Chief Deputy County Counsel Brandon Halter told the Marin County Planning Commission on June 30 that a wave of state legislation is reshaping how Marin reviews and approves housing projects, and he urged staff and commissioners to plan for significant legal and procedural changes.

Halter, who led a 75-minute overview, said longstanding statutes such as the housing element law (Gov. Code 65580' 65589.11), the Housing Accountability Act (found at Gov. Code 65589.5), SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act) and the density bonus law remain central to county review. He warned that recent statutory changes and two bills signed June 30 (AB 130 and SB 131) introduce new CEQA exemptions and procedural shifts "hot off the press," leaving some questions without court guidance.

Why it matters: Halter said the new and amended laws can narrow the grounds for local denials, shorten the number of hearings for some projects, create statutory exemptions that permit ministerial approval in defined circumstances, and increase HCD's oversight and enforcement authority. That can reduce local discretion on design and procedural matters and create exposure to new enforcement remedies.

Key points from Halter's presentation included:
- Limits on discretionary denials: The Housing Accountability Act emphasizes that housing project denials must be based on objective standards and "be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight in the interest of ... the approval and provision of housing," Halter said. He cautioned that subjective design standards in local coastal programs can conflict with HAA requirements and that courts will parse those tensions case by case.

- SB 330 preliminary application and hearing limits: Halter summarized SB 330'related rules that allow applicants to submit a preliminary application to lock in standards in effect on that date and that limit housing project hearings to no more than five in many cases.

- Builder's remedy and enforcement changes: Halter described statutory amendments that can require approval of "builder's remedy" projects when a jurisdiction lacks a certified housing element; those projects may receive additional incentives and face lower affordability thresholds. He also described new civil penalties, possible suspension of permitting authority, and a rebuttable presumption of invalidity where HCD determines a local action violates housing element law.

- CEQA changes (AB 130 and SB 131): Halter highlighted newly created statutory exemptions and two notable concepts. The new infill housing exemption applies to projects no larger than 20 acres (5 acres for builder's remedy), within census'defined urban areas, surrounded by at least 75% urban use, consistent with plan/zoning and meeting a statutory minimum density. The "near miss" exemption limits environmental review to impacts caused by a single condition that otherwise prevents an exemption, Halter said.

- Procedural and evidence issues: Halter noted that objective standards must be published and knowable; courts give weight to a local agency's consistent historical interpretation of such standards. He also noted a legislative change narrowing administrative record scope in CEQA litigation by omitting internal agency communications never submitted to decision makers.

Commissioner questions focused on the operational definitions and local implications: what counts as an objective standard, how HCD's monitoring authority works in practice, whether builder's remedy projects receive extra density-bonus benefits, and how new CEQA exemptions apply to mixed'use or multi'parcel projects. Halter repeatedly recommended case'specific review and said he would follow up on several definitional questions, including advanced manufacturing and tribal-notice mechanics under the new statutes.

Halter closed by noting the county and counsel will continue to evaluate how the new rules affect pending applications and the administration of housing programs.

Ending: Commissioners thanked Halter and asked staff to circulate the presentation; Halter agreed to share the PowerPoint and follow up on precise statutory definitions and timelines.