Marin zoning changes could significantly increase housing density
The Marin County Planning Commission has approved zoning ordinance changes that could increase the development potential of many properties up to tenfold.
The commission voted 4-2 on Thursday to pass a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisor adopt the amendments. The commissioners who voted in favor, however, said they did so reluctantly. Commissioners Don Dickenson and Christina Desser cast the dissenting votes.
“I don’t agree that it’s good policy,” said commissioner Rebecca Lind. “But I do think it is in compliance with state law.”
Commissioner Margaret Curran said, “It sounds like we unanimously feel that way.”
The text changes to the development code are designed to implement policies in the housing element that county supervisors approved in January 2023. The amendments included boosting the maximum size of a house created under Senate Bill 9 from 1,200 square feet to 30% of floor-area-ratio up to 1,600 feet. County planners had recommended increasing the size to 1,800 square feet.
The housing element included zoning changes to permit 5,197 new residences on 148 sites in unincorporated areas by 2030. The state’s mandate is 3,569 more dwellings over the next eight years, but the state encouraged the county to identify additional sites in case some residences don’t materialize.
The code changes headed to the supervisors for their approval, however, would open the door to additional development beyond the sites identified in the housing element.
The most consequential modification would eliminate a provision that properties “with sensitive habitat or within the ridge and upland greenbelt or baylands corridor, and properties that lack public water or sewer systems, shall be calculated at the lowest end of the density range.”
“It’s a broad brush that affects thousands of acres of the county,” Dickenson said.
Dickenson recited a long list of neighborhoods that would be affected. In many of the areas — such as upper Lucas Valley, Santa Venetia, the hills of Sleepy Hollow, the San Rafael-Kentfield border and Marin City — the density range varies from a high of one residence per acre to a low of one per 10 acres. Eliminating the provision means the development potential would increase tenfold.
“The numbers could be huge in areas where we had previously decided development should be minimized,” Dickenson said.
The ridge and upland greenbelt and baylands are all in the eastern Marin corridor, but other areas would be affected as well.
Desser said she was concerned about the effect the change would have on the development potential for a property in western Marin, where a developer recently submitted a pre-application to subdivide an 82-acre property into 27 parcels.
”I don’t want to go on record supporting this change,” Desser said. “I don’t think this is good for our communities.”
Dickenson said many of the greenbelt properties are on scenic ridge tops at the end of marginal streets with no access to public transportation.
“Most of the locations aren’t appropriate for below-market-rate housing,” he said. “It’s just increasing the development potential.”
Dickenson noted that the current development code language allows densities higher than the lowest end of the density range to be considered on a case-by-case basis for new housing that would be affordable to very-low- and low-income households that are capable of providing adequate water and sanitary service.
“We’re talking market-rate housing,” Desser said. “This isn’t going to do anything for affordable housing.”
Marin County Planning Manager Jeremy Tejirian, however, said the commissioners had little choice but to recommend the amendments be adopted.
“If we do not, we still run a risk of jeopardizing the housing element,” Tejirian said. “We must comply with what the housing element says.”
“We submitted our housing element,” Desser said. “It was approved, and I don’t think the state’s coming after us.”
“Well, they might,” Tejirian said. “Remember, there are followup regulations that we need to also approve.”
In January 2023, the commission voted 6-1 against a resolution recommending that county supervisors approve the housing element and attendant changes to the countywide plan, which included removal of the same section that would now being deleted from the development code.
Bruce Corcoran, a Strawberry resident who has sued the county over the changes made to the countywide plan to comply with the state housing mandate, sent a letter to the commission urging it to delay its vote on the development code amendments until a judge has ruled in his case.
In his lawsuit, Corcoran asserts that the changes to the countywide plan effectively downgraded the authority of the county’s community plans. The suit emphasizes that “most if not all’’ of the county’s community plans limit the height, floor area ratio and density of development in baylands, ridge and upland greenbelt corridors.
Dickenson said any protection afforded by the countywide plans to these areas is has been lost “because now the countywide plan supersedes them.”
The commissioners who voted to recommend approval of the new development code language said they feared jeopardizing the state’s acceptance of the housing element and contradicting the Board of Supervisors.
“The unassailable validity of the housing element is of concern to me,” said Curran. “I don’t want to do anything that would undermine that, and I don’t think the Board of Supervisors would particularly appreciate us doing anything to undermine that.”