With a state deadline fast approaching, the Marin County Planning Commission took the unusual step last Thursday of rejecting its own staff’s proposal for increasing the county’s housing supply.

In a 6-1 vote, commissioners decided not to endorse the latest draft of the plan, which designates locations for 3,569 more residences in unincorporated areas by 2031, with many set aside for affordable housing.

Without the commissioners’ endorsement, the contentious plan will now be considered by the Board of Supervisors, which is expected to take it up at its Jan. 24 meeting. If the county doesn’t submit a plan by the end of the month, it risks losing state funding and allowing developers to initiate projects with very few zoning restrictions.

Commissioners were concerned that the proposed plan didn’t go far enough to preserve local community plans that have been on the books for years. They also feared that some potential developments might be too big or pose environmental threats or traffic congestion.

Responding to a critical statewide housing shortage, especially of affordable units, state lawmakers ordered cities and counties across the state to plan for a substantial increase in potential housing sites. The sites are listed in the so-called Housing Element of Marin’s Countywide Plan, which must be updated every eight years. 

Throughout 2022, county planning staff worked to craft rules that respect community zoning plans while giving developers incentives to build more housing. It has proven to be a difficult balancing act.

At Thursday’s hearing, some developers said aspects of the proposed rules were too restrictive and would discourage any development of the sites identified in the element. But several residents said the plan would gut community control.

The hearing was conducted on Zoom despite widespread power outages caused by last Wednesday’s massive storm. Around 75 residents joined the call.

“Please do not destroy Marin in order to fulfill a flawed and atrocious state mandate,” said Sharon Rushton, president of Sustainable TamAlmonte. She urged the commissioners to “fight for Marin’s precious character.”

The list of sites included in the draft element includes locations in West Marin, but most—including those that drew the sharpest criticism during the hearing—are located elsewhere in the county.

“We all support low-income housing, but this whole process has been so pressurized,” Chris Desser, a Point Reyes Station resident who represents West Marin on the Planning Commission, said after the meeting. “People were concerned about the complete evisceration of community plans.” 

Some local plans have limits on matters such as housing density and building heights that conflict with the state mandate. Though a community might restrict buildings to two stories, for example, state regulations might allow for three. 

The planning staff has struggled to find language that would meet state requirements while respecting both local control and local constraints, including fragile rural infrastructure.

For the state to achieve its housing goals, Commissioner Desser said, it needs to set aside substantial funding for housing rather than encouraging private developers to fill the void.

Chairman Don Dickenson said it was unusual for the Planning Commission to send a major proposal to the Board of Supervisors without endorsing it. But he and other commissioners concluded that the draft, which has undergone numerous revisions over the last year, still needs more work.

“My advice to the board is that we need more time,” Commissioner Dickenson told the Light a day later. “We were just backed into a corner. We received the final package about a week ago and it’s about a 7-inch stack of documents.”

Projects listed in the Housing Element would only be built if their owners wished to develop them, and if builders view them as potentially profitable projects.

If the element isn’t approved by the Jan. 31 deadline, developers can invoke something known as the “builder’s remedy,” which allows them to undertake projects with radically eased zoning requirements provided they set aside units for affordable or moderately priced housing. The remedy leaves local officials essentially powerless to stop them.

Commissioner Dickenson said he believed state law provides a four-month grace period for counties that don’t meet the Jan. 31 deadline. During that time, he said, the builder’s remedy would not be invoked. But other planning experts have disputed that interpretation and maintain that Jan. 31 is a hard deadline.

A developer in Santa Monica shocked local officials and residents last fall when he invoked the builder’s remedy and submitted a proposal for 4,500 apartments. The attorney representing the developer told the Los Angeles Times that he promptly received inquiries from developers hoping to build in other pricey Southern California places.

The same thing could happen in Marin if the Board of Supervisors doesn’t approve the draft element, said Arianne Dar, executive director of the Bolinas Community Land Trust, which is working to bring more affordable housing to the area.

Those opposing the Housing Element have a NIMBY mindset, she added. “They are going to be shocked when something’s approved that they had no say in and no ability to do anything about,” she said.

The potential developments outlined in the draft are simply goals, Ms. Dar said, and identifying potential sites is a worthy first step to easing the housing shortage.

“We’re not going to destroy the community by adding a little bit of housing, no matter how scared people are that that’s going to happen,” she said.