Marin County has narrowed its exhaustive list of potential housing sites to two likely alternatives, each of which focuses on a different priority. One scenario, meant to distribute housing evenly across the county, identifies several hundred units in each of the five supervisorial districts. The other alternative, meant to minimize the environmental hazards of development by focusing on infill, leans heavily on the 101 corridor and District 1, which would see more than three times as many units as any other district.
Despite public comments from West Marin residents who raised concerns over the countywide distribution scenario, Supervisor Dennis Rodoni voiced tentative support for that alternative at a joint meeting with planning commissioners last week, calling it a more equitable choice.
“I chose the countywide distribution because that met the priority the county had set earlier for equal distribution,” he told the Light.
He said coastal villages must play a part in adding new housing. But, he added, “I don’t think I’ve decided totally yet, and maybe a blend of the two might make sense. Environmental hazards will still play into the ultimate decision making.”
Regardless of which housing sites the county settles on, an environmental impact report, already underway, will examine the effects of rezoning.
“We’ll look at everything from school capacity to water supply to capacity of individual sanitation districts,” said Scott Davidson, a consultant to the county with the planning firm M.I.G. “The environmental analysis will include an assessment of the cumulative impacts, not just within the unincorporated county, but within the region.” The E.I.R. will go through a public review period this summer.
Marin is hurriedly working to update its Housing Element, a plan to meet ambitious state housing goals in the next eight years. The element, which must be finished by the end of the year, will outline the county’s strategy for adding more than 3,500 new units in unincorporated areas by 2031. Last year, the state rejected Marin’s appeal of the allocation, which is 20 times larger than the previous eight-year cycle’s figure.
The county’s job, with the help of M.I.G., is to outline a slew of feasible sites for new development and then rezone them, removing a key barrier to housing. The county itself won’t build the units, but if the state finds inadequate progress during its annual check-ins, it can take Marin to court to force it to summarily approve projects “by right.”
“I think everyone’s kind of uncomfortable with this, because it’s more numbers than we’ve ever achieved, or ever may achieve,” Supervisor Rodoni said.
M.I.G. selected a number of sites that puzzled or angered some locals. A few of those, including the 98 units suggested at the foot of White’s Hill in the San Geronimo Valley, are absent in the new alternatives, which factored in public comments.
Woodacre resident Phil Sotter said at last week’s meeting that the site would “violate the basic goals of our community plan” by developing agricultural land and changing the village’s character. Handwritten signs posted along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard urged residents to call Supervisor Rodoni and voice opposition to developing the site, which is owned by the Tamalpais Union High School District. The supervisor said he was happy to see the parcel, which he called the “gateway to West Marin,” gone from both new alternatives.
Under the countywide distribution alternative, unincorporated Marin would get up to 3,850 units, about half of which would be affordable. Nearly 400 of those units would be in coastal villages, including 50 moderate-income units on commercial properties in Olema’s core, 24 affordable units at the Green Barn in Point Reyes Station and 25 such units in the Grandi Building. A fenced county lot on Ottinger’s Hill, where Sir Francis Drake Boulevard enters the seashore, would see 12 units in the countywide distribution scenario, but not in the environmental hazards alternative. The same was true for 16 affordable units at the county-owned Nicasio Corporation Yard and 24 units at Olema’s Sacred Heart Catholic Church. The environmental hazards scenario has slightly fewer units in West Marin, but more units overall.
An array of private residential properties on Balmoral Way, an unpaved dead-end street in Inverness, were still in the running in both alternatives, and the Bolinas Hardware store made it into the environmental hazards alternative, despite concerns about suitability.
Though the new alternatives are narrower than the initial list, many locals reiterated their concerns last week.
“We can’t just build our way out of the housing crisis,” said Ashley Eagle-Gibbs, the legal and policy director for the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. She raised concerns about the county’s hasty deadlines for public comment and adoption of the element, and said rather than building more units, the county should prioritize preserving existing housing by further regulating vacation rentals.
Michael Sewell, a San Geronimo Valley resident, said the countywide distribution scenario threatened Marin’s character. “I think dividing the amounts of development evenly by the arbitrary political boundaries in the county is kind of absurd,” he said. “I think for environmental reasons, this development should stay in the development corridor, should stay close to 101.”
Yet there were also public speakers who supported building more housing. Valley resident Suzanne Sadowsky lamented the shrinking local school enrollment and displacement of seniors, which she said were symptoms of the lack of affordable housing.
Roland Katz, executive director of the Marin Association of Public Employees, said the members of his union urgently need more affordable housing. “You need to have a workforce that can afford to work for you,” Mr. Katz said. “They need to be able to live close by, and that’s not just you as a county as an employer and other public agencies, but our grocery stores, our health care centers. All of these places that employ working-class people on working-class salaries have a tremendous need for housing in this community.”
Questions still abound when it comes to the practicality of developing the sites, and the ways state legislation could hold the county to its word. And even with the Housing Element finalized, West Marin is unlikely to see a development free-for-all. “I’m trying to put this into perspective,” Supervisor Rodoni said. “There’s still a lot of zoning rules and Coastal Act regulations that will all have to be followed.”
At a second meeting on Mar. 15, county staff will present a single fine-tuned alternative based on feedback from supervisors, planning commissioners and the public. In April, two meetings with county staff will focus on the Housing Element’s programs and policies to encourage development.