Supervisors approved the remainder of the county’s Local Coastal Program update on Tuesday despite objections from environmental groups, making a few changes to policies around environmental hazards and approving tweaks made by county staffers to a zoning rule that had many residents up in arms in recent weeks.
The document will soon be sent to the California Coastal Commission, which could hold a hearing in August. Commission staffers are likely to make a number of modifications to the county’s draft.
Supervisors decided that the hazards policies—that is, development rules in areas prone to problems like earthquakes or along bluffs and shorelines—would sunset in 10 years. The deadline will keep the county abreast of hazard issues and balance a provision in the update that says development on shorelines needs to be proven safe for 50 years, which supervisors felt was on the short side, given that earlier drafts stipulated 100 years.
Though Supervisor Steve Kinsey agreed to the 50-year window, he explained at the end of the hearing that “the reason that the commission is looking at a century is that we want to make sure we don’t allow a lot of development that is inundated with sea-level rise.”
In addition to the sunset provision, supervisors asked for a policy that would allow new technical innovation for future development, as well as an increase in projected sea-level rise in 50 years from two to three feet.
Staff also made small changes to a new zoning rule that calls for the creation of “village commercial cores,” areas within unincorporated towns that would generally not allow homes on the ground floor of road-facing structures. It would also downgrade residential uses within the core from principally permitted to permitted uses, a designation that mostly affects the right to appeal projects. Current residences are
exempted.
In the current L.C.P., certified in the early ’80s, both commercial and residential uses are principally permitted. But Jack Liebster, a planning manager with the Community Development Agency and lead staffer on the update process, said current interpretation of the Coastal Act says that only one use in a given area can be principally permitted.
County staffers changed the rule slightly. Within the core, commercial uses will be principally permitted. But residential uses will be principally permitted in the remainder of the village zoning area, known as C-VCR, “to maintain the balance that is in the community plans,” Mr. Liebster said.
The county also eliminated a requirement for a use permit for new residences on the ground floor of road-facing buildings; now, if they want to try to skirt the rule, applicants must prove that the project adheres to community character.
The village changes—long in the works but only recently understood by many community members, who received draft boundaries of the core in their mailboxes this month—drew the consternation of many who feel the core threatens residential use at a time when housing stock is shrinking and tourism is booming.
Numerous residents, including contingents from Bolinas and Tomales, offered concerns largely related to the impacts of tourism, comments that all received rounds of applause from the audience. One woman, who said she finds human feces regularly on the beach during her walks in Bolinas, said that more tourism seemed “dangerous.” Jennie Pfeiffer, also of Bolinas, said that increased tourism didn’t seem in line with community character and wondered if the county would help with problems like trash once the policy is in place.
Two candidates for supervisor for District 4, Dennis Rodoni and Wendi Kallins, also spoke. Mr. Rodoni said the policy, while acceptable in its new form, conflicts with community plans, while Ms. Kallins asked when the supervisors would finally regulate short-term vacation rentals. (Staffers later replied that there is a policy in the update that allows for an ordinance.)
Jennifer Blackman, the general manager of the Bolinas Community Public Utility District, distilled the general discontent. “I think it’s because of the perception that a state agency is trying to tell the community what its village is supposed to look like or what kind of activities can go on there. And it’s perceived as trying to encourage more visitors to come to Bolinas,” which already feels past capacity on the weekends, she said.
Ms. Blackman noted that at many highly visited areas in the world—such as landmarks like Machu Picchu—governments cap the number of daily visitors because they recognize that without regulation, the treasure itself can be lost.
Supervisors decided that the new tweaks made the rule palatable, and staff emphasized that the boundaries would be subject to a public process after the update is certified.
Representatives from environmental groups—including the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, the Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation and California Coastal Protection Network—spent much of their time protesting the hearing itself. The new submittal, they argued, had changed so significantly from the last one the county submitted in 2013 that the update should once again go to the Planning Commission.
In particular, hazard policies “are definitely in need of public input…The public deserves to have a planning commission hearing,” said Amy Trainer, who is now with the California Coastal Protection Network. She did not believe the draft comported with the commission’s recent guidance document on sea-level rise
policy.
Bridger Mitchell, the board president of the E.A.C., echoed the call for a Planning Commission hearing. He also wondered if enough thought had been put into the visual impact of raising homes, which a county staff report concluded would be in line with the “funky” community character of West Marin.
Ms. Trainer and other critics also pointed to letters from commission staff that made pages of suggested modifications that were not incorporated. One letter requested the restoration of policies around “redevelopment” that the county slashed.
These would require a coastal permit and environmental analyses if too much of a building’s various components are cumulatively changed over time, requiring the county to keep track of things like the percentage of foundation or walls that have been modified. But county staffers said the concept was confusing and overcomplicated—to the point that the cost and complexity might dissuade homeowners from making necessary repairs to their homes or raising them to escape flooding. They also argued that some portions of the policy, as written by the coastal staff, contradicted the Coastal Act.
While coastal staffers did not call for a Planning Commission hearing, they wrote last week that they wanted to continue to try to work out the differences. And they supported delaying a board vote.
“It appears that many issues are now just being more fully understood, particularly in relation to the revised hazards policies of the LCP, which are dramatically different than what the coastal commission approved in 2014, and would benefit from additional discussion, including with respect to full public participation,” wrote Nancy Cave, the commission’s district manager for the North Central Coast.
But Brian Crawford, the director of the Community Development Agency, said they decided that more discussion before a vote would not be fruitful, though he added that the two staffs will continue to talk before the commission’s hearing.
Despite bringing a seven-year process one step closer to the finish line, the meeting ended on a bit of a somber note.
Supervisor Kinsey said near the end of the three-hour hearing, “There will come a time when just getting your house out of the water won’t be enough,” given issues around utilities and roads. Yet for now, he said, the focus has to be on the “foreseeable future.”