County officials appear ready to move ahead with interim rules limiting land use near creeks in the San Geronimo Valley and perhaps elsewhere — and may be willing to revise the countywide plan to do so.
The Board of Supervisors seemed ready to give a tentative blessing to staff recommendations that were based on proposals from a board committee, but left key questions in limbo pending a Sept. 17 hearing.
Among issues that pose political consequences: Should the countywide plan be eased to allow more palatable creekside regulations? In the meantime, should an interim ordinance apply just to San Geronimo Valley, or all unincorporated area creekside properties?
Conservationists strongly oppose an effort to weaken the countywide plan, a document they view as sacrosanct. Property owners frown on efforts to regulate what happens in their back yards, with homeowners from Sleepy Hollow to Kent Woodlands saying they want no part of a county program that was launched to protect endangered coho salmon in San Geronimo Valley creeks.
Although county lawyers have advised that specific regulations posed by the plan must be changed if officials want to make rules more flexible for owners of small lots in rural communities, supervisors clung to a hope that a way will be found to develop restrictions that do not require easing the document.
“Reopening the countywide plan is a pretty serious matter,” said Supervisor Susan Adams, calling for an analysis of the cost and time required for such an effort. But the plan includes “language that is much more specific in terms of overall policy than it should be,” noted Supervisor Katie Rice.
Specific regulations prescribed by the plan, including a 100-foot creek setback in rural areas, are a burden for small lot owners in older neighborhoods who could find themselves with land on which little could be done unless the plan is changed — or county lawyers find a way to circumvent its prescriptions.
Not so fast, warned Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco. “We are prepared to step in if there is another round of litigation,” he said.
Miller was among 30 speakers who stood at the podium in the supervisors’ chambers Tuesday as a diverse crowd of environmentalists, property owners and others recited familiar views about the county’s attempt to protect creek habitat. Some in the crowd sported crowns made in the shape of salmon.
“I would like to say to the fishheads I would like to see you buy what you want!” declared a Kentfield homeowner, one of about a half dozen from his community who spoke.
The Sierra Club’s Larry Fahn urged the board to proceed with caution. “You all need an environmental czar here in Marin County,” he said. “If we lose the fish it will be the biggest regret,” he added. “Be careful, be deliberate, be slow…Do the right thing.”
Others, including Barbara Salzman of Marin Audubon, said creeks across Marin need protection, not just those in San Geronimo. To protect just one community means “others will be hanging out there at risk,” she noted. And Todd Steiner, head of the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, warned that the county had embarked on a “path to weaken the countywide plan” that “will lead to more development” near creeks. “The action you are proposing today … will harm salmon,” he said.
But Niz Brown, head of the San Geronimo Valley Stewards, said watershed preservation was the responsibility of all — not just San Geronimo. We really care about the fish,” she added.
The session began with commentary by supervisors Kate Sears and Steve Kinsey, who served on a board subcommittee that moved behind closed doors to develop a plan with staff after public efforts failed to produce palatable regulations.
The goal, Kinsey said, is to ensure “that every project contributes to the improvement of the watershed.” He added that although officials do not revise the countywide plan often, “we do make changes where circumstances warrant.” If the plan must be changed, “we’re going to move forward in a very, very targeted way,” he added.
“It’s very important to me that if we do anything to the countywide plan, we do it with a surgical instrument,” Sears said.
It would take two years to revise the plan and conduct related environmental studies. In the meantime, creek regulations approved by planners last spring, then rejected by the county board, could be imposed until they are replaced by more flexible rules, officials said.
Interim regulations will allow the lifting of a building ban blocking development in San Geronimo Valley until creek regulations are in place.
The San Geronimo Valley watershed is home to one of the most important runs of endangered coho salmon in California, and when the county failed to enact strict creekside vegetation rules there two years ago, the salmon network sued. The network lost its key environmental argument, but chalked up a triumph when the court imposed a local building ban until policies protecting creeks are enacted.
County supervisors, who considered vegetation, tree and related habitat restrictions approved by the Planning Commission as too tough on valley landowners, instead directed staff to draw up restrictions applying to creek properties in unincorporated areas countywide. That plan met a similar fate last spring when supervisors bowed to homeowners — and told the subcommittee to figure out what to do.
Now, as officials launch the third round of review, no one seems certain what will result.
Contact Nels Johnson via email at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com
