A partial update to the Local Coastal Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, as part of a second attempt during a seven-year process to change the county’s coastal development rules.

The program approved this week focused largely on refining agricultural policies, as the county has generally pushed for more flexibility. Supervisors originally approved an update in 2013, but after the coastal commission made some modifications last year that frustrated the county, the two entities have been working on yet another version. The revisions approved this week included compromises developed over the past year, yet California Coastal Commission staff have already signaled opposition to some of the new language. 

“What we do here around agriculture has implications for the rest of the state,” said Supervisor Katie Rice, adding, “We do want to try to get this right.”

One compromise is to limit agricultural dwellings—housing for those who either own or operate the farm, or relatives—on agricultural lands to 7,000 square feet, divvied among up to three homes on all contiguous lots owned by the same person. (Housing for farmworkers falls under different rules.) Yet the county can’t prohibit sales, so if a landowner sells a lot, the new owner could build dwellings in compliance with those limits. Currently 54 Marin landowners have such contiguous lots that could be divided and developed in the future. Farm owners had in the past worried about not being able to build homes on individual lots, but senior county planner Jack Liebster said, “I think most interested parties can live with the compromise that has been developed.”

Both groups also agree on when agricultural processing units and farm stands qualify as “principally permitted uses”, a designation which eases the permit process. Facilities processing local milk and other products can be considered a principally permitted use if under 5,000 square feet, while farm stands can only sell products made by the owner to qualify as principally permitted. (The stand could sell other products, but the county would scrutinize the application more carefully.)

However, county staffers declined to make other changes requested by the commission in a letter last week. For instance, it called for the county to add back in three little words—“and necessary for”—to a sentence about the main requirements for development on land zoned for agricultural production. Those words, seemingly innocuous, have been debated for over a year because the county believes it creates too much uncertainty and confusion.

Another outstanding issue is exactly how and when farmers and ranchers need new permits if they change the type of agriculture on their land. Supervisors also preserved a provision that discourages the growing issue of converting homes into short-term vacation rentals. Supervisor Steve Kinsey noted that one of the most significant problems in Marin’s coastal zone is that “our residential areas are being converted into operations.”

Although the state’s Coastal Act supports uses that serve visitors over residential development, supervisors hoped to maintain the provision by specifying that the policy would only apply to existing homes. 

Yet given the remaining disagreements with the commission’s staff, the executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Amy Trainer, wondered whether moving forward was wise. She, along with a representative from the Sierra Club, said more time should be devoted to reviewing the new proposal. But the agricultural community that spoke on Tuesday largely supported the new version. 

The county plans to submit other portion of the L.C.P next year, including most of the specific development code and a contested chapter on environmental hazards, such as sea-level rise. The commission has so far favored tighter development restrictions in hazard-prone areas than the county. But the county is in the midst of a major analysis of the impact of sea-level rise in Marin, and the county says that information may change everyone’s assessment on how to regulate development in those areas. 

Although the submittal has been split up, the new program won’t go into effect until every piece is revised and approved by the commission, and those changes accepted by the county. This timeline has confused so many people in recent weeks that county planner Jack Liebster created a graphic he called a “periodic table,” explaining when various parts would be voted on. 

This delay didn’t stop the lawyer for a landowner in Stinson, who cannot currently develop her property, from calling on the county to expedite the process. His client and others, he said, are “collateral damage in this mind-numbing process to amend to L.C.P. We’ve got periodic tables we’re dealing with. The process is important, but please understand what has happened to property owners in this process,” he said.