Development potential increased
Vote revises building limits on environmentally sensitive areas
By Richard Halstead
In a rare split vote, Marin County supervisors voted 3-2 to adopt zoning ordinance changes that will increase the development potential of numerous properties in unincorporated areas.
Supervisors Mary Sackett and Stephanie Moulton-Peters cast the dissenting votes Tuesday.
Most notably, the modifications eliminated footnotes from the development code that restricted subdivision potential for properties with sensitive habitat or within the ridge and upland greenbelt or baylands corridor, and properties that lack public water or sewer systems. The footnotes had mandated that subdivision for single-family homes in these areas “be calculated at the lowest end of the density range.”
The supervisors postponed a vote on the changes in April after receiving several hundred letters and emails from Marin residents urging them not to approve them. Supervisors received more than 250 emails in advance of Tuesday’s meeting voicing opposition to the move.
“I really feel strongly that promoting housing in areas on ridge lines and in the bayland is not a good policy decision,” Moulton-Peters said. “I spent a lot of time this week looking at Tam Valley overhead maps, and the concentration of homes there is already very great.”
But Supervisor Eric Lucan, who made the motion to adopt the changes, said, “I think really what we’re dealing with is more of a perceived issue than an actual issue.”In a letter opposing the move written for the April hearing, the Marin Conservation League said the change would affect properties throughout the county. It included the west end of Novato around Vineyard Road; portions of Indian Valley; areas in Black Point and Green Point; Santa Venetia; upper Lucas Valley; parts of Los Ranchitos and Sleepy Hollow; ridge lines in unincorporated Fairfax; portions of the Kentfield area; bayfront parcels along Paradise Drive; areas of Tam Valley and Muir Woods Park; and ridgeline areas above Marin City.
When the Marin County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes at the end of February, commissioner Don Dickenson said density ranges in these areas vary from a high of one residence per acre to a low of one per 10 acres, so eliminating the provision could result in a tenfold increase in development potential.
“Personally I think that is an exaggeration,” said Marin County Planning Manager Jeremy Tejirian. “I understand how you come up with that number, but in reality there are many constraints.”
Tejirian said the affected area consists of some 32,675 acres, or “about 10% of the interior portions of the county outside of the coastal zone.”
Sarah Jones, director of the Marin County Community Development Agency, said the county had no choice but to adopt the zoning changes.
“The proposal implements changes in the countywide plan that your board adopted last year at the time that you approved the housing element,” Jones said. “By law, the development code must align with the countywide plan and implement what it sets.”
In January 2023, county supervisors adopted an updated version of the countywide plan’s housing element to comply with a state mandate to accommodate 3,569 new homes in unincorporated areas by 2031.
The housing element actually identifies 148 sites to accommodate 5,197 dwellings.
All of the sites are developable with ministerial review, which means they will not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act or denial by local elected bodies. The only requirement developers will face, beyond basic safety and environmental regulations, is conformance with a new “form-based” code.
Opponents of the new code changes noted that the alterations are unnecessary to comply with the state’s order to zone for the new housing.
“That’s true,” Jones said Tuesday. “Nonetheless, the housing element is about policy, and the directive from the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development is to explore and remove all constraints, no matter how great or little.”
Jones and Tejirian cited a number of reasons why they don’t anticipate the change to spark a significant amount of new development proposals in the affected areas, and why the environment will be protected.
They said the change will only affect single-family subdivisions of four homes or fewer. Projects with five or more, they said, would have been exempt from the limitations imposed by the footnotes regardless because of state density bonus law.
They said that none of the affected areas is included on the housing element’s list of preferred development sites.
As a result, projects would still be subject to design review and would have to comply with requirements for setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas and building envelope requirements.
Projects would also potentially be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
“Through the design review process,” Tejirian said, “we can protect stream conservation areas, wetland conservation areas and mature trees. Any number of environmental constraints can be recognized through that process.”
He added that steep slopes in many of the affected areas would also limit development potential.
Opponents of the changes pushed back.
Amy Kalish, director of CitizenMarin.org, said, “Placating the Department of Housing and Community Development is pointless.”
Kalish noted that if the new homes the state has assigned to Marin haven’t been built at the end of this eight-year cycle, the county could be stripped of its remaining regulatory powers over new development with the exception of the form-based code.
“What will we give to them then?” Kalish asked. “Will we upzone sensitive areas further?”
Several speakers invoked the memory of Martin Griffin, the Belvedere environmentalist who died recently. Griffin helped defeat a gigantic development plan for west Marin during the 1960s.
“It feels ironic,” said Susan Hough of Mill Valley, “that before you, supervisors, is a decision that will essentially undercut the environmental protections that he and so many local citizens fought so hard for and that local community members treasure.”
Comments