Culminating a more than decade-long process, the deadline for the Board of Supervisors to decide whether to approve the lion’s share of the update for Marin’s Local Coastal Program is next week. Yet a small number of key sticking points with the California Coastal Commission that pertain to agriculture, village zoning and building restrictions continue to rankle community members and county staff.
The Seadrift and Stinson Beach Village Associations have voted to oppose the board’s approval of certain sections, and the Marin County Farm Bureau is urging supervisors to abandon the update altogether. The Marin Conservation League, the Inverness Public Utility District and North Marin Water District have also submitted letters of opposition to the county. And comment letters are still streaming in.
Largely in agreement with community members, the county’s staff has stated its preference to first resolve the disputes before moving forward. Staff have recommended that supervisors accept just three of the five amendments under their consideration at the public hearing scheduled for April 24.
In a report to the board for that hearing, county staff state that modifications the commission and its staff made to the two offending amendments since November 2016 “are inconsistent with long established practice or fundamental principles under the Coastal Act, impermissibly infringe upon local zoning control, are inconsistent with the local County of Marin policies, practices and customs, lack sufficient precision to allow clear and consistent implementation, or are beyond the reasonable application of the [Coastal] Act.”
If supervisors reject the two amendments as staff recommend, county staff say they will continue working with the commission and resubmit the two amendments by the end of the year. “Coastal Commission staff has expressed willingness to work with the county on amendments, but the actual schedule for when the amendments would be heard by the [California Coastal Commission] would be affected by the [commission’s] staffing and workload,” the report states.
If supervisors follow the recommendation, they will approve three amendments, including the entire land use plan, minus the environmental hazards sections, for a second time. (The board did so last summer, but made additional changes that the commission since rejected.) The coastal permitting and administration sections of the implementation plan would also be approved.
Yet there is some dispute about whether supervisors are able to selectively approve the amendments at this point in the process, as opposed to making a wholesale decision to reject or accept all five. The full update to the 1982 Local Coastal Program is divided into seven total amendments, and while two related to environmental hazards have been postponed, the commission gave Marin a deadline of May 2 to approve or reject the other five before a final approval.
Coastal commission spokeswoman Noaki Schwartz said yesterday that the county’s piecemeal approval of the group of five amendments is still under negotiation.
Regardless, the updated L.C.P. will not be implemented until the two final sections that relate to environmental hazards, still in draft form, are approved by both agencies.
Agriculture
There are seven main issues the county’s staff has flagged in two of the amendments that will go before the board next week. One relates to a new definition of “ongoing agriculture,” a term the county created to exempt farmers from needing coastal development permits for routine activities. The county proposed to define it as agricultural production activities (including crop rotation, plowing, tilling, planting, harvesting and seeding) which have not been expanded into never-before used areas.
The county’s definition also specifies six instances in which a coastal development permit would be required, including the development of new water sources, installation or extension of irrigation systems, terracing of land for agricultural production, and preparation or planting of land for viticulture, cannabis or with an average slope exceeding 15 percent.
Yet coastal commission staff repeatedly attempted to add in that agricultural operations must also be “legally established” as a prerequisite to qualifying for the permit exemption. The commission took out that language in November 2016 in response to county concerns, but its staff effectively added it back in its revised findings from July 2017.
Those findings, senior county planner Jack Liebster explained, are not part of the amendment text but clarify the commission’s intent. They cast uncertainty on the legality of farmers’ routine and traditional production activities—such as grazing cattle or planting crops—that predate 1982, when the county implemented its first L.C.P.
Since the commission’s revised findings state that existing agricultural uses must be “legal and allowable,” these activities could be contested “presumably by anyone, and the burden of proof of legality is on the farmer or rancher,” Mr. Liebster said.
A second issue related to agriculture is that the commission staff inserted new language before the list of the six activities that trigger a coastal permit, stating the six are “examples of activities that are NOT considered ongoing agricultural activities” and that regulation is “not limited” to them.
“Framing this definitive list in terms of ‘examples’ may diminish the predictability the county sought to provide in the regulatory process by opening the regulation to additional unspecified criteria,” the county’s staff report states.
Bolinas farmer Peter Martinelli was dismayed by the change. “We tried to reach a compromise by agreeing to the six triggers to a coastal permit, and even that was giving up quite a bit,” he said. “But the way it’s written now leaves the door open for the commission to decide themselves what is ongoing agriculture.”
He added, “The ag community was invited to get involved in this process, to create rules that were helpful for agriculture—but it quickly became about defending what we have now, and trying to hold ground.”
The third issue related to agriculture also stems from the commission’s revised findings, which state that any conversion of grazing areas to row crops that would “intensify the use of land or water or require grading” will require a coastal permit. The county’s definition had not included a specific mention of this conversion in its definition of ongoing agriculture, thereby not regulating it unless it qualified under any of the six criteria that trigger the need for a permit, such as the development of new water sources.
As the revised findings are written now, the conversion of grazing land into crops is highlighted specifically, and any resulting intensification of water or land use is left vague.
“This lack of clarity about if and what type of other unspecified agricultural production activities could be considered may eventually lead to uncertainty and disagreement about compliance with the county’s permit exemption (a process that should be as straightforward and predictable as possible,” the staff report states.
Kevin Lunny, a rancher on Point Reyes and the president of the Marin County Farm Bureau, said the board voted unanimously to urge supervisors to not only reject the aspects of the L.C.P. that relate to agriculture, but the entire update. He said the bureau made an effort to make their weigh-in representative of the entire agricultural community and consulted farmers and ranchers beyond their membership to get a fuller perspective.
“Knowing that obtaining a coastal development permit is a long, arduous and expensive process, and dealing with [commission] staff having no agricultural experience or expertise, few farmers and ranchers will elect to change what they do,” Mr. Lunny wrote in a letter to the board. “Ranches would lose resiliency because of the inability to change crops in response to climate or market changes and the next generation of farmers and ranchers with dreams of diversifying (changing the intensity of use) and connecting with the local food system would be shattered.”
The letter asserts that the current L.C.P. is functioning well enough and proposed that any necessary changes should be made piecemeal, using the thought that both the county and the commission have already put into the issues.
Mr. Martinelli, who sits on the farm bureau board, agreed. “The commission has proved themselves as committed to expanding their authority into agricultural activities, and we are done trying to negotiate that. We would rather revert to the plan from 1982,” he said. “Ag is not thriving, but it’s stabilizing and recovering. There’s flexibility, diversity, production and all of this has happened under the 1981 plan. It’s working, so let’s leave it alone.”
The Marin Conservation League echoed the frustration of the two farmers. “Marin County Community Development staff did a masterful job of listening to the concerns of the agricultural and environmental communities in crafting definitions of ‘ongoing agricultural activities’ and ‘development.’ MCL supported strongly the resulting provisions,” the group’s letter to supervisors states. “The revisions made through the Coastal Commission and staff findings of July 14, 2017 have introduced ambiguity for farming and ranching that MCL does not support.”
Community issues
Jeff Loomans, president of the Seadrift Association and the liaison on L.C.P. issues for the Stinson Beach Village Association, described which of the county’s concerns will affect coastal residents in particular.
The village association voted to oppose amendment seven, which relates to definitions throughout the update, and Seadrift will formally oppose both amendment seven and three, which relates to agriculture. In the seventh amendment, Mr. Loomans said there are several longstanding issues that would greatly impact life on the coast.
The first relates to the definition of “existing structure,” which the commission’s revisions have left to exclude all structures built after 1977. If passed as is, the definition would limit the ability of owners of newer buildings to engage in a host of activities, including protecting their homes and rebuilding after storm damage.
“Many homes in Stinson Beach and West Marin were built since the ’70s,” Mr. Loomans said. “I think this is a stealthy way that the coastal commission staff is trying to adapt to sea-level rise retreat. If you weren’t here 50 years ago, you won’t be able to maintain your home.”
The second issue Mr. Loomans flagged for West Marin residents is the commission’s inserted language relating to “village commercial cores,” or V.C.R., which would only allow for commercial uses.
This would subject residences in village centers to appeal by the commission, though the county has requested further clarification. “It is unclear whether the restriction of new or existing residential uses to the second floor and ground floor applies throughout the VCR zones,” the staff report states.
A third issue is the “lowest allowable” density and floor area restrictions proposed for properties containing any hazardous areas and setbacks, regardless of whether the hazards can be mitigated or addressed, which is the current practice. Given the extent of hazard areas on the coast—including high fire-severity zones, tsunami zones, and steep and unstable slopes—Mr. Loomans said this modification would have a large impact on communities.
A fourth modification that would especially affect Marshall and Tomales Bay is the new regulation of piers and caissons under the stringent requirements for “shoreline protective devices,” which include seawalls, breakwaters, groins and other devices designed to reduce coastal erosion.
“Considering the advanced age of many homes in our coastal communities, the inclusion of piers and caissons in the above definition means that single-family remodel projects, as well as new construction, would be subject to the same extensive submittal requirements, standards and conditions of approval as a proposal to construct a new seawall,” the staff report states.
Another potentially problematic modification relates to public facilities and services. The modified zoning standard restricts private wells and on-site sewage disposal or sewer systems in a similar fashion to that of community water or community sewage treatment facilities.
Under the Coastal Act, the expansion of such systems must demonstrate a capacity for priority uses, such as serving visitors. In areas with limited visitor-serving capacity, new development for non-priority uses would only be allowed if there is adequate capacity for priority uses.
The county argues that this would add to expenses for private domestic wells and that individuals may not be able to meet an application requirement to access neighboring lots.
Though local utility districts have not yet weighed in on this issue, both the Inverness Public Utility District and the North Marin Water District submitted concerned letters to the county regarding their respective capital improvement programs that involve replacing redwood tanks in Inverness.
“There are limited taxpayer monies available to provide for replacement of key infrastructure crucial to our coastal water systems,” Ken Eichsteadt, general manager of IPUD, wrote. “The LCP permitting process should be amended to reflect the replacement of this important infrastructure in the coastal permitting process to reduce overall project cost and schedule.”
Next steps
The issues the county has highlighted for next week’s meeting pertain to just two amendments. In defense of moving forward with the new L.C.P. versus abandoning it, the county’s staff have highlighted for the board what they feel it can accomplish that the current L.C.P. does not.
These accomplishments include new allowances for intergenerational housing units, more flexibility in building ag worker housing, strict controls for all types of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, more effective controls of polluted runoff and sediment, increased opportunities for affordable housing, a quicker and less expensive permitting process, and more.
But for some, waiting for further tweaks on any of the L.C.P. amendments is not an option.
The Environmental Action Committee of West Marin is one of the strongest voices of support for the board’s approval of all the amendments. Its primary concern is that further delays will postpone the completion of the environmental hazards sections.
“Marin’s coastal communities cannot adequately plan for sea-level rise without those amendments,” the group wrote in a letter to the board. “Delaying this section years into the future jeopardizes the C-SMART process and our communities’ ability to adapt to impending hazards.”
Arianne Dar, executive director of the Bolinas Community Land Trust, also urged the board to approve all the amendments, though she acknowledged they weren’t perfect.
“Further delay of the L.C.P. update creates confusion over what L.C.P. we should look to for project planning,” she wrote. “In addition, the [1982] L.C.P. does not include adequate planning tools to adapt to sea-level rise, and impedes our community’s ability to address critical planning needs. By failing to move the L.C.P. amendments forward, the county is placing a significant burden on other projects in the development pipeline.”
The Board of Supervisors will convene on Tuesday, April 24 at 1:30 p.m. to take action on the L.C.P. amendments. The public is welcome to attend the hearing at the Civic Center. Questions or concerns before then can be directed to Kristin Drumm at (415) 473.6290 or [email protected].