Source: http://strawberry94941.org/?page_id=158
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:39:01+00:00

Document:
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.
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.
(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.
Also, the County could and should count and include all the “market-rate” housing in Strawberry (and elsewhere in the County) that is indeed affordable to lower- income individuals and families. These are many such units in Strawberry.
HCD does not have authority or jurisdiction to dictate that this County revise or amend our 2007 Countywide Plan, our county Development Code, zoning regulations, etc. We strongly suspect and are hopeful that with this new information of tax-exempt housing for low and lower-income individuals and families, the HCD would indeed certify the prior Housing Element as “substantially compliant”- the legal standard- which would give this County a “timely” certified Housing Element. This Board must make a good-faith effort to approach HCD and advocate for maintaining the community character, a balanced infrastructure, zoning, density, etc., of this County.
This Board has an opportunity to be heroes to this community and demonstrate to the entire county that its elected supervisors acknowledge their responsibilities and have the vision and wherewithal to manage responsibilities in a way that does not unduly and negatively impact important matters such as public services, schools, property rights, traffic, and the sensitive environments that comprise the character of this county.
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.
The county documents still misidentifies critical Housing Element sites as located in “Tiburon.” Although this meeting was extended by seven (7) days in a last-minute effort to comply with the notice requirements, that is insufficient as it fails to remedy the extreme prejudice of failed property notice for the many hearing, administrative actions and proceedings on these matters over the last 12 months. It is simply too late in this process to provide a mere week of notice. The process must start anew in order to comply with the notice requirements and CEQA notice and participation requirements. Currently, the entire process thus far is null and void.
Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. (14 California Code of Regulations [hereafter CEQA Guidelines] §15201; Emmington v. Solano County Redevelopment Agency 195 Cal.App.3d 491, at 503.) Compliance with the EIR provisions of CEQA serves the important function of enabling the public to make its own “independent, reasoned judgment” about a proposed project. (Ibid. at 503, Public Resources Code [hereafter PRC] §15201). Information relevant to the significant effects of a project and the mitigation measures shall be made available to the public as soon as possible by a lead agency (PRC §21003.1) so that the public may formulate and submit its comments in a timely manner. The public’s comments are an integral part of the [final] EIR. (Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 813, 820).
We therefore again request an extension of at least 90 days before this board takes any action on the above, to permit such actions as the examination by CEQA consultants and specialists of these matters, including but not limited to, the impact of the proposed action and amendments and evaluation of reasonable alternatives. Given the county’s repeated failure to provide proper notice of the numerous past hearings, failure to permit this reasonable extension of time to complete the analysis would result in extreme and irreparable prejudice to the property-owners in Strawberry, including but not limited to the opportunity to retain expert consultants to evaluate environmental impacts not evaluated or adequately or correctly considered in the SEIR.
II. THERE ARE NUMEROUS LEGAL AND FACTUAL DEFECTS IN THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
(a) Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project.
(b) Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented.
(c) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented.
(d) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project.
(e) The Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects. (f) Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
The SEIR fails to address important area-wide issues, particularly pertaining to environmental and wildlife issues. The importance to, and oerall project impactson special status species, are not evaluated in terms of the overall plan. Similarly, mitigations that can only be addressed at the plan level, such as habitat conservation plans, are not evaluated in this document, but rather inappropriately deferred or avoided.
● The project impact assessment fails to assess potential individual or cumulative impacts of the project over the next 5-20 years, many of which will be significant, in fact, more significant than those of the project. This includes individual and cumulative impacts to existing infrastructure. CEQA requires the analyses of all project impacts, for example, the construction of new schools somewhere and the construction of new buildings to manage increased demand for public services.
● The SEIR repeatedly defers project-site specific studies, despite containing a detailed list of 49 sites proposed for the upcoming 8 years of the plan. Even if a program EIR were acceptable, which it is not, programmatic EIRs may appropriately defer some analyses to future site-specific environmental reviews, only when impacts and projects are speculative. Here the myriad impacts and projects are not speculative, they are reasonably foreseeable.
● The document’s analytical approach is academic and conclusatory, rather than critical. The impact analyses do not take a worst case analytical view, but rather a detached and often overly optimistic view that provides considerable information on processes but generally does not clearly tie the analyses to the conclusions. Many of the impact assessments are conclusory and not well supported by fact/analysis. The EIR’s conclusions appear to have been developed independently of the analyses and often conflict with the text of the analyses, the reference materials, and prior reports.
that do not represent the effect of the overall action.
● Most of the cumulative impacts assessments do not approach cumulative impacts in an additive or synergistic manner, but rather use this analysis to identify project impacts as proportionally minor and therefore not significant cumulatively. This is in direct contravention of the requirements for cumulative impacts analysis in CEQA. In addition, the cumulative impact discussions fail to address the project impacts in combination with past impacts, contrary to CEQA requirements.
densities and residential land-use under the Plan.
● The SEIR’s failure to adequately assess or correctly identify project impacts as potentially significant, results in a corresponding failure to identify the need for mitigations. Simply stated, because CEQA requires that only significant impacts be mitigated, and the EIR fails to identify numerous potentially significant impacts, it then necessarily fails to mitigate those missing impacts.
A. Incomplete and Insufficient Project Description and Readability.
“An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193, discussion following CEQA Guidelines §15124). A project description must include all relevant aspects of a project, including reasonably foreseeable future activities that are part of the project. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (Laurel Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, emphasis added. ) The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR. The primary harm caused by shifts among different project descriptions is that the inconsistency confuses the public and the commenting agencies, thus vitiating the usefulness of the process “as a vehicle for intelligent public participation.” (Inyo v. City of L. A.71 Cal.App.3d at 197- 198). Simply put, an EIR cannot analyze a moving target.
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.
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.
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.
B. The Required CEQA Review Process.
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.
There is also not legal authority under the governing case law that permits a mere supplemental EIR for amendments to countywide plans, zoning and development code amendments, or amendments to plans to add a new detailed Housing Element. In contrast, a “supplemental” EIR would be appropriate, and required, if a project were sought to be developed pursuant to the current 2007 Countywide Plan EIR, or current development codes and zoning, but since the 2007 EIR for that Plan was completed, there were significant changes to the project, etc., under the three-prong test.
But as mentioned above, the proposed amendments and new Housing Element sites for both planning periods are inconsistent with the current Countywide Plan, Development Codes and county zoning maps. If they were consistent, the full gamut of these actions would not be proposed to revamp the plan and codes to substantially modify land use countywide and increase land-use density over the majority of the unincorporated regions in the county.
The County then deduces that “[t]he 2007 Countywide Plan EIR evaluated a range of total housing units that could be built in the unincorporated area of Marin County [though the year 2030] under the various Countywide Plan policies that encourage housing (see page 9 of the Draft SEIR).” (County Response to Comment 46- 1.) The County concludes the 2012 Draft Housing Element is “essentially the same project” because the total housing numbers in the 2012 Draft Housing Element are within the range of the projected 2030 build-out in the 2007 CWP.
and in the category of Med-High density, only contemplated 1 additional acre of residential housing in this category.
C. Program EIRs Are Impermissible for Amendments to General Plans.
D. “Tiering” is Not Permissible For These Projects.
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.
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.
wetland areas to the East, South and West. Strawberry is the epicenter of an expansive bay-coastal ecosystem, with numerous intersecting environmental areas.
The impacts to the environment, including wildlife, must be evaluated. In Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, as modified, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied, the Court determined that an environmental impact report was inadequate in that it did not investigate and make findings as to the impact the specific land use plan would have on steelhead trout. But here those impacts were not disclosed or evaluated.
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.
C. The County Must Evaluate Growth-Inducing Impacts.
The lack of a detailed analysis of impacts is even more problematic considering the availability of existing analyses/information on major environmental impacts associated with development of the Housing Element sites. For example, the County has recently reviewed plans for residential projects at the GGBTS (County staff and planning reports, hereby incorporated by reference), as recently as November 2012, and identified potentially significant impacts at that site. But those are omitted from this SEIR. CEQA does not permit an EIR to defer analyses for which information is available at the time of preparation of the document, particularly if that analysis is essential to identifying impacts and mitigation measures. This EIR’s failure to investigate technical issues results in significant impacts going unaddressed and unmitigated. The County is well aware of these issues, and is required to consider and disclose this information in the DSEIR. Contrary to the approach taken in the SEIR, CEQA does not permit impact assessments to willfully ignore relevant information on project sites.
Indeed, it is reasonably foreseeable that all of the proposed “projects” will have significant impacts on the environment in and around Strawberry, as discussed herein. The County has failed to adequately evaluate the significant environmental impacts to this protected coastal peninsula, including but not limited to potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the need to accommodate development; and potentially significant impacts to slope stability and water quality, and flooding issues that affected much of the Strawberry sites. It is reasonably foreseeable that this flooding will be substantially exacerbated by sea level rise.
The proposed Housing Element and other amendments represent a significant burden on public services in this small community, but there is no analysis in the Public Services section of the SEIR addressing the “loss of service” or current or anticipated capacity of public service providers to meet the significant demands of the 363 housing units designated for the Strawberry community or other growth-inducing impacts of the zoning amendments. The public services analysis in the DSEIR is inadequate and must be revised to analyze impacts to public services resulting from all of the 49 housing sites and broader expansion of residential land use.
E. Public Services in and around Strawberry.
The existing infrastructure is inadequate to support the project. As discussed in detail in the following sections, the impact analysis fails to address the environmental impacts associated with development of the housing sites and fails to assess whether projected land uses and development consistent with the scope of the amendments would result in the demand for public services such that new facilities would need to be constructed and identify associated environmental impacts thereof. The SEIR appears to rely on the public services impact analysis included in the CWP EIR and provides no updated analysis to account for higher densities at many of the housing sites identified.
However, the 2007 EIR did not project growth of residential acreage in the Baylands Region so it cannot be used to extrapolate from. Furthermore, the population in this region has increased dramatically since then, which information and data is not included as it must be in an adequate EIR. The public services analysis included in the SEIR is inadequate and must be revised to account for increased densities and intensity of use at the majority of the housing sites, and indeed throughout the area where there are proposed increases to residential land-use.
1. School Population Growth Will Result in the Need for New School Construction and Staffing, Which is Not Addressed or Mitigated.
If the forecasted economic or social effects of a proposed project directly or indirectly will lead to adverse physical changes in the environment, then California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires disclosure and analysis of these resulting physical impacts. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.) Here, the existing infrastructure and schools in the Mill valley School District have insufficient for the projects, including absorbing the population growth from new high-density residential units resulting from the projects.
According to the 2010 US census, over 1,000 school age children and young adults (US Census Bureau 2010) or 25.8% of the overall population reside in Strawberry. Strawberry has one public school structure, Strawberry Point Elementary School (Grades K-5th) with enrollment in 2013 of an estimated 425 students. Strawberry Point is the only public school located within its geographic boundaries. Strawberry Point is a part of the Mill Valley School District. Strawberry Point is at capacity and some children here have to attend alternative elementary schools, in excess of a 1 mile away from their homes in Strawberry. Strawberry Point is located on a revitalized wetlands, is less than 100 feet from Richardson Bay Wildlife Refuge and is also within the definition of the 100 year Flood Plain as defined by FEMA. This is not an area for further buildout of this school.
It is reasonable to foresee upwards of 600 students entering the school district if the zoning results in the development of many additional housing units – which is the scenario CEQA requires to be evaluated. In essence, Strawberry high-density and expanded residential land use could foreseeably increase the public-school population to require the construction, somewhere, of new school buildings(the median cost for a new elementary school is $35 million and then it must be staffed).
Although the construction of new schools by the Mill Valley School District is reasonably foreseeable, there is no analysis, even at the program level, of the potential environmental effects of the construction of new school sites. The Mill Valley School District has increased 40% in the last 8 years from a student population of 2200 in 2005 to a population of 3200 in 2012 – and this is with the current residential zoning. The schools are at or extremely close to physical capacity based on state laws and codes, particularly the middle and high school. If 363 new housing units are constructed in Strawberry, in addition to other building in Mill Valley and TamAlmonte, the impact to schools, particularly the need to build new school facilities, must be evaluated and addressed in an EIR before any zoning or plan changes are contemplated.
rate is an issue for all taxpayers, not just those who have school age children attending public schools.
The environmental impacts are intensified because the 1000+ Strawberry school- age residents attend Mill Valley School District schools or private academic institutions that are, in either part of the Mill Valley School District (Mill Valley Middle School and Tam High School), which are located miles away from Strawberry, across Highway 101 and in the City of Mill Valley and elsewhere. The Safe Routes to School Survey, sponsored by the Mill Valley School District identifies and amplifies the fact that, due to the lack of efficient and reliable transportation, due to the extreme traffic congestion and exacerbated by the fact that over 1,200 Strawberry school age children must in essence ‘commute to school’ by way of unsafe, congested roadways or must use rely on care givers to use a family vehicle to commute to get back and forth to school is an adverse economic impact on the community and surrounding areas and also potentially dangerous situation for both elementary school age children and, young adults attending middle and high school, attempting to either walk or bike to school.
2. Police and Fire Services.
Strawberry is protected by the Marin County Sheriff’s Office, with a mutual assistance agreement with neighboring municipalities, such as The City of Tiburon and the Tiburon Police Department. In addition, the California Highway Patrol has provided additional support during numerous events or request for assistance. The California Highway Patrol provides traffic and speed enforcement, and is often deployed in and around the community in an ongoing effort to mitigate speeding and DUI. The community has a robust commercial shopping center and within the past 36 months has experienced a disturbing increase in both federal and violent crimes.
dangerous and harmful to the general welfare and well-being of the Strawberry community.
The impact analysis fails to adequately address the visual impacts associated with implementation of HE Program 1.p Adjust Height Limits for Multi-family Residential Buildings which would allow multi-family housing to exceed the multi-family height limits identified in the development Code. The DSEIR determined the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. This is false because the DSEIR did not identify and analyze new aesthetic impacts associated with implementation of HE Program 1.p. CWP policies and mitigation measures in the CWP EIR die not account for multi-family housing being allowed to exceed established eight limits. Also, HE Programs 1.a, 1.c and 1.m would encourage increased densities and the building massing at most of the 49 sites above what is allowed in the CWP and these potential impacts were not analyzed in the DSEIR.
Numerous other aesthetic issues have been raised by and before the County with respect to GGBTS’s recent application for expanded development, which are referenced and incorporated herein by this reference.
G. Flooding, 100 Year Floodplain, Impending Sea Level Rise.
According to NOAA, FEMA and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, many evaluated sites located on the Strawberry Peninsula are within the 100 Year Floodplain. An estimated 30% of the Strawberry Peninsula is currently prone to tidal flooding as noted by FEMA and NOAA. For example, tidal flooding is a frequent occurrence and well documented at the Seminary and Hwy 101 exit, one of two entrances/exits to highway 101 for Strawberry and the primary traffic corridor for the proposed GGBTS site. In addition, the entire 101 frontage roads on both sides of 101 are subject to tidal flooding and reside in the 100 Year Floodplain. FEMA Data and the inability of 50% of the residents to leave the Peninsula because of flooding at 2 out of 3 major intersections and highway 101 is a significant impact that can only be avoided if none of the projects are approved.
Indeed, tidal flooding is already problematic to the nearby marshes, lagoons, coves and tidal areas. The number of low lying areas and current and anticipated flooding is substantial. Most critically, as noted in the diagram in the attached Reference Materials, Hwy 101 (residing in Strawberry boundaries) and 66% of the major roadway intersections that enable ingress and egress from the Strawberry Peninsula for the housing sites would be flooded and irreparable, limiting the ability for residents, public transportation, first responders and other services to travel in and out of the area. In essence, these sites could become inaccessible islands. In addition, soil compaction, already an issue at locations associated with these sites, will be amplified by the high- density housing issue, by increasing related run-off, requiring additional costly, structural changes. If not mitigated, the runoff will exacerbate the current and future flooding in surrounding areas, adversely impacting the environment and neighboring residential properties and structures.
As referenced in the attached California Climate Change Center report prepared for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service report, high-density, lower-income residents will suffer the most financially and potentially risk the greatest harm if situated in such an areas. Placing housing within a 100-year floodplain and in areas subject to sea level rise is dangerous, results in significant impacts to the environmental and should be avoided.
H. Water Supply – Significant Issues.
Consistent and reliable water supplies for Strawberry, Marin and the Region are a continuing, unresolved issue in which no long-term, enduring solutions have been proposed, developed, or implemented except for water conservation. Water conservation is ongoing, however, we must still live within the limits of our finite watershed. Strawberry utilized two watersheds, thus increasing the water dependencies across two suppliers. In no circumstances can an unlimited water supply be assumed, since the current supply is dependent on enforcement of the Countywide Plan’s stipulation of “no net water increase” and thus, creates a requirement and mandate that cannot be achieved calling into question the rationale and capabilities required to enable any high-density or expanded residential development in Strawberry.
Likewise, Strawberry real estate development of any kind, but in particular high- density development, has a direct and adverse impact on the water quality (pathogens) in Richardson Bay and the associated environmental eco-system. Any risk and potential violation of the Clean Water Act, due to real estate development in proximity to bay coastal waters and the related environment should be considered unwise and ill-advised, potentially adversely affecting neighboring communities, businesses, natural environments, environmental eco-systems and wildlife.
It is reasonably foreseeable that there will be an increase in the risk of residents developing serious illness due to living near major roadways: Sites 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 50 all sit along Hwy 101 with an unacceptable LOS of “F”. It is well documented, in a multitude of major studies that residents living in proximity to major roads and freeways are at much greater risk of developing serious illness (lung impairment, cardiac disease, cancer, and premature miscarriage) due to the cumulative effects of air and noise pollution. In addition, performing health risk assessments as proposed by the CWP’s EIR and the DSEIR, are not a replacement, nor constitute effective mitigation.
In addition, several health studies recommended to the Board of Supervisors that housing should be located at least 500 feet from major roads and freeways. Thus, any Strawberry, AH Opportunity Sites that are located within 500 feet of Hwy 101, Hwy 131 and/or Shoreline Hwy 101 Frontage Road, should be removed from the AH Land Inventory.
Due to the combination of questionable hazardous material sites (Chevron Gas Station and Car Wash and the Valero Gas Station and Smog Check Station) and circumstances, both are in close proximity (-) 25 feet of a protected wetlands (Belloc Marsh and Lagoon) and the fact that both facilities are located within the 100 year flood plain and currently experience tidal flooding, it is unclear why any housing sites would be located in proximity to the 2 sites identified, due to health and safety risk. Any proposed mitigation of these issues, should take into account both the hazardous material sites in proximity to protected wetlands and issues of tidal, coastal flooding and the related issues, associated with the housing opportunity sites.
K. Individual and Cumulative Traffic Impacts Are Significant and Must be avoided.
The substantial impacts of many of the individual and cumulative projects are not considered, even though specific affected roadways are known. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that there would be dangerous traffic with unacceptable level of service “LOS” of local roadways. Overall, the roads throughout Strawberry are poorly maintained, in disrepair, congested, dangerous, and prone to tidal flooding and reside in sensitive ecological environments. The Marin County CMP Transportation System Performance Monitoring and related Studies are insufficient and do not competently represents the current status and LOS of Strawberry’s local and co-dependent roadways. Strawberry is geographically a critical ‘hub’ for the surrounding communities of Tiburon, Mill Valley and Altamonte. Environmentally, Strawberry is the ‘geographic center and critical linkage’ of Richardson Bay Wildlife refuge spanning areas in Tiburon, Mill Valley and Altamonte. Specific to transportation, Strawberry residents, businesses and students, utilize products and services in all of the surrounding municipalities, while simultaneously the adjacent communities are co-dependent on Strawberry roads and transportation corridors to get to their primary destinations. Thus the inter-dependency is substantial between the communities and highly inter-dependent.
host of additional problems without even attempting to solve the growing list of current problems that already face the residents and business owners of Strawberry.
Thus, it is reasonably foreseeable that any increased densities and expansion of residential land-use in Strawberry will have a negative impact not only on the Strawberry community, but also those interdependent communities that provide services and leverage Strawberry infrastructure to maintain their daily lives. Without an in-depth and comprehensive review of Strawberry specific traffic and related infrastructure, and the inter-dependencies of Strawberry infrastructure in relation to neighboring communities, it would be a violation of CEQA for this Board to approve any real estate development and expansion plans for the Strawberry Peninsula.
There is also a significant issue regarding tidal flooding and the impact on roadways that was not properly evaluated. It is well documented in County records and well known to the Marin County Department of Transportation that roadways and intersections around Strawberry frequently flood during high tide and heavy rains. It is also well known that since Strawberry is a coastal community; it is subject to adverse environmental circumstance such as sea level rise, high tides, and heavy rains and is further adversely affected by poorly maintained infrastructure that is at capacity. An example of these combined issues is the Seminary Exit at Highway 101 intersection, closely located to Belloc Lagoon and Strawberry Tidal area. The Seminary Exit at Highway 101 intersection is also 1 of only 2 intersections that enable Strawberry residents access to Highway 101 major thoroughfare and evacuation route in case of an emergency such as those identified by FEMA as a risk to the Strawberry Community. The Seminary Exit and Highway 101 intersection is also the closest roadway access to Highway 101 from the proposed sites.
development at the Strawberry HE sites could be almost completely stranded, among other risks.
Also, additional students in the Mill Valley School District in Strawberry will require transporting children located on the east side of Highway 101 across the freeway to middle and high school. This further represents a potentially significant traffic impact that is not addressed in the SEIR. Increased traffic, higher speeds, greater congestion, limited current infrastructure and an overall ‘loss of service’ that impact our children are compelling reasons to avoid increased density and expanded residential landuse.
The County of Marin has failed the community of Strawberry in efforts to mitigate speed and alter the level of speed of both non-commercial and commercial traffic for over 30 years. Traffic speed was an issue identified in the 1982 Strawberry Community Plan Adopted in 1984 and yet, traffic mitigation and traffic calming efforts have not been institutionalized and enabled thru substantive change in traffic design and infrastructure. In fact, just the opposite has occurred most recently, with a Marin County Board of Supervisor (BOS) vote to increase the speed limit on the scenic, 2 lanes, Seminary Drive from 25mph to 35 mph. The current high density development proposed by the county will increase the amount of traffic on major thoroughfares, intersections and side streets, while the county proposes and improves increased speed limits in a community that was originally designed to be coastal, rural and residential. The county is thus, literally creating a dangerous and life threatening environment for legacy residents, proposed residents, businesses, tourist and most critically, the 1k children who reside in Strawberry .
In numerous county and regional plans, the Strawberry Peninsula is identified as a critical element of the regional Bay Trail as indicated in the graphic below and the county and regional nature trail network. Specific to the highlighted roadways below, designated in two different graphics attached in the Reference Materials, Seminary Drive is the primary roadway associated with the proposed GGBTS site and will literally inundate resident and institutional vehicle traffic onto a roadway that is designated a pedestrian and bicycle trail. In addition, as mentioned previously, no EIR studies or recommended mitigations were developed for Seminary Drive and all of the interdependent roadways and intersections.
The combination of increased vehicular traffic generated by real-estate development and increased bicycle traffic either from utility or economic demand is both an economic and safety issue. Based upon the review of the current draft and final EIR, a limited amount of analysis has been structured or completed specific to the high volume of cycling traffic currently occurring in Strawberry and the impact of the combination of high-density, increased residential land use will have.
L. Earthquakes and Related Hazards.
The Marin Countywide Plan’s EIR states, and the Housing Element DSEIR confirms, that implementation of the CWP and the Housing Element would have significant unavoidable project and cumulative impacts [Impact 4.7-2 (Seismic Ground Shaking) & Impact 4.7-3 (Seismic Related Ground Failure)] to persons living in new or redeveloped buildings due to risk of injury or death from severe seismic activity such as a major earthquake. The Strawberry Peninsula is exposed to wetlands, marshes and tidal basins. The Site#3 location requires residents to travel past and reside amongst a tidal flood area, a marsh, a protected lagoon and bay tidal area. No current EIR or mitigation plan has been drafted specific to the areas and issues identified in this document. It is requested that the county of Marin address these issues by provided an EIR assessment and related mitigation plan for the Site #3 and the entire Strawberry Peninsula.
The Strawberry Peninsula resides at the epi-center of Richardson Bay, an extension to San Francisco Bay and thus the Pacific Ocean. The risk of Tsunami and devastating loss of life and property is evident in the attached Reference Material researched and authored by the United States Geological Survey Department and supporting organization. The ‘Marin County Tsunami Inundation Maps are made available by the State of California, Department of Conservation.
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.
As noted in the attached maps, an estimated 30% of Strawberry could be adversely impacted by a Tsunami, directly impacting all the proposed HE sites as well as the broader community. Most critically, Strawberry could lose all forms of transportation (public, private, first responder, services) access to its two primary roadways, (Highway 101 and Route 131), in addition to local roadways (Ricardo Road, Seminary Drive and East Strawberry Drive) that enable transportation around the peninsula. The severity of an event of this nature could limit first responders and related rescue and recovery operations, due to the loss of Highway 101 that acts as the major corridor for the county.
The Marin Countywide Plan’s EIR states, and the Housing Element DSEIR confirms, that implementation of the CWP and the Housing Element would have significant unavoidable project and cumulative impacts [Impact 4.7-2 (Seismic Ground Shaking) &Impact 4.7-3 (Seismic Related Ground Failure)] to persons living in new or redeveloped buildings due to risk of injury or death from severe seismic activity such as a major earthquake. The CWP’s EIR and the Housing Element DSEIR then describe the areas in which the danger is greatest, which include Strawberry sites.
For example, the proposed GGBTS HE Opportunity Sites reside within 100 meters of bayshore and a high seismic activity zone with very high liquefaction potential. During even moderate seismic activity, the land is susceptible to liquefaction as noted in the graphic above. Placing housing on these seismically active sites would put the residents at risk of injury or death. Selecting AH Opportunity Sites that are seismically unsafe, is in direct conflict with CWP Policy EH-2.1 – that seeks to avoid development in seismically hazardous areas. Moreover, there can be no benefit that would result from implementation of the Draft Housing Element that would override the impact of severe injury or loss of life from building on ground known to be unstable in even a moderate seismic event and also facing additional complexity and risk by post seismic activities, such as Tsunami’s and Seiches.
3. Earthquakes and Related Hazards-Equitable Data and Analysis.
that the information may not be complete and/or unavailable at this time. Thus, any decisions based on incomplete or dated data and analysis should be disregarded, until such a time when all data being utilized for the basis of decisions can be similar, equitable and accurate based upon the most current methods, processes and technologies.
4. Pacific and San Francisco Bay Environmental Disaster(s)-Impact on Strawberry, Richardson Bay.
The inherent geographic location of Strawberry, as a peninsula, located at the epi- center of Richardson Bay, adds an unpredictable dynamic to any community, especially any high density AH developments. As evident in the Cosco Busan environmental accident the adverse impact on the local community and environment was significant. Numerous disaster scenarios have been developed by Federal, State and Regional agencies such as FEMA, NOAA, DHS, EPA and California EPA for Bay Coastal communities of which the Cosco Busan Oil Spill was but one scenario. It becomes readily apparent to longtime, local community members that living in close proximity to the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean has tangible financial and physical risk. As noted in the California Climate Change Study, the risks and costs resulting from natural or man-made disasters can be impactful and a substantial burden for communities that are ill-equipped and ill-prepared, requiring substantial and persistent mitigation and additional government sponsored financial and structural support.
sites to a less-than-significant level. The EIR applies vague general mitigation measures to unspecified impacts and then assumes full mitigation.
The environmental review fails entirely to identify or assess alternatives tot he proposed projects and sites either in the summary (as required underGuidelines section 15123(b) (1), or anywhere else in the SEIR (as required under Guidelines Section 15126.6). Please note that the alternative to the CWP in the CWP EIR have no relevance o the SEIR update, which is required to address alternatives to the selected strategies/sites in the updated HE and other projects. The CWP EIR alternatives cannot and do not substitute for the SSEIR alternatives because hey are alternatives to different projects.
There are numbers other issues we need time to evaluate and address, which include all of the above, as well as the additional reference material included below. Again, these lists and the details pertained herein is preliminary and not exclusive.
There are numerous other issues we need time to evaluate and address, which include all of the above as well as the additional reference material included below. Again, these lists and the details pertained herein is preliminary and not exclusive.
VI. BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE AHCD, HOUSING ELEMENT AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTRYWIDE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ZONING MAPS ARE BEING MADE IN ORDER TO PROCURE FEDERAL FUNDS THROUGH OBAG, THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT APPLIES AND MUST ALSO BE SATISFIED BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN.
 Assess the environmental impacts of major Federal projects, decisions such as issuing permits, spending Federal money, or actions on Federal lands.
 Consider the environmental impacts in making decisions.
 Disclose the environmental impacts to the public.When an agency concludes that a proposed Federal action has the potential for causing significant environmental impacts, it is required to prepare a detailed statement about those potential environmental impacts, namely an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).Here, however, NETA has not been complied with thus the proposed amendments and Housing Element may not be approved by the Board unless and until an adequate EIS is prepared and submitted.
postage prepaid. The date upon which this notice is mailed shall not affect the time periods specified in subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e).
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.

References: §15201
 v. 
 §15201
 §21003
 v. 
 v. 
 §15124
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 21060
 v. 
 v. 
 §21100
 §15126
 §15144
 v. 
 v.