September 14, 2013

VIA E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS

Marin County Board of Supervisors Marin County Counsel
3501 Civic Center Dr.
San Rafael, CA 94903

Re: UPPATE to September 17, 2013 BOS Meeting and Action: Comments and Requests re: Housing Element Update, SEIR, Amendments to Marin 2007 Countywide Plan, Amendments to Development Code and Zoning Maps

Dear County Supervisors and County Counsel:

This is an updated supplemental letter submitted by the undersigned residents and property owners in Strawberry, a community located in unincorporated Marin County. We are writing to comment on the inadequacy of the environmental impact analysis, and request relief regarding the above-referenced meeting and the following agenized board actions:

1. The proposed “Supplemental” Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) and its failure to evaluate the environmental impacts and mitigation measures, both individually and cumulatively, of all the proposed board actions, including inadequate evaluation of 363 new high-density, tax-exempt housing units in Strawberry (see, e.g., SEIR, Sites 12, 21-25, and 50);

2. The expanded application of the Housing Overlay Designation (“HOD”), with minimum density of 30 tax-exempt residential units per acre;

3. The creation [in the proposed amendments to the CWP] and application [in the proposed 2012 draft Housing Element] of an Affordable Housing Combining District (“AHCD”), including but not limited to application at the site at the GGBTS (Site 12); and

4. The proposed wholesale amendments to the County Development Code, 2007 Countywide Plan, and County Zoning Map so that the entire CDP of Strawberry, including all residential, commercial, and mixed-use would be effectively zoned for tax- exempt residential housing, including high-density tax-exempt housing, among other things.

As set forth in this letter, it would be an obvious and unmistakable abuse of discretion if this Board approves or certifies the environmental impact analysis (in the form of a “FSEIR”) and then relies on that defective environmental impact analysis to

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 2

approve any or all of the other amendments and items on the agenda. To be clear, this is not just about the 2012 Housing Element: an environmental impact report is legally required for each of the actions, i.e., “projects” under well-established law, including the amendments to the Development Code, the changes to the zoning map, the narrative Amendments to the countywide plan, as well as the 2012 Housing Element “update.”

Unless this Board opts to act in overt defiance of the law, the Board cannot (and hence should not) approve any item on the above agenda in any form. Put simply, it is legally impermissible to prepare either a “supplement” or “subsequent” EIR for these projects, or a “program” styled EIR for these projects; the CEQA Guidelines, statutes and case law previously cited by the County in support of this incomplete and defective approach DO NOT SUPPORT it. To the contrary, the statutes, CEQA Guidelines and governing case law actually state and hold that this approach is not permissible or sufficient. The result of this and other numerous other deficiencies is a wholly inadequate environmental impact report that is the foundational prerequisite to approving or moving forward with any amendment on the agenda.

The duty to comply with CEQA rests solely and exclusively on this Board. By law, this Board cannot defer to staff or planning commission reports. This Board must make independent factual findings and evaluations after reading all of the referenced source material. Because this Board cannot defer to the conclusions and analysis of staff or other county commissions, as a courtesy, this letter provides comprehensive legal authority governing the CEQA requirements of this Board as well as the statutory and case law that sets forth the required environmental review, which as mentioned above, has not been done.

There are solutions. Indeed, what this Board can and should do is go back to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), now under new direction, to obtain approval of the previously HCD-rejected Housing Element that allows growth at densities consistent with the current 2007 Marin Countywide Plan, Zoning Maps, and Development Code, and given that HCD has recently stated it would count the GGBTS student and staff housing towards the County’s RHNA numbers, the consistent Housing Element should be augmented in at least two important ways:

(1) Add the current existing entitlement of GGBTS for 93 student and staff housing units as provided in the existing Master Plan, without modifying any zoning, creation or application of overlay zoning, or any other action.

(2) Add and include the hundred-plus current student and staff housing units at the GGBTS, all tax-exempt housing units, in the calculation of the number of affordable- housing units already supplied. (If there is a concern from HCD about new development,

I. THE COUNTY’S REPEATED FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE IS PREJUDICIAL AND MAY BE REMEDIED ONLY IF THE BOARD PROVIDES AN EXTENSION OF AT LEAST 90 DAYS BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION ON THESE ITEMS OR EXPRESSLY EXEMPTS THE ENTIRE AREA OF STRAWBERRY FROM ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS AND ACTIONS REFERENCED ABOVE.

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 5

has an affirmative duty to ensure full compliance with CEQA. Indeed, “the certification of a legally inadequate EIR is a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” Pub. Resources Code § 21005 (a); Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 428.)

CEQA requires not only de novo review by a board of supervisors, but de novo fact finding as well. The lead agency’s decision-making body cannot fulfill its CEQA duties simply by “considering the EIR before approving it.” (Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322, 326.) Furthermore, the lead agency’s decision- making body cannot delegate its obligation to “review and consider” a final EIR to another (inferior) entity within the agency hierarchy. (CEQA Guidelines §15025.) Such “[d]elegation is inconsistent with the purpose of the review and consideration function since it insulates the members of the [decision-making body].” (Id.)

“Because the EIR must either be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability.” Laurel Heights at 392. Also, when relying on documents which have been incorporated by reference, the lead agency must certify that it has actually reviewed and considered the referenced documents. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Santa Barbara (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1197 (Goleta I), emphasis added.) Moreover, a lead agency is required to thoroughly investigate the existing environmental setting. San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, (1994) 27 CA4th 713, 726. “While forecasting the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” (14 CCR 15144.)

CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show that it has considered the identified means of lessening or avoiding the project’s significant effects. Resource Defense Fund v. Local Formation Agency (1987) 191 CA3d 886, 898. If the reviewing court determines that the agency has failed to comply with CEQA in certifying the EIR or approving the project, the court must order one of the following: (1) a mandate that the determination, finding or decision be voided by the public agency in whole or in part; or (2) a mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. (See Public Resources Code §21168.9.)

Where an agency has failed to comply with CEQA, its actions may be set aside, even though the agency’s breach or omission would not have changed the outcome of the agency’s decision. (Resource Defense Fund v. Local Formation Agency 191 CA3d 886, 898 (1987).)

“[E]vidence outside the EIR itself is beside the point. It is the adequacy of the EIR with which we are concerned, not the propriety of the board of supervisor’s decision to

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 9

clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (Laurel Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 409, fn. 12.)

EIR project descriptions have often been rejected as inadequate because the court perceived that the EIR attempted to narrow the scope of environmental review by narrowing the project description, which is occurs here in the SEIR. (Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 CA3d 818.) The CEQA Guidelines define “project” to mean “the whole of an action” that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). “Project” is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment,” (McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143.) “Segmentation” occurs when the project description does not encompass the entire project.

Here, the project description and impact analysis unmistakably attempts to impermissibly “piecemeal” or “segment” the projects in numerous ways, which in turn avoids evaluation of significant environmental impacts. The holding of San Joaquin Raptor Society v. County of Stanislaus, is illustrative. In that case, the County certified an EIR for a large subdivision. The administrative record established, and the developer conceded, that a waste water treatment facility was to be built on an adjoining parcel to serve the new subdivision. However, the EIR contained no information about the waste water treatment facility. The court determined that, in fact, the waste water treatment facility was part and parcel of the subdivision project. The court took note of the fact that the project could not go forward without the facility. The EIR, had artificially “segmented” the project into two projects, a subdivision and a waste water treatment facility. Because the facility was a reasonably foreseeable additional component of the subdivision project, it, and its impacts, had to be analyzed in the subdivision EIR. The danger of segmentation is that it chops projects into smaller bits, which standing alone, may not present the full range and intensity of adverse impacts resulting from the entire project.

In Laurel Heights I, the court set forth the standards for determining whether reasonably foreseeable future activities must be included in an EIR project description and for determining whether the impacts of those activities must be analyzed in the EIR: “We hold that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” Ibid. at 396. In Laurel Heights, the University of California planned to transfer medical laboratories to an office building in a residential neighborhood. Initially, the laboratories

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 10

were to occupy 100,000 square feet of a 354,000 square-foot building. The University claimed it had not formally decided to occupy the entire building, but the court noted that statements in the final EIR and public releases in University newsletters indicated the University’s intent to occupy the entire building when another agency’s lease expired in several years. Accordingly, there was “credible and substantial evidence” that the University’s occupancy of the entire building was reasonably foreseeable, and so had to be considered in the challenged EIR. (Ibid. at 398.)

The CEQA Guidelines define “project” to mean “the whole of an action” that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). The effect of piecemeal environmental review was stated clearly in Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange at 828-830. There, the court observed that omission of a key part of the project resulted in important ramifications of the project remaining hidden from view as the project was being discussed and approved, frustrating one of the core goals of CEQA. (Id. at 830.)

It is anticipated the County will contend that the SEIR is a “program” EIR and these requirements do not apply. But not only is a program EIR impermissible for a general plan amendment, discussed below, the rules against segmentation also apply in “program” style EIRs.

A program-level EIR “is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related” by geography, by being “logical parts” in a chain of contemplated action, by “issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program,” or by being “under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168 (a).)

For example, in Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, the court examined whether a proposed shipping terminal project fell within the scope of a 1997 program EIR for a port transportation improvement program and a 2000 Supplemental EIR. The Court, quoting CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (a), emphasized that a “program EIR” is prepared to examine a “series of actions” that could be characterized as one large project. (Id. at 281.) Noting that the China Shipping Project did not even arise until after the 1997 program EIR had been completed, the court found no evidence that any site-specific environmental issues related to the project were addressed in either the 1997 program EIR or the 2007 Supplement EIR. Likewise, the various “projects” before this board did not arise until long after the 2003 Housing Element or the 2007 EIR for the current CWP,

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 11

and hence cannot be deemed to be part of those projects. In fact, the new projects could not be part of those projects because they are inconsistent; hence, the proposed substantive amendments to the CQP, zoning maps and Development Code increasing residential density and making expansive land-use changes, discussed further below.

CEQA precludes the County from essentially “(1) deem the environmental effects of adopting the plan, whatever those effects may be, to be significant, then (2) approve the plan, and then (3) at some later time determine what the significant environmental effects are of the specific plan that has already been approved.” (See, e.g., Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 201.)

B. The Required CEQA Review Process.

Whenever the approval of a project with potential environmental impact is at issue, the CEQA and regulations have established a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations: (1) the first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity; (2) if the project is not exempt, the agency must proceed to the second tier and conduct an initial study; and (3) if the project does not qualify for a negative declaration, the third step in the process is to prepare a full environmental impact report (EIR). (Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, as modified.)

On the first step, a determination that a project will not entail a significant environmental impact can be made only if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the agency that such an impact may occur. (Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(1).) Whenever a “fair argument” exists that a project may entail significant environmental effects, an EIR must be prepared, even if there is other substantial evidence in the record that there will not be such an impact. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 C3d 68, Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 CA 988, 1000.) The “fair argument” standard recognizes that an EIR should be required to resolve uncertainty created by conflicting assertions. (Id at 35.) The fair argument standard was developed to set a low threshold to trigger a requirement for an EIR. (Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 CA3d 748, 754.)

“Application of the [fair argument] standard is a question of law and deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate. Rather, [courts] independently review the record and determine whether there is substantial evidence in support of a fair argument [that a project] may have a significant environmental impact…” (Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 CA4th 144.)

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 12

CEQA Guideline Section 15065 states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, requiring the preparation of an EIR where the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, or reduce the habitat available for wildlife. “With certain limited exceptions, a public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment. Significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123-1126.)

The fair argument standard, derived from Public Resources Code Section 21151 mandates preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 1316.) “Section 21151 creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted.” (Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872,881; see also, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 351, 202 Cal.App.4th 1156..)

Here, the County has already correctly determined CEQA does apply to all of the projects above, which is apparent in the language of the SEIR itself as well as in prior board meeting minutes and various county reports. What’s more, the County also recognized that CEQA requires review of all sites in the HE as well as the cumulative impacts. In the County’s Final Report of the Housing Element Task Force, the County provided that “[w]ith the completion of the Task Force process, staff will initiate environmental review of the selected sites as required by CEQA. The review will consider the individual and cumulative impacts of increasing densities to a minimum of 30 units per acre on all evaluated sites.” (Housing Element Task Force Final Report, Page 7, emphasis added.)

Indeed, the following are all “projects” subject to CEQA:

– The adoption or amendments of general plans or elements thereof. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a)(1); DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 793-79; City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 529–533; Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 985; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.)

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 13

• –  The enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances. Pub Resources Code 21080(a); CEQA Guidelines 15378(a)(1)
• –  The issuance of zoning variances and conditional use permits. Pub Res Code 210808(a)
• –  Actions that “presage or accommodate anticipated changes in the extent or nature of land use.” (See e.g., Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 278-281.)
• –  The adoption of a redevelopment plan. Pub Res. Code 21090; CG 15180.General plans “embody fundamental land use decisions that guide the future growth and development of cities and counties,” and amendments of these plans “have a potential for resulting in ultimate physical changes in the environment.” General plan adoption and amendment are therefore properly defined in the CEQA guidelines [citation] as projects subject to environmental review.” (DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 793–795; Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley, supra; City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 532.) Section 15378, subdivision (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines explains in pertinent part that “project” includes “any activity undertaken by a public agency that reasonably might affect the environment, including but not limited to … enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof.” Indeed, the fact that the amendment of a general plan is subject to environmental review under CEQA is well established.CEQA mandates also apply to changes to zoning ordinances, cited above, as well as the other discretionary actions before the board in the other amendments. A discretionary agency action qualifies as a “project” whenever it is “necessary to the carrying out of some private project involving a physical change in the environment.” (Simi Valley Recreation & Park District v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 664.) For example, general plan amendments frequently culminate in significant environmental effects, particularly where they will allow specific areas to be developed for previously disallowed land uses, or set new policies with reasonably foreseeable real-world consequences. Even actions that might be disparaged as mere “governmental paper-shuffling” (e.g., the amendment of a general plan) can constitute “projects, so long as they “culminate” in physical impacts to the environment. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission) (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 277-281; see also Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 271-273

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 14

[“in order to interpret CEQA “in such manner to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment with in the reasonable scope of the statutory language,” it may be necessary to apply CEQA “even where the process is largely ministerial.”].)

Furthermore, projects with both ministerial and discretionary attributes are treated as discretionary. CEQA Guidelines section 15268(d); Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach (1993) 13 Cal.App. 4th 1118, 1139; Friends of Westwood, supra, at 270-271. “Doubt whether a project is ministerial or discretionary should be resolved in favor of the latter characterization.” (Friends of Westwood, supra, at 271 [quoting People v. Department of Housing and Community Development (1975) 45 cal.app.3d 185, 194.])

If there is substantial evidence that a project may have significant environmental impact, then contrary evidence is not adequate to support a decision to dispense with an environmental impact report (EIR). (Citizens For A Megaplex-Free Alameda v. City of Alameda (App. 1 Dist. 2007) 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 728, 149 Cal.App.4th 91, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied.)

As such, the Board must independently evaluate whether the environmental review that barely passed though the Planning Commission is legally sufficient for each and all of the following: (1) The amendments to the Development Code and zoning maps; (2) the amendment to the 2007 CWP through adoption of the 2012 Draft Housing Element; and (3) the other amendments to the Countywide Plan.

But, as mentioned above, where the County has grievously erred is in preparing a mere “supplement” to the 2003 Housing Element and/or the 2007 EIR prepared for the 2007 Countywide Plan Amendment project “pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.” The provisions of Section 21166 governing “subsequent” or “supplemental” apply “only when the question is whether more than one EIR must be prepared for what is essentially the same project.” (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320 [italics added].) “Section 21166 “comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired (§ 21167, subd. (c)), and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.” (Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1074.) In addition, the standards of Section 21166 do not apply where a particular site-specific development project “activity” – such as all sites in both planning periods for the Housing Element – has not been the subject of an earlier EIR or negative declaration, or where the only previous EIR or negative declaration relevant to the project was an environmental document prepared for a general plan, community plan, or similar large-scale planning action. (See Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 529.)

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 17

provisions of sections 21083.3 and 15183. CEQA analysis for these projects cannot take advantage of tiering because they are not consistent with currently adopted programs, plans, policies or ordinances and/or are not consistent with governing local general plans and zoning and instead must fully account for all environmental impacts attributable, in whole or in part, to all projects. (See CEQA Guidelines 15150(a).)

Also, tiering “does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR ….” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (b).)

III. THE NUMEROUS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY EVALUATED.

An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. “Environment means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (Public Resources Code section 21060.5) In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.

Moreover, CEQA broadly defines the relevant geographical environment as “the area which will be affected by a proposed project.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.5.) Consequently, “the project area does not define the relevant environment for purposes of CEQA when a project’s environmental effects will be felt outside the project area.” (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1582–1583.) Indeed, “the purpose of CEQA would be undermined if the appropriate governmental agencies went forward without an awareness of the effects a project will have on areas outside of the boundaries of the project area.” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 ( Napa Citizens ).) Thus, the County’s obligation under CEQA is to also to consider geographically distant environmental impacts of their activities and projects.

The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 18

commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected.

A draft EIR must identify and focus on the possible significant environmental impacts of a proposed project. (PRC §21100(a)(1), CEQA Guidelines §15126(a).) The analysis should clearly identify both direct and indirect impacts, both for the short-term and the long-term. An EIR should also discuss the environmental specifics of the affected area; anticipated physical changes; anticipated alterations to ecological systems; and other aspects of the resource base such as scenic quality. (CEQA Guidelines 15126(a)).

A. Lead Agency Must Disclose All Facts in EIR and Properly Evaluate the Impacts to the Environment.

“While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” (CEQA Guidelines §15144). Here, it is understood that there are projects that have been discussed with the County agents impacting the GGBTS property and a forthcoming project in development that the county has refused to disclose to property-owners within 300 feet of the GGBTS property, among other things.

Certification of an EIR may be set aside where the agency fails to comply with the information disclosure requirements of CEQA, even though the agency’s decision would not have been affected by the noncompliance. (Ultramar, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (1993) 17 CA4th 689,703.) “A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (Kings County Farm Bureau et al v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712.)

Here, many critical environmental facts, and the subsequent required evaluation, are lacking. Strawberry is primarily a peninsula that resides in the geographic center of Richardson Bay. A large percentage of Strawberry is shoreline that houses sensitive environmental features, including delicate coastal, bay, lagoon, tidal and marsh and

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 20

are currently 86 Section-8 housing units and hundreds of housing units in Strawberry that are deemed affordable-housing and that are otherwise market-rate housing that is affordable to lower income levels. The GBBTS academic institution houses hundreds of faculty and students, along with their families, who live and are educated in Strawberry.

Much of the coastal lowlands in Strawberry, including arterial roadways throughout the area, including the commercial area in Strawberry Village and the 101 frontage roadways, are in or directly surrounded by flood plains. In the higher elevations, areas are set aside for preservation of woodland, wildlife, and open space and other areas are dedicated disaster-relief sites for the Red Cross to facilitate the protection and safety of residents throughout Southern Marin.

B. The EIR Must Discuss any Inconsistencies with All Land-Use Plans.

CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to “discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable …regional land use plans…” CEQA Guideline 15125(b). Here, the plan does not discuss or address the myriad inconsistencies with the Strawberry Community Plan, the 2007 CWP, and the master Plan for GGBTS. It is further defective for that reason.

Here, the impact analysis fails to address potential conflicts associated with the expanded residential land-use and densities zoning of numerous parcels. Also, the HE applies an Affordable Housing (AH) Combined District that would permit 30 dwelling units per acre on sites identified in the SEIR (HE Program 1.c). This increase in density was not permitted in the CWP EIR yet the Land Use and Planning section of the SEIR concludes there are no significant land use impacts. The land use analysis included in the SEIR is inadequate and must be revised to evaluate potential land use impacts associated with HE Program 1.c.

Furthermore, it is reasonably foreseeable that zoning for high density, tax-exempt residential units, as proposed in the Countywide Plan and Housing Element and other proposed amendments, is inconsistent with the planned needs of the local community, undermines the established ecological balance precipitously established, undermines the community’s plan to protect open space and protect an environment that is integral to the ‘viability’ of the surrounding environmental eco-system in which the Strawberry peninsula resides and GGBTS also inhabits.

These projects would also result in significant land use conflicts, given the conflicts with the Strawberry Community Plan, excerpted below.

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 21

The Strawberry Community Plan provides:
<insert graphic from SCP here>

Pg 2-3 Amendments to the Strawberry Community Plan 1982

C. The County Must Evaluate Growth-Inducing Impacts.

Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(5) requires that an EIR include a detailed statement setting forth the growth inducing impacts of a project. See also Guideline 15126(g). It requires a discussion of the ways in which the project would foster population growth, either directly or indirectly. Once identified, Public Resources Code Section 21002 and Guideline 15126(c) require the EIR to include mitigation measures to minimize, reduce and avoid such impacts accomplished…taking into account economic,

“Richardson Bay is a canary in the coal mine of Bay Area sea level rise. As global warming threatens to transform today’s high tides into tomorrow’s low ebb, those inconvenient floods could turn into tragedies.” (SF Gate/Tuesday March 2nd,2013/Preparing the bay for rising levels.)

evacuation plans.  CGS is also the Scientific Representative for California on
the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program Coordinating Committee, a state and federal cooperative that produces policy and standards for tsunami mitigation efforts in the United States and its territories.

Board of Supervisors County Counsel September 14, 2013 Page 37

VI. CONCLUSION.

Even though we have had only limited time to prepare the basic informational document, in our effort to address the proposed items on the board agenda, we are confident the County has sufficient information to understand that the proposed Strawberry AH Opportunity Sites, and all other amendments to the plan and codes, are inappropriate.

Without question, significant impacts would foreseeably result from expansion of the residential densities and residential land use in both planning cycles or generally as well as the other changes proposed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact either or both of us at stacisimoton@yahoo.com and rickharris44@comcast.net if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
/s/
Staci Simonton

Attachments: Reference Materials
Cc: Marin County Planning Commission

Sincerely,
/s/
Richard L. Harris