WHAT CAN YOU DO? EMAIL by Monday (tomorrow) afternoon by 3:30 to: bos@marincounty.org Include name, address & subject line as: NO on Item 16: Plan Amendments. ATTEND in person: Tuesday. Read More
From Marin Political Alliance ACTION REQUESTED:
The developers are possibly about to get their way and get official permission to destroy the Marin you know. Scott Wiener, Newsom and the Carpenter's Union are ready to celebrate. 14,405 new housing units demanded by the state. Each generating an average of 10 car trips per day. Think water rationing was bad last summer? Got wildfire evacuations plans? Imagine rush hour with everyone trying to flee your town at once.
Here's where your action can control the future. Most of what's recently bad in Marin happened because enough people didn't show up at boring old public meetings to protest or take action. The housing hustler nonprofits will be there and will get deferential treatment. Overwhelm them with numbers and comments.
This is a shortened summary of a long email from Amy Kalish, TamAlmonte/Citizen Marin.
SHORTER VERSION:
On Tuesday afternoon, the Marin County Board of Supervisors will decide whether to remove a key provision in the development code that could increase development potential in protected areas across Marin County TENFOLD, according to Planning Commissioner Dickenson.
Their vote could eliminate protections and increase minimum housing density in sensitive habitats within the Baylands Corridor and Ridge and Upland Greenbelt, and on properties lacking public water or sewer systems. These new allowed densities are the base from which different concessions and bonuses are calculated. In punitive projects like builder’s remedy, the end results will be a point of no return.
allowing more units per acre — would only result in more market rate housing. It does nothing for our communities; density in these areas further endanger residents in evacuation scenarios. The changes simply create opportunities to develop more luxury units that the county does not need.
Also on the agenda: an increase in the housing height restriction from 30 ft. to 45 ft. throughout the county, even though there is no evidence that a three-story limit currently stifles needed housing development. Again, these new limits are the base from which different concessions and bonuses are calculated.
See item #16 on this agenda:
https://marin.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=33&event_id=3744
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
EMAIL by Monday (tomorrow) afternoon by 3;30 to: bos@marincounty.org
Include your name and address, and the subject line as: NO on Item 16: Plan Amendments
ATTEND in person: Tuesday, 4/16, 3:30 pm Board Chambers, Room 330, Marin County Civic Center — join a contingent from Lucas Valley for Sensible Growth that has been proactive around this issue. Attendance matters! The Board needs to see that the community is not ok with the type of changes staff is suggesting.
ZOOM or CALL IN: Details here.
“...no provision of a community plan may be applied by the County in a manner that conflicts with the Countywide Plan...”
“The Countywide Plan land use designations supersede Community Plan [zoning] designations.”
Why was this important? The original Countywide Plan language stated that when there was conflict, the plan with the most specificity prevailed. The intention of community plans is to provide this specificity, clearly stating that the Bay Lands Corridor and Ridge and Upland Greenbelts — and areas without sewer or water — should be zoned at lowest density.
Lot's more. In the time it takes to read the following, you could write a quick email to the B.O.S.
Repeated from above: Include your name and address, and the subject line as: NO on Item 16: Plan Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------
MODEL LETTER FROM CITIZEN MARIN
To the Marin County Board of Supervisors,
Please vote NO on the proposed development changes.
It is unfortunate that staff continues to insert language that needlessly undermines the best interests of Marin. These amendments have been contentious from the start, as evidenced by continued conflicts with the Planning Commission and public commentary. This includes a robust petition delivered in 2023 by Sharon Ruston of Sustainable TamAlmonte, with over 1,500 signatures, urging the preservation of community plans.
There is no need to upzone areas that can only be used for dense luxury development. There is already a provision that allows higher density for low income housing, but none will pencil out in the Bay Lands Corridor, Ridge and Upland Greenbelts, or areas without roads, water, or sewage.
The County is already forced to allow increased density throughout the unincorporated areas, regardless of serious hazards, including fire — with known evacuation limitations. Densifying these protected areas further endangers your constituents.
The proposed height increases are unnecessary and unwise, considering the terrain and hazards. The new limits will only serve as a base before concessions — they could allow enormous expansion by developers adding a minimum of affordability.
We already have an example in the overblown SB 330 project in Strawberry. Mid cycle review, even if these amendments are passed, will likely trigger builder’s remedy and SB 35/423 projects. The economy is not conducive to the development the state demands, and we are seeing that already.
The only benefit of approving these changes is to prove to the state that we will do absolutely anything to try to make the impossible RHNA we’ve been assigned. We are set up to fail, regardless. If you want to watch the struggling member cities of SANDAG’s testimony to HCD's Deputy Director Megan Kirkeby, please see this video starting minute 44:
The judge in the Bruce Corcoran vs. Marin County suit recently ruled that the precedence clauses that create conflict between the community plans and Countywide Plan are unlawful.
Excerpts: "All elements of a general plan. whether mandatory or optional must be consistent with one another…many of the precedence clauses go beyond providing specific guidance to Community Plans… For example, the Housing Element states, "Many of these existing plans contain goals, policies, and programs that are not consistent with the Countywide Plan (CWP). When inconsistencies exist, the CWP prevails."
The Court finds that these precedence clauses apply to all inconsistencies, known and unknown. those which arose out of attempts to develop more housing and those which did not, etc. this is improper…Accordingly. the Motion for Judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094 is properly granted.”
Voting on these amendments before rectifying these issues seems to exacerbate the County’s position, another reason to vote NO.
I thank you for your continued engagement.
Best,
Amy Kalish, Citizen Marin
——-
FURTHER READING (not part of my letter):
This is how an area zoned for a handful of units can be gamed into 59 units, then 71 units — with a 72nd unit consisting of a 40+ bed care facility.
Marin developer moves forward with Strawberry apartment complex plan
This article describes the latest surprises that staff gave our Planning Commission
Tam Design Review Board letter to the Supervisors regarding treatment of the Planning Commissioner who pointed out the internal inconsistency issue
Marin supervisors get backlash for rejecting planning commissioner
IJ backs TDRB
Corcoran lawsuit based on internal inconsistency
Lawsuit challenges Marin County's housing element
end
Wow! That really sucks! Is this action only for Marin Country residents? Can all Californians react? I'm from NY but have ties to many in your state.