A two-story office building approved for downtown Point Reyes Station has an Inverness resident fearful that local governments will realize they can sidestep their own coastal development programs if the California Coastal Commission doesn’t intervene.
Commission staff say there is no merit to Bridger Mitchell’s appeal of a county permit for the building and septic system for Cowgirl Creamery, which alleges the project violates height restrictions in the coastal zone. The staff’s report on the appeal, released last week, recommends the commission reject the request to re-evaluate the project at its meeting on Jan. 7.
But Mr. Mitchell contends that commission staff have misread a 1938 county zoning rule in making their determination. Mr. Mitchell, who serves as the president of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin and the vice president of the Inverness Association but filed the appeal as an individual, fears that if the commission doesn’t take up the case, the project will set a precedent—not just in Marin but along the entire California coast—for local governments approving projects based on county ordinances not certified by the commission.
“If it is not settled here, it’s a signal to local jurisdictions that they can make their own ordinances without review by the commission,” Mr. Mitchell told the Light.
In October, the county’s Deputy Zoning Administrator, Ben Berto, approved the 23-foot tall, 800-square foot building in downtown Point Reyes Station. At the time, Mr. Mitchell argued that the height of the building didn’t conform with standards for
accessory structures set out in the county’s Local Coastal Program, which limits building heights to 15 feet. Mr. Berto disagreed.
“As a matter of practice, over an extended period of time, the county has asserted its right to adjust its independent regulations, independent of local Coastal Commission review,” he said.
Mr. Mitchell argues that the zoning code allowing for exceptions was approved by the county in 1992 but has not been certified by the commission. In his appeal, he wrote that the D.Z.A. had “asserted that the County has the right to adopt local regulations for land use in the Coastal Zone without first obtaining certification of ordinances from the
Commission.”
The commission staff report said the county “did cite some non-LCP sections” in its decision, but that the coastal program includes provisions for height exceptions, referencing the county’s 1938 code.
Under its provisions, so long as parameters for square footage are followed and the applicant secures a use permit, “any building may be erected to a height exceeding that hereinbefore specified” in a given zoning district.
Mr. Mitchell said the word “hereinbefore” is key: it means the exceptions do not apply to provisions outlined later in the document.
“The 1938 provision applies only to height limits that precede it in the code, but the staff is saying it applies to later section in code—which established the 15 foot limit for detached accessory structures. My dispute with staff is that they misinterpreted the 1938 code.”
Amendments to the county code that were passed in 1992 but have not been certified by the commission contained mostly the same language but specified that exceptions to height limits applied to both main and accessory structures, and omitted the “hereinbefore” language.
Mr. Mitchell also contests the staff’s assertion that the project is compatible with the surrounding environment. Staffers wrote that the project didn’t raise any coastal access or view issues and that “the extent and scope of the proposed project are extremely limited. The project constitutes infill development, is comparable to and blends in with the existing and surrounding built environment.”
But Mr. Mitchell said staff made comparisons with nearby primary buildings, not with accessories. “It’s not compatible or consistent in scale with the existing community,” he said. “It is a historic area. One of the requirements in historic areas is consistency in scale with the existing community.”
The staff report recommends that the commission, chaired by Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, reject the appeal at the Jan. 7 meeting, which will take place in Santa Monica. Only those who “made their views known” about the project to the county, as well as the county itself, can testify (though the commission is not required to hear oral testimony before deciding on whether to take up the appeal). Others may submit written comments.
Commissioners can take over a coastal permit if it raises a “substantial issue,” which includes the merits of the case but also the scope, significance and precedent. Even if a local jurisdiction technically errs in a permitting decision, the commission can decide it is insignificant enough to brush aside.