THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INCREDIBLE SUPPORT OF OUR COMMUNITY PLANS!
On Monday, 10/28, I delivered 545 signatures and petition comments to the Marin County Board of Supervisors — copied to the Planning Commission. Special thanks to the many members of the public who spoke! There was tremendous public response beyond the petition, as well.
THE QUICK UPDATE: the Supervisors decided on a new option that gives more time for Corcoran — who brought the suit — and the County to reach an acceptable solution. They were concerned that simple option we advocated for (“Option B”) would fulfill the court order but not please HCD. This is debatable, with details below. There were instructions to staff to engage with the Planning Commission more meaningfully in the future. So: the issue is still in play, but on a trajectory that could yield a more acceptable result than what CDA staff were pushing on 10/28.
You’ll receive an update in advance of the next Planning Commission meeting when this will be on the agenda.
My Marin Voice piece in the IJ in advance of the meeting:
https://www.marinij.com/2024/11/04/marin-supervisors-delay-decision-on-housing-policy-language/
The IJ article describing the meeting:
https://www.marinij.com/2024/11/04/marin-supervisors-delay-decision-on-housing-policy-language/
COMMUNITY PLANS:
Our 22 community plans were created by hundreds of people donating thousands of volunteer hours. All were officially adopted by the Board and have served us for years as part of our Countywide Plan.
Without our 22 community plans, all of the areas carefully documented in the unincorporated areas as environmentally sensitive or hazardous will be subject to generic development standards. So please talk to your neighbors, tell them what’s at stake and share the petition.
We need to continue to speak with our greater voice during these times of unprecedented assault on local land use control. Decisions made out of fear are not conducive to fostering local stewardship.
So: the Court order to restore our community plans has not yet been resolved. Although the County must remove the unlawful precedence clauses, HCD and planning staff have attempted to use proposed language changes to the Housing Element as yet another way to effectively neuter the plans.
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO PURSUE “OPTION D”
We went into the meeting with several options presented by staff. It was clear from their questions that the Supervisors leaned toward “Option C,” (described below), that still undermined community plans, but might stave off the threat of HCD decertifying our Housing Element. The issue at hand was pleasing the Court and Bruce Corcoran, and Option C didn’t do that.
However, County counsel conferred last minute with Corcoran — during the meeting — and presented a new option: “D”: Corcoran would ask the Court for an extension, and he and the County would attempt to reach mutually agreeable terms. The public process will once again run through the staff and Planning Commission and staff. The result will be reviewed by HCD and sent to the Board. Their decision will go to the Court.
I give credit to the Supervisors for not just latching on to Option C out of fear of the HCD, and voting to get this over with. Then we’d be back in the same position, possibly with a new lawsuit.
WOULD THE HCD REALLY REJECT LANGUAGE APPROVED BY THE COURT?
Staff has repeatedly pushed the County to do more than what the state requires, and they also assert changing the language in our currently certified Housing Element (HE) will put us in jeopardy. Here is an excerpt from the letter Corcoran’s attorney, Michael Graf, submitted to the Board in advance of the meeting (before option D existed):
“The Board should assess its strong position on this issue before buckling under to the threats made by staff carrying the water for an unelected state agency. The Board should adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation of Option B, which removes the precedence clauses and allows the County to work out legislatively how it wishes to balance the need for housing through the implementing programs already contained in the HE.”
WHAT IS WRONG WITH OPTION C?
Option C allows the County (staff) to choose which among conflicting development standards apply to a specific project — Those in the community plan? Or those in the Countywide Plan? The Court already declared that language like this created an unlawful inconsistency between the Plans.
HOW OPTION C READS:
A Community plan is considered part of the Marin Countywide Plan and sets forth goals, objectives, policies, and programs to address specific issues relevant to that particular community. For residential and mixed use projects where there are land use designation or development density and floor area ratio differences, the County will weigh and balance these differences by seeking to advance the overall vision and goals of the applicable Community Plan within the requirements of applicable state law.
PROBLEMATIC LANGUAGE:
Technically, there is a difference between policies and development standards. The County can always 'weigh and balance' different policies; they have wide discretion to do that. But they cannot just ignore a development standard or zoning designation in a Community Plan. For example, if the Countywide Plan has a height limit standard of 45 feet, and a Community Plan has a height limit standard of 30 feet, that is not "weighing and balancing" policies, that is choosing one standard over the other.
PROPOSED OPTION D LANGUAGE THAT FIXES THIS PROBLEM:
A Community plan is considered part of the Marin Countywide Plan and sets forth goals, objectives, policies, and programs to address specific issues relevant to that particular community which may in certain circumstances differ from objectives, policies, and programs contained in the Housing Element. The County will weigh and balance these differences by seeking to advance the overall vision and goals of the applicable Community Plan within the requirements of applicable state law.
WHAT’S NEXT?
A public process must produce language that satisfies Corcoran, the Court, and the HCD. Based on the way directions were given, I suspect the Supervisors have heard multiple complaints about staff’s undermining of the Planning Commission. To see these playing out in real time, I suggest watching the 9/23 Planning Commission meeting: https://marin.granicus.com/player/clip/12348?view_id=3&redirect=true