To the Marin County Board of Supervisors,
From the bare-bones information released a week ago on the County site, with no explanation, it would have been impossible for the general public to understand why any of the changes I am commenting on here were even happening.
“Table of proposed revisions to the Housing Element and Countywide Plan in response to a Marin County court ruling,” is insufficient notice of revisions of complex and important changes to the Countywide Plan to which the public was given only a week to respond.
The gist of the Marin County court ruling was not described at all; it should have been made clear that it related to removal of unlawful precedence clauses.
It’s a relief that the County has finally complied with a court order and removed the precedence clauses, but it still has not — based on the strikeouts made public — specifically addressed the ill-advised code amendments approved by the Board of Supervisors 3-2 in June that removed lowest density protections for the RUG, Bay Lands Corridor, and areas without road access or water/sewage.
Those lowest density provisions exist in community plans, which are once again, thanks to the court, recognized as an integral part of the Countywide Plan.
They are only referenced in flowing text — what happened to the code amendments? Wouldn’t another vote be required to reverse them? Do they still represent a precedence issue? There is no explanation.
My comment on other changes and the green additional text include the following: The term “community character” has been consistently conflated with racism; the term is an actual descriptor for the built environment. There is nothing wrong with promoting visual interest that is harmonious with nature; that is the intention of the “offending” language. The complaints about the community plan language are cherry picked to give the perception of exclusion, and I urge the Supervisors to read the entire texts before coming to such conclusions.
Additionally, removing the language “the Countywide Plan shall prevail” is followed by terms like “discretion,” balance” and “harmonize” that are not necessary. These terms relegate the community plans, once again, to a second rate tier that smacks of a new type of precedence clause. The RUG and other areas affected by the code amendments are listed, but which agency will decide the discretion, balance, and harmonization?
Over 200 letters from the public urged the Board not to vote for the code amendments that codified the removal of those protections, as that action seemed to “double down” on the issues brought up in the Corcoran vs County of Marin lawsuit, in which Corcoran had already prevailed at the time of the vote.
It is quite unfortunate that the CDA felt the necessity to go beyond what the state required in pushing for elimination of lowest density in the areas described, as they would provide no AFFH, low income, or multi family benefit. It is widely accepted that the action only promotes more dense luxury housing in areas purposely kept at lowest density for good reasons: preservation of the natural environment and avoidance of hazards.
The assault on community plans has had a ripple effect: Now the housing element will need revision. If the CDA had not insisted on removing lowest density protections in community plans to begin with, two years ago, the Planning Commission would likely have recommended the housing element to the Board, instead of rejecting it, and the County wouldn’t be in the position now of having to resubmit the revised housing element to the HCD and hope there are no repercussions.
The people of Marin County take their community plans seriously, and expect their Supervisors to do the same. Please give some thought to the chain of events that brought us here.
I look forward to Unincorporated Marin County having a state-compliant Countywide Plan without internal inconsistencies — that still clearly respects community plans.
Sincerely,
Amy Kalish, Director
Citizen Marin
Citizen Marin.org
