The tentative agreement could resolve a lawsuit that sought to limit residential projects along San Geronimo Creek.
Marin County has reached a tentative agreement with a nonprofit it has battled in court for more than a decade over development in the San Geronimo Valley.
The Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, also known as SPAWN, sued the county in 2007 in an effort to limit development along San Geronimo Creek and its tributaries. The Olema nonprofit aimed to protect the habitat for endangered coho salmon and steelhead trout.
“It’s time to heal and move forward,” said Board of Supervisors President Katie Rice.
Scott Webb, SPAWN’s advocacy manager, said, “We’re hopeful that this will kick off a new era of collaboration between our organization and the county of Marin.”
But Peggy Sheneman, a board member of San Geronimo Valley Stewards, a group that represents many of the property owners in the area, is not celebrating the deal.
“All the discussions that we had with county staff, including presentations to the planning commissioners, are apparently totally meaningless,” Sheneman said, “because this deal was being negotiated behind closed doors and is now going forward on a take it or leave basis.”
SPAWN’s lawsuit alleged that amendments to the countywide plan to regulate development along valley creeks were inadequate to protect the habitat for spawning fish. The nonprofit prevailed in court, forcing the county to conduct a supplemental environmental impact report, or SEIR.
The SEIR, which was certified by the Board of Supervisors in 2019, found two significant impacts and one less-than-significant impact to the fish, but said the impacts could be mitigated — primarily with a new streamside conservation area (SCA) ordinance that would restrict building near creek banks.
The county, however, gave itself five years to complete the SCA ordinance.
SPAWN and the Center for Biological Diversity successfully challenged the adequacy of the SEIR. Last year, Marin Superior Court Judge Andrew Sweet ruled the county’s environmental analysis was still flawed, in part because the county had deferred adoption of the SCA ordinance.
The county is appealing Sweet’s decision. In the meantime, the Marin County Community Development Agency has moved forward with developing an SCA ordinance that would regulate building within 100 feet of creek banks and incorporate other mitigations in the SEIR.
A draft version of the ordinance was reviewed by the county Planning Commission in December. Under the terms of the settlement with SPAWN, however, there would be significant changes to the proposed ordinance, and the county would pay SPAWN $240,000 for legal expenses.
“The biggest thing is that we now have permanent protection of a 35-foot buffer along San Geronimo Creek and its tributaries,” said Preston Brown, SPAWN’s director of watershed conservation.
While the SCA extends 100 feet from the top of creek banks, or 50 feet from the outer edge of woody riparian vegetation associated with the stream, building within the 35-foot buffer would be even more tightly restricted. Previously, the county proposed only a 20-foot buffer for some ephemeral streams.
Brown said the term sheet includes other improvements in the draft ordinance as well.
The county has agreed to reduce the number of exceptions for allowing development in the SCA. Previously, the ordinance granted exceptions if parcels were located entirely within the SCA or if development on the parcel entirely outside the SCA was infeasible.
“This closes some of those loopholes,” Brown said. “That is a major thing.”
The amount of buildout that owners of permitted structures will be allowed has been cut from 500 square feet to 300 square feet.
Brown said the county has agreed to require a 2-to-1 mitigation ratio when building occurs in the SCA. He said that means for every foot of impervious surface area added 2 feet would have to be removed.
The county has also agreed to inspect properties for compliance with the SCA ordinance prior to their sale at the request of property owners, and it has pledged to guarantee anonymity to anyone who reports violations of the SCA ordinance.
In her criticism of the agreement, Sheneman highlighted many of the same changes in the proposed ordinance as Brown.
Regarding the 200-square-foot reduction in the amount of development allowed in the SCA, Sheneman said, “That pretty much makes any kind of accessory or junior accessory dwelling unit infeasible. It’s punitive in that sense.”
As to granting anonymity to whistleblowers, Sheneman said, “You never get to find out who made the complaint against you so you can’t even confront your accuser.”
Sheneman also criticized a provision in the agreement that requires the county to assess a development impact fee to be used to fund a habitat restoration program.
“That means that SPAWN can file applications to get grants from the impact program,” Sheneman said, “so that the homeowners are going to basically be paying for SPAWN’s restoration projects.”
The settlement is contingent on county supervisors adopting an SCA ordinance that conforms with the term sheet. A revised SCA ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 13. It is expected to be voted on by supervisors at a meeting set for July 19.
