County planners have proposed amendments to the county’s coastal development rules that would give property owners greater flexibility in preparing for the impacts of climate change, wildfire and other environmental threats.

The existing rules were written in 1982, long before climate change altered calculations about environmental risks along the coast. The updated regulations would allow property owners with homes in areas threatened by flooding and sea-level rise to raise their houses by up to five feet above the levels allowed by current regulations. 

“We’re trying to balance Coastal Act provisions that mandate protecting coastal resources with the hazards of sea-level rise,” said Kristin Drumm, a planner with the Community Development Agency.

The rules would also clarify requirements for removing vegetation in environmentally sensitive habitat areas threatened by wildfire and for building shoreline armoring—such as seawalls and retaining walls—to fend off encroaching seas or prevent bluff erosion.

The proposals must clear many hurdles before being enacted, including reviews by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission.

If approved, the amendments would revise the hazards section of the county’s Local Coastal Program, a regulatory framework for development in the coastal zone. L.C.P.s are mandated by the 1976 Coastal Act, which aims to protect coastal resources and enhance public access to the coast. The act is administered by the coastal commission.

Developing new hazard amendments for Marin has been a protracted and contentious process. Other sections of the L.C.P. were updated in 2021, but disagreements between county and coastal commission staff held up the hazard updates. While the county wanted to allow homeowners greater flexibility to respond to the threat of sea-level rise, the commission sought a more restrictive approach.

Rather than approve a wholesale update to the L.C.P., the county decided to withdraw its proposed hazard amendments and adopt the rest of the updates without them. This time around, it is proposing a smaller package of amendments, some of which are still being ironed out with coastal commission staff.

Most of the changes apply only to new homes or houses that are undergoing major renovations. They are especially relevant to owners of properties vulnerable to sea-level rise or located in flood zones and on bluff tops. Some are specifically tailored for homeowners along Tomales Bay and Stinson Beach. 

The amendments would permit some homeowners to raise the foundations of their homes without obtaining zoning variances or repairing or removing any non-conforming structures on their property.

A section on wildfire hazards is aimed at clarifying rules for homeowners in environmentally sensitive areas. Some rules governing tree removal and vegetation management conflict with home-hardening guidelines recommended by the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority. The new rules will make it easier to clear wildfire hazards without violating environmental protection rules.

“Before, you just had to leave hazardous brush next to your home, which obviously didn’t sit well with Fire Safe Marin,” said Jeff Loomans, a member of the Stinson Beach Village Association. 

Members of the Alliance of Coastal Marin Villages have reviewed various iterations of the draft amendments since 2019, and they are generally pleased with the latest proposals.

“We’re appreciative of the way the county has approached these items,” Mr. Loomans said. “Almost all of them look promising at the outset. They’ve certainly listened to West Marin residents.”

When the coastal commission staff returned the county’s 2022 draft amendments, they were filled with edits underscored with red type. Alliance members were so alarmed that they drafted a top-10 list of objectionable proposals.

Of particular concern was language that would have required owners of homes in hazard areas to obtain a surety bond before undertaking new construction or major renovations. 

“You had to take money, place it in a bond, and keep it safe with a third party for the next 100 years to remove your home. You had to project how much it would cost to remove your home 100 years from now, and provide that much money. We literally laughed when we saw it,” Mr. Loomans said.

Although the new amendments don’t include the surety bond provision, they do require homeowners to pay for the removal of their homes if they become uninhabitable in the future. Homeowners would have to disclose that requirement in the deed when they sell their home.

The rules encourage nature-based adaptations such as dune enhancement to alleviate risks from erosion, high seas and coastal flooding. Shoreline armoring would be permitted only if such strategies are infeasible.

One major point of disagreement between the county and the coastal commission will not be resolved in this round of amendments—the definition of “existing.”

Many coastal development rules allow exemptions for existing properties, but the coastal commission restricts the definition of existing homes to those that were developed before the Coastal Act was adopted. In many cases, that makes it impossible for owners of homes built after that date to renovate their properties.

In previous iterations of the amendments, the county embraced a more conventional definition of the word, applying it to any home that exists in the present. “We’re pushing that issue down the line to another phase,” Ms. Drumm said.

The county shared its plans with the Point Reyes Station Village Association last week and will hold sessions with other community groups in coming weeks, gathering input before sending the amendments to the Planning Commission.

The county will host a webinar on the proposed L.C.P. amendments at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 11.