March 15th the Marin County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission received an update from the Community Development Agency (CDA) about potential locations to develop more than 3,500 new homes in unincorporated Marin County. More than 130 members of the public attended and a number of people provided public comments.
EAC spoke at the meeting, highlighting areas of concern that could be squeezed into our two minutes, and submitted a comment letter ahead of the meeting. We were heartened to hear the voices of other community members raising concerns about the housing allocation totals in West Marin.
March 15, 2022
Meeting Resources:
At the meeting, the CDA and their consultants, MIG, provided an overview of the Housing Element update process; some background information on the County’s appeals to the Association of Bay Area Governments to reduce the housing allocation assigned to Unincorporated Marin County; reviewed the recommended site lists; and answered questions from the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and the public.
The meeting started at 5 PM and ended just after 10 PM following robust discussion by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors following public comments.
Workshop Takeaways:
Individual Supervisors made comments to reduce or remove potential locations from final consideration. These changes were so dramatic that it reduced the number of potential housing units below the RHNA (regional housing needs allocation) of 3,569 and the 15% buffer that the CDA needs to include in the plan. This required that the Supervisors reconsider the reductions or removals that were proposed with the CDA. The revised list of sites and housing units may not be available for public review prior to the next workshop.
The CDA has already started the Programmatic California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the entire draft sites inventory list.
The impact of SB 9 (California Senate Bill 9 passed in 2021 that allows property owners in areas of single-family zoning to subdivide to build an additional unit). This is allowed “by-right” where zoning changes do not occur and removes local oversight from the project. The County is not able to include SB 9 projections in the Housing Element, as there isn’t any history of development to provide a realistic estimate of how many new housing units would be constructed.
Planning Commissioners raised concerns that it is unrealistic that any of these properties will be developed within the 8-year timeline based on the time it takes for development plans to be approved and to find funding for affordable housing projects.
Planning Commissioners raised concerns about rezoning A-60 parcels (agriculturally zoned parcels that are restricted to one house per 60 acres). Specifically parcels outside of Novato’s Urban Growth Boundary, in Conservation Priority Areas, and that would need to change the City Center Corridors in the Countywide Plan. (Note: there are three A-60 parcels in the current proposal to develop more than 300 above-moderate homes).
Concerns were raised in parcel selection in this RHNA cycle, and if it is expected that these high numbers compared to the last RNHA cycle (the last cycle was just over 175 units) will continue in future cycles, then the County needs to be smart and proactive about site selection. Otherwise, it runs the risk of undermining the last 50 years of planning to protect our watersheds, open space, and agricultural lands from irresponsible development. There is a risk we could lose all of that if we do not plan correctly.
Concerns were raised about “by-right” and streamlined development. This means that parcels identified in this planning process that do not have development plans in the works by 2030 may not be subject to additional public review. In other words, these parcels would not subject to public review through the Planning Commission, CEQA, or be held to the housing type standards based on income.
The April 12th, the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Workshop will determine the preferred list of candidate sites that will be based on the direction and recommendations of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners.
Following the April 12th meeting, the CDA will shift to complete a draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report that will return for public review and comment.
NEXT STEPS:
Community members need to continue their engagement by calling and emailing their Supervisors about the plan. The Supervisors need to hear feedback from the community now to assist with appropriate site selection. It’s important to remember that the total RHNA cannot be reduced. For every housing unit reduced or removed from the list, another site has to be identified to meet the RHNA. The final site selection will take place at the end of the year after the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report is finalized.
What you can do:
Continue to advocate for your Community Plan to be included in the RHNA process. Community Plans include information on where development is appropriate and where to protect sensitive environmental and community resources that are important to preserve the overall community character and culture.
Supervisors should be focusing on in-fill near transportation and job centers not on the total percentage of units of housing in each district. The County needs to continue to advocate to avoid urban sprawl. This is one of the legacies of Marin County, that we have set aside open space, public lands, and preserved agricultural lands to prevent urban sprawl and habitat loss that we are able to witness in other cities and counties throughout the nation.
We must protect sensitive habitat areas from development. The County has proposed several inappropriate locations for development including parcels located in Tomales Bay and parcels within 100 feet of creeks, wetlands, and shorelines. Parcels within mapped floodplains, within 100 feet of riparian corridors, wetlands, or shorelines should be removed from consideration to protect critical and sensitive environmental habitat areas. The rural villages of West Marin are without any centralized wastewater treatment systems, and any new development that would be susceptible to flooding should not be developed. Our communities will only set the stage for increasing bacterial loads in our freshwaters systems and beaches. Planning must be smart and proactive, benefiting the entire ecosystem (including our villages) protecting our clean water and important habitat areas that sequester greenhouse gases, act as fire breaks, and provide essential habitat to species.
All parcels that are zoned A-60 should be removed from the list. A-60 zoning was established to protect Marin’s agricultural lands from suburban development and urban sprawl in the 1970s, and the County defended this zoning in litigation all the way to the Supreme Court. The current plans include 282 new housing units that would be moderate and above-moderate housing that are textbook urban sprawl.
We can’t just build our way out of the housing crisis. In addition to voicing your concerns on inappropriate housing locations, you must also let the County know that they need to do something about the causes of our housing crisis, including establishing restrictions on short-term rentals and finding ways to stop the hollowing out of our residential communities. Our coastal villages have extremely high vacancy rates due to the high number of second homes. Every home converted to a vacation house is a loss to our residential housing stock.
Avoid Environmental Hazards and Focus on In-Fill. Locations proposed in high wildfire risk areas should be reconsidered, and the County should focus on in-fill near community services and transportation corridors. In-fill will provide access to public transportation and services and align with the Sustainable Communities Strategy Growth Geographies as Priority Development Areas [1]. Adding thousands of housing units to rural areas will increase the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled, undermining Marin and California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
Locations inappropriate for housing development that remain on the potential housing list may be subject to ministerial actions in the future for development.
This is a real problem, as ministerial actions are actions where the local government will have no discretion (not subject to review by the Planning Commission and not appealable) and are exempt from CEQA. Therefore, it’s absolutely essential to have locations inappropriate for development removed from any potential consideration lists before the end of the year.
FUTURE planning and engagement:
As our communities work through this public process, it’s important to remember we are just at the beginning and there are more opportunities to weigh in on some of the environmental resource issues in the coming months.
When the County completes the programmatic CEQA analysis (the Draft Environmental Impact Report) any questions and concerns asked by the public must be responded to by the County. The CEQA process is another avenue to weigh in on environmental impacts and to advocate for the removal of sites that would be harmful to the environment. It is important to remember that the CEQA process is a disclosure (or somewhat procedural), meaning that the County is able to mitigate (or add conditions to the development plans intended to offset) the potential harms to the environment. CEQA does not guarantee that the environmentally preferred option is selected. It's an analysis of the conditions, presents alternatives, and provides mitigations to the agency action.
Footnotes:
[1] The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan 2050, Chapter 1. Growth Geographies. Available at: https://www.planbayarea.org/2050-plan/final-plan-bay-area-2050/chapter-1-introduction-and-growth-geographies
