Housing and Community Development, and housing element and the Countywide Plan would have an unlawful inconsistency. Four voted yes, stating they felt they had no choice. Two rejected the argument.
The pressure to vote yes was ironic because the “footnotes” issue, which put the community plans at odds with the Countywide Plan, already had created an internal inconsistency that a Superior Court Judge recently ruled unlawful (Bruce Corcoran vs. County of Marin).
See https://marinpost.org/blog/2024/4/14/court-rules-community-plans-cannot-be-overruled-by-the-countywide-plan?query=Corcoran§ion=blog for more information.
Just before the meeting, the Board was in closed session at the request of County Counsel Brandon Halter to discuss the implications of the Bruce Corcoran vs. County of Marin case. The reason given by Halter for the closed session:
“In my opinion, public discussion of this matter would prejudice your position.”
By ignoring the Corcoran ruling, the County actions have not only not corrected the original inconsistency, they’ve doubled down on it.
WHAT WENT UNMENTIONED:
The concept of incremental environmental damage was not discussed at all, nor was the horrific precedent in Marin of not protecting sensitive areas from over-development; this is not reversible. Loss of trees, watershed, and views are never mentioned.
This meeting was not about fire, earthquake, flooding, or landslide safety, but it is on most of our minds; development in these areas further complicates evacuation and other issues.
Fire Chief Weber was on hand to comment — infuriatingly, for those at risk — that since Lucas Valley had done such a good job of fire fuel abatement, more housing could be safely accommodated. Chief Weber has consistently downplayed egress issues since the housing element process began.
Only a few members of the public attended and fewer spoke. It can be an uncomfortable experience, and take a chunk out of your day or evening, but showing up is important. So are the letters; at least the public record is now stuffed with a history of community dissent.
THE VOTES:
DISTRICT 5, LUCAN, YES: Saw no downside since no one would probably want to develop there anyway. Changes would spur little development, not financially feasible anyway
DISTRICT 2, RICE, YES: Asked about the 10x increase in development potential reported in the IJ. Apparently, Tejerian convinced her it was an exaggeration.
DISTRICT 4, RODONI, YES: Not much discussion. He thought maybe the changes wouldn’t be too damaging. He instructed Tejerian to track the results, though he acknowledged the changes could not be reversed. Tejerian waffled, and Rodoni reiterated importance of tracking activity.
DISTRICT 1, MARY SACKETT, NO: Would not vote for the code amendments if the language regarding environmentally sensitive areas was included.
DISTRICT 3, MOULTON-PETERS, NO: Would not vote for the code amendments if the language regarding environmentally sensitive areas was included.
Amy Kalish is an activist fighting against overblown state housing mandates, following Marin-specific and statewide issues as they relate to housing policy. Her organization, Citizen Marin, alerts members to current issues and actions they can take. The citizenmarin.org site is a growing resource for all cities regarding issues related to state housing policy. To contact / sign up for updates, email: 1citizenmarin@gmail.com