The planning commission expressed unanimous support for the latest batch of amendments to the county’s 1982 Local Coastal Program last week, determining after a pinprick analysis that it held up against the handful of ongoing concerns from the public. The robust support contrasted with the typical controversy and convolution associated with the more than decade-long effort to update the plan, which governs development in the coastal zone.
In June, the California Coastal Commission certified three sections of the county’s seven-part update. The county had postponed consideration of two other sections—those pertaining to agriculture and definitions throughout the planning document—to resolve a number of outstanding issues with the coastal commission.
This spring, many members of the public asked the county to drop the entire update over opposition to the new agricultural regulations, village zoning and building restrictions represented in those two sections.
In recent months, the county has successfully collaborated with community stakeholders and the commission alike. Staff from the Community Development Agency told the Planning Commission last Thursday that there were no outstanding issues, and the commission voiced its support for the new wording this month.
Though it was not required to take formal action, the Planning Commission offered its unanimous approval of the newly altered two amendments—technically numbers three and seven. The amendments now go before the Board of Supervisors before the commission considers them for final certification.
Until the two agencies tackle the final sections related to environmental hazards next year, the county will continue to abide by the old L.C.P.
So what language was changed?
One of the most contentious points has been the county’s effort to define “ongoing agriculture,” a term it created to exempt farmers from needing coastal development permits for routine activities. County staff has stated that the commission interprets the current L.C.P. to require such permits, though historically neither agency has enforced this.
Though the county has attempted to define agriculture in a way that relieves regulatory burdens on farmers, it has battled with the commission and agriculturists over every word.
As presented on Thursday, ongoing agriculture is now defined as “agricultural production activities (including crop rotation, plowing, tilling, planting, harvesting, seeding, grazing and raising of animals) which have not been expanded into areas never before used for agriculture.”
Addressing a call from many farmers, the county added “raising of animals” to the list of activities. The addition would enable a farmer to, for instance, make a change from grazing to row crops or vice versa without obtaining a coastal development permit.
The 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.
But there is now a seventh instance: the county can require a coastal permit for activities that are not on that list but that have “a significant impact to coastal resources.” Though the county had wanted to keep the list to the six specific instances, coastal staff wanted more flexibility. Unlike the commission’s prior language, however, the definition now places the decision about significant impact in the hands of the director of the Community Development Agency.
The county also pushed back on the coastal commission’s attempts to add that agricultural operations must also be “legally established” as a prerequisite to qualifying for the permit exemption. This cast uncertainty on the legality of farmers’ routine and traditional production activities that predate 1982, when the county implemented its first L.C.P.
These changes are surely improvements in the eyes of the county’s supervisors and other county representatives who have voiced strong support for agriculture throughout Marin.
Compared to the wave of opposition from the ag community seen in April, last Thursday’s hearing saw just a handful of opposers. (The Marin Conservation League voiced its support for the new ag definition specifically in a letter, one of just five submitted to the Planning
Commission.)
“I believe that agriculture should be exempt from permitting requirements as the primary use for ag-zoned land,” said Sally Pozzi, a sixth-generation rancher in Tomales who pointed to ranchers’ need to make short-term decisions in response to changing factors that don’t lend themselves to a time-consuming permit process. “We have a good rain year and a bad rain year, and our number of animals changes 50 percent or more.”
Her concerns were echoed by Albert Straus of Straus Family Creamery. “We are losing as a community,” he said, “because the coastal commission is over-reaching and the county is allowing them to do that.” As a certified organic dairy, he must get dozens of permits from different agencies every year; wading through coastal permits would only cause additional heartache.
Sam Dolcini of the Marin County Farm Bureau also directed criticism at the coastal commission, using an analogy for the long back-and-forth: “You don’t want to see sausage made, but this process is making that process look rather sanitary.” He was most concerned about giving the director of the Community Development Agency the discretion to determine activities that might have impact.
Surprisingly, two groups with very separate missions were also concerned about the addition: the Pacific Legal Foundation—a conservative nonprofit with an open lawsuit against the county over the new L.C.P. that argues certain provisions infringe on private-property rights—and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
In a letter to the county, the E.A.C. contended that the coastal commission would never approve the addition, and said it was concerned the development agency director’s new authority “circumvents the already established de minimus permit waiver process provided for in LCPA amendment 6.”
Jack Liebster, the longstanding county expert on the L.C.P., explained that the already-certified amendment six contains a de minimus waiver process intended to expedite the consideration of minor agricultural projects. But, Mr. Liebster said, the provision does not conflict with the new authority for development director, which pertains only to cases of possible significant impacts to coastal resources.
Countering the E.A.C.’s opinion, Mr. Liebster also emphasized that the coastal commission in an email had expressed its approval of the language.
Planning Commissioners also took the opportunity at Thursday’s hearing to make clear how they expected the county to act based on the new regulations.
“We need to preserve agriculture, because that’s what we want in this county,” Commissioner Peter Theran said. “We have to preserve villages, because that’s what we want in this county. Visitors don’t need any protection… Access to the coast is very important—I agree with that 100 percent—but the commenter who said it has gotten out of control is absolutely right.”
His sentiments met unanimous agreement from his colleagues. They also touched on another hot topic in the L.C.P.: zoning changes for village commercial cores.
Currently, both residential and commercial uses are “principally permitted” in those areas. In practice, that designation is a way of protecting projects from opposition by requiring appeals to be handled exclusively by the county, as opposed to the coastal commission.
However, the Coastal Act allows just one principally permitted use. Reflecting the act’s prioritization of visitor uses, the commission has advocated for that use to be commercial and residential use to be “permitted,” a designation that means appeals can go to the coastal commission.
The practical implications of this change may not be as drastic as many residents have feared: all existing residential uses in village centers can continue, effectively grandfathered in. And many parts of West Marin, including all of Bolinas, already lie in a zone in which projects are appealable to the coastal commission. (The general rule is that the appeal zone lies between the sea and the first publicly recognized road, often deemed Highway 1.)
Nevertheless, the county has worked to blunt the possible resulting reduction in the availability of housing. Staff proposed shrinking the part of the cores principally permitted for commercial use and designating everything else within the current core area as principally permitted for residential use.
This summer, a county representative presented maps showing the new outlines throughout West Marin. Both the East Shore Planning Group and the Point Reyes Station Village Association spoke in favor of the new language on Thursday and county staff indicated general support from the Stinson Beach Village
Association.
Yet, flummoxing commissioners, the E.A.C. seemed again to advocate against its stated support for residential over commercial use, proposing that the entirety of the cores should be zoned commercial because the coastal commission would reject anything less.
West Marin’s commissioner, Chris Desser, challenged the organization’s representative Ashley Eagle-Gibbs to further explain the E.A.C.’s position as well as its particular linguistic recommendation concerning the cores, but she couldn’t. “Well it’s hard for us to respond to that if you don’t have a substantive reason for why you are doing this unless it is a very specific legal point,” Ms. Desser said.
E.A.C. board member Terence Carroll later tried to clarify that the county’s solution still retained two principally permitted uses, and that the E.A.C.’s concern was merely “a point of law and policy.”
Many of the commissioners’ closing remarks appeared to reference the E.A.C., and advised against unnecessary quibbling.
Mr. Liebster also went over a number of other mostly common-sense changes made to the two amendments on Thursday. He had no outstanding contentions with the commission: the language was more or less how he wanted it to be.
But he did walk through previous disagreements dating back to November 2016, when the commission approved Marin’s entire L.C.P. submission minus the sections related to environmental hazards—with new modifications. Those and subsequent coastal staff changes left the county sorting through linguistic nuances in order to take back ground.
One disagreement centered around a modification that restricted private wells and on-site sewage disposal and sewer systems in a similar fashion to that of community water and community sewage treatment facilities. Under the Coastal Act, the expansion of such systems must demonstrate a capacity for priority uses, such as serving visitors, and would require an evaluation of the streams, riparian habitats and wetlands located on surrounding lots.
Addressing the cost and inconvenience this would pose for domestic well owners, the county and the commission recently agreed to clarify that the need for an evaluation would only apply to projects served by a public water supply, including projects that would increase the amount of water used by more than 50 percent.
The commission also modified a few key definitions so that owners of newer buildings would be limited from a host of activities, including protecting their homes and rebuilding after storm damage. The county has cleaned up those definitions, though it will address the bulk of the issues in the environmental hazards section.
Another commission modification would have especially affected Marshall and Tomales Bay: the new regulation of piers and caissons under the stringent requirements for “shoreline protective devices” such as 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,” a previous county staff report explained.
That issue has also been delayed until the consideration of the environmental hazards section.
Mr. Liebster described new consensus on other definitions, such as for grading, legal lots, density and floor area restrictions, and on reimbursement costs for educational farm tours. There were no outstanding issues, he underscored.
The Planning Commission had just one minor suggestion. Regarding the new authority of the Community Development Agency director to require a coastal permit for an agricultural activity that might significantly impact coastal resources, the commission suggested adding the word “reasonable” to qualify this discretion.
The change was subtle but reflected the closing comments from every commissioner, which emphasized a strong commitment to continue the legacy of agriculture in Marin.
Commissioner Desser also took the opportunity to express her colleagues’ unanimous agreement that the coastal commission had strayed from its original intent—a message to the Board of Supervisors, the California Coastal Commission and the communities of West Marin.
Ms. Desser, who herself served as a coastal commissioner from 1995 to 2000, said the Coastal Act needed to be revisited to account for the unforeseen challenges of climate change and rapid population growth.
“I would like to see some language about the fact that we actually are trying to implement what we believe is the historical—and remains the true—intention of the Coastal Act, which has to do with things we have enumerated: preserving ag uses, preserving our communities, preserving the environment of the coast,” she said. “It’s visitor-serving, but in a way that balances that with all the things that have been traditionally essential to the act and the original intention to the act.”