Strawberry neighbors strike deal on seminary redevelopment plan
- Tyler Callister
- Mar 10
- 10 min read
After more than a decade of public conflict, Strawberry neighbors and the owner of the former Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary have struck a deal that may clear the way for a long-disputed redevelopment of the 127-acre campus.
Under the agreement, North Coast Land Holdings — owner and operator of The Seminary at Strawberry — has agreed that only the first 325 students enrolled on-site may live off campus, a significant concession from the 1,000-student capacity granted under a 1953 conditional use permit governing the property. In exchange, the Seminary Neighborhood Association has dropped its opposition to the project and pledged not to file any further administrative or legal challenges.
The settlement was signed March 1 and announced in separate press releases that night and the following day — just before the March 2 Planning Commission hearing on the project. The commission is expected to vote on a recommendation March 30 before the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision in May.
Seminary Neighborhood Association President Michael Gallagher told members at a March 4 Zoom meeting that despite the association’s years of legal preparation, the group ultimately concluded it could delay — but not kill — the project.
“Those investments created the real legal threat of a delay through litigation, but delay, not denial,” Gallagher said. “We might temporarily have the ability to slow this down, but we did not believe that we were going to be able to stop the project.”
North Coast’s concession came despite a legal landscape that had grown increasingly favorable to the developer — and represented a significant retreat from a position the company had held since purchasing the property in 2014. For 12 years, the right to operate a 1,000-student campus had been foundational to its redevelopment plans, while state housing laws passed and strengthened over the past decade — including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act and state density bonus law — limit local governments’ ability to deny or reduce housing projects. County planning staff cited those laws repeatedly in recommending approval of the project as proposed, before the deal was struck.
Hurd said both sides weighed their legal positions carefully. “My assumption is both parties in this negotiation were analyzing where they did, and more importantly did not, have legal leverage, and made their settlement decisions accordingly,” he said. Asked why the company agreed to the deal, North Coast representatives Charles Goodyear and Bruce Jones declined to elaborate.
At the meeting, North Coast attorney Andrew Giacomini called the deal “a significant voluntary change by the developer in response to 12 years of stakeholder collaboration to really listen and see how we could address some of the concerns.”
North Coast is proposing 336 residences and a 150-unit senior residential-care facility on the site, for a net increase of 334 units. County planning staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the project’s master plan but deny a requested amendment to the Strawberry Community Plan, saying the changes aren't necessary. They say the 1984 master plan’s expiration in 2017 already removed the requirement that on-site residents be affiliated with the school, making the amendment unnecessary on that basis alone; and state housing law supersedes the community plan’s density provisions regardless. Denying the amendment also preserves an existing community plan requirement for 90 to 100 on-site student housing units, which staff said would help reduce project-related traffic — though North Coast has separately requested a state density bonus concession that would relieve it of that same obligation.
At the neighborhood Zoom meeting, association attorney Riley Hurd, who grew up just outside the seminary gates, described the deal as a nonopposition agreement, not an endorsement — and that the ball is now in the county’s court.
“If they do something crazy and try to force more stuff here or jam something on it, this agreement is null and void,” Hurd said. “We will go to court. I’ve got my arguments ready.”
Enrollment limits and traffic concerns
The settlement centers on the site’s academic uses. North Coast has long argued that the 1953 conditional use permit entitles the property to an enrollment of up to 1,000 students, with the expectation that students would live on the property.
Neighbors have for years pressed the company to clarify its long-term plans, warning that a major enrollment expansion could overwhelm local streets.
Soon after acquiring the site, North Coast proposed relocating the Branson School, a private high school in Ross, to the campus — a plan that would have expanded Branson’s enrollment of 320 students to as many as 1,000. Intense community opposition, largely focused on traffic, led Branson to abandon the move in January 2017.
Since 2018, the campus has been occupied by Olivet University, a private Christian institution that had about 200 students enrolled as of September 2020, with 100 living on-site — down from about 600 students during the Baptist seminary’s final years on the campus. Among the rumored prospects has been a University of Oxford affiliate for advanced learning.
Neighbors and county officials have since wrestled with how to balance the site’s entitlement for 1,000 students with concerns about congestion, environmental impacts and housing needs. North Coast says it hosted dozens of community meetings and sponsored a five-year environmental review, which cost the company $1.64 million.
Under the deal with the neighborhood association, academic programs at the site must be limited to graduate, postgraduate and research uses; undergraduate students may participate in those programs. Primary and secondary education is explicitly excluded. The first 325 students may live on or off campus. Any enrollees above that number must reside in housing on the property.
In practice, the provision could effectively cap enrollment well below 1,000. North Coast is not obligated to set aside units for students, and 185 of the proposed residences are designated as condominiums that, once sold, would be beyond the developer’s control. If sufficient on-site housing is not available or reserved for students, enrollment above 325 would not be possible under the agreement.
“This is an excellent solution for our neighbors and will further reduce traffic and environmental impacts associated with our project,” Jones said in a statement. “Our development plan is low density, preserves 70% of the open space on the site and creates workforce and affordable housing. The project reflects the priorities and values of Marin County.”
In its letter to county planners, the neighborhood association said its board voted to remove opposition based on the negotiated terms.
“If Marin County enacts these changes and restrictions, the Seminary Neighborhood Association will no longer oppose the project and will not pursue any further administrative or judicial challenge related to the environmental review for the project,” Gallagher wrote.
A much smaller school
Hurd drew a distinction between withdrawing opposition and offering support.
“It’s not, ‘I support your project,’” he said. “It’s ‘I won’t oppose your project’ on behalf of (the neighborhood association) and its board members, and I won’t sue.”
Only the association and its board members are bound by the nonopposition and no-lawsuit commitments, Hurd said — a point he stressed to community members who might still want to weigh in.
“If you’re on this call and you are not a board member of (the association), this does not affect your rights in any way,” he said. “You can say what you want and do what you want regarding this project.”
From the start, Hurd said, neighbors decided to focus on daily traffic trips as the main metric rather than attempting to dictate design details or precise building locations — a path that had quickly led to internal conflict. A traffic analysis commissioned by the association found that the school was far and away the largest generator of trips.
“Our position has always been, there’s a right for a self-contained school here,” Hurd said. “So it’s 325. If you want to go above it, you must house them on site. Burn one of your market-rate units.”
North Coast’s impact report identified three significant and unavoidable impacts: greenhouse-gas emissions, construction noise and vehicle miles traveled. The project’s residential vehicle miles traveled per capita would be only about 3% below the regional average — far short of the 30% reduction required under state environmental guidelines.
The agreement includes two distinct traffic provisions. For 15 years after final project approval, North Coast may not seek additional development at the site if it would increase daily vehicle trips by 5% or more above the approved project’s levels. A separate provision — with no time limit — bars North Coast from seeking project amendments that would similarly increase trips. The agreement runs with the land, binding any future owner.
The deal also includes an enforcement clause: If the association, any board member or its attorney opposes or challenges the project within 90 days of the Board of Supervisors’ approval, the agreement becomes null and void.
Annual sworn affidavits from the institution’s head administrator must be submitted to Marin County, detailing peak student enrollment, on-site residency numbers, employee counts and day-care and fitness center use.
Housing, care center and community uses
The redevelopment plan would transform the largely institutional campus into a mixed-use community combining housing, education and senior care while preserving about 70% of the project site as open space, trails and walkways.
The 336 residences on 101 acres represent a net gain of 184 units over the 152 currently on the site, with a total of 859 bedrooms. The plan replaces 139 existing units and retains 13. Seventy of the units would be set aside as affordable housing for lower-income households. The plan also calls for the entirely new 150-unit senior residential-care facility and a 20,000-square-foot building to house a day-care center and a fitness center.
The agreement restricts use of the day-care and fitness facilities to people who live or work on the property; if they do not reach capacity, they may be opened to nearby Strawberry residents.
North Coast has also committed to limiting most buildings to no more than three stories, with three buildings in the Hodges/Shuck Planning Area and the residential-care facility subject to separate, higher limits.
“Academic, recreational and residential uses planned for this site will ensure public benefits and preservation of open space for generations to come in Southern Marin,” Goodyear said. He added that the company is “building to a very low density — 3.3 units to the acre — on this site and keeping building heights in scale with surrounding hillsides and planning norms.”
‘There are still many loose ends’
The surprise announcement reshaped what had been expected to be a full day of testimony and deliberation.
Steve Disenhof, a Strawberry resident and Seminary Neighborhood Association member, expressed both relief and skepticism.
“As they say, the devil’s in the details,” he told commissioners. “I’m hoping that after all these years … we have come to an agreement that we can all live with.”
Julie Brown, a member of the Strawberry Design Review board, said the settlement addressed what had long frustrated neighbors: that the project’s language around the academic campus had been vague and noncommittal about what kind of institution would ultimately occupy it.
Resident Josh Andresen, a licensed civil engineer, said the settlement left a broader concern unresolved. Even with 325 students living off campus, he said, the project could generate as many as 2,500 residents, students and workers on the site while adding roughly 400 housing units — a gap he characterized as a problem in a county already struggling with housing supply.
“Net negative housing,” Andresen said. “This is not a good thing for a housing crisis.”
Michael Connor offered an unqualified view of the project as designed: “It’s the nicest product in the market,” he said. “I’m 100% behind this thing.”
Commissioner Margaret Curran acknowledged the settlement as progress but said the commission had significant work ahead.
“All of us came loaded for bear and ended up as a platypus in the room, now it seems,” she said. “In terms of the applicability — a little unclear. There’s an agreement, which is marvelous progress. There are still many loose ends.”
Commissioner Rebecca Lind said the timing made it difficult to formulate questions for staff.
“It’s really hard to comment with all this new information,” she said.
Commissioner Margot Biehle said an unresolved legal question about the site’s governing entitlement was preventing her from evaluating the project on its merits.
“I think that the conditional use permit/master plan issue is still in question, and my legal brain cannot get to the merits or the (environmental-impact report) until that is somewhat satisfied,” Biehle said.
A lingering legal question
Underlying commissioners’ uncertainty is a dispute over which entitlement governs the property — a question that bears directly on whether the county can legally impose the settlement’s enrollment limits as binding conditions of approval.
The 1984 master plan expired in 2017 after the Board of Supervisors denied North Coast’s request to extend it.
North Coast maintains that the original 1953 conditional use permit allowing up to 1,000 students remains in effect as a vested right running with the land. At the March 2 hearing, county staff and Deputy County Counsel Brandon Halter agreed. Hurd and former Planning Commissioner Don Dickenson — who served as the county’s projects planner when the 1984 master plan was created — argue the master plan voided and replaced the 1953 permit.
At issue is language in the master plan stating that “the previously approved 1959 Campus Plan Use Permit shall become null and void and be of no further effect or benefit.” County records show the 1959 document was a road improvement agreement, not a campus use permit. Halter said he believes the 1984 language voided the road agreement, not the original educational entitlement — though he acknowledged that “the terminology following the word ‘1959’ makes things a little complicated.”
Hurd argues that even if the 1953 permit is controlling, it was granted with the understanding that students would live on site and does not authorize a large commuter institution.
Commission Chair Greg Stepanicich said the question will require further analysis from staff before the March 30 hearing.
Reach Belvedere, Strawberry and public-safety reporter Tyler Callister at 415-944-4627.