Jun. 3—The Marin County Planning Commission has signed off on a five-story, 32-apartment building in Tamalpais Valley.

Approval of the project at 150 Shoreline Highway was necessary for the county to achieve its objective of shrinking plans for a 74-apartment complex at 825 Drake Ave. in Marin City, which drew sharp criticism and a lawsuit launched by a group of activists in that community.

The developer of the Marin City project agreed to reduce the size of that project in return for approval of the Tamalpais Valley development.

The Tamalpais Valley project also has attracted criticism because of its location in an area that has been classified as a flood zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the scant number of parking spaces being supplied; and its height.

Several planning commissioners expressed concerns about these and other issues during a hearing on Thursday.

County planning staff told the commissioners that because of state laws promoting housing construction, the county is powerless to mandate any changes that aren’t based on strict, objective design standards and gross threats to public health.

“Understand that we cannot require any parking for this project,” Marin County Planning Manager Jeremy Tejirian said.

In return for pricing the apartments to be affordable to families earning 80% of Marin County area median income, the developer, the Pacific Companies, gets access to state density bonus law incentives, concessions and waivers. Eighty percent of area median income is $154,700 for a family of four in Marin.

Density bonus law allows the developer to exceed the county’s height limit by 45 feet and construct a building 70 feet tall and to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 35% to 126%. It also allows the developer to ignore the county’s parking requirements.

Marin County code mandates 51 parking spaces for the project, but the developer is proposing to supply just eight spaces, including two spaces for charging electric vehicles and one space reserved for people with disabilities.

“This is like putting 50 pounds of horse manure in a 10-pound bag,” said Roger Hall, who owns office buildings adjacent to the building site.

Hall predicted that residents who move into the apartment building will end up parking in spaces on his properties, which are already in short supply.

“I am going to have to drive them out,” Hall said. “It is going to seriously deteriorate the value of my property as well as my neighbors.”

County planner Immanuel Bereket said the county is working with the developer in an attempt to find additional parking spaces on a nearby site owned by the county. However, Bereket said he couldn’t guarantee the effort would succeed or how many spaces it might generate.

Several planning commissioners who advocated that the county push back against state mandates have either resigned from the commission or not been reappointed by county supervisors over recent months.

One newly appointed commissioner, Leila Monroe, was most vocal last week regarding the commission’s inability to amend the project. Monroe’s concern was focused on the safety of the people who will eventually live in the building. Monroe wanted to know why the parking study for the project failed to evaluate safety and accessibility during king tides and storm surges.

“I have discomfort that there has not been analysis of the public safety implications of the flooding on the occupants, on the emergency evacuation scenario,” Monroe said.

Lissa McKee, one of many people who submitted emails criticizing the project, wrote, “In order to access the public transportation node, pedestrians must cross the Manzanita intersection which is notorious for its flooding and thus often inaccessible during high tides and heavy rains.”

Linda Rames wrote, “Does this possible vote mean that you, our governing board, has no regard for the possible residents who will be wading through salt water to reach their homes as well as dealing with the damage to their vehicles from rising waters?”

During the hearing, Monroe noted that public officials are allowed to deviate from state mandates to protect public health and safety. Deputy County Counsel Brandon Halter emphasized that state law enforces a high bar when evaluating whether projects pose threats to health and safety.

“Under the Housing Accountability Act,” Halter said, “that means a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards policies.”

Bereket said, “There is no county code that indicates providing parking below the minimum required automatically results in risk to public safety.”

Commissioner Margot Biehle said the safety issue goes beyond parking.

“There is also ingress and egress of fire trucks and emergency vehicles,” Biehle said. “It is actually a question of whether residents can get out in the event of an emergency and can emergency personnel get in.”

Monroe suggested that the commission might consider approving an even taller building in return for the developer’s agreement to raise the building 3 feet above flood level rather than just the 12 inches proposed.

Halter said state law wouldn’t allow the county to require such a change.

None of the other commissioners pursued this line of inquiry. Gregory Stepanicich, the commission’s chair, and Robert Sandoval, who was appointed to the commission on May 6, asked no questions. It was the group’s first meeting since longtime commissioner Don Dickenson left the board.

Commissioner Rebecca Lind, who made the motion to approve the project, said, “The policies about housing have changed many of our visions for the county. We do need the housing.”

Originally Published: June 2, 2025 at 6:12 PM PDT


© 2025 The Marin Independent Journal (Novato, Calif.). Visit

www.marinij.com

. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.