The state environmental review of Marin County’s Housing Element update determined that an alternative resulting in less driving—and fewer West Marin units—would be environmentally superior. In an exhaustive, 1,000-page programmatic review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the county’s consultants found that the major state-mandated changes in housing policy would have more than a dozen significant, unavoidable impacts to the environment, but that a focus on minimizing commuter miles could cut back on traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet the Housing Element, Marin’s plan to meet state housing goals by adding more than 3,500 new units in unincorporated areas in the next eight years, will clear environmental review despite its drawbacks because, as county environmental planner Rachel Reid told elected officials last week, “the benefits outweigh the impacts.”
“There is no version of the project that the board can approve that doesn’t have significant unavoidable impacts,” Ms. Reid said at a joint hearing of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. “At the same time, the project must be approved to comply with state law.”
In their draft environmental impact report, county staff and their consultant MIG found that the programs and policies outlined in the element, along with the rezoning and potential development of hundreds of properties in unincorporated Marin, would have unavoidable impacts on emissions, water and wastewater systems, air quality, noise, traffic, scenic vistas and visual character, and historic resources.
But the “no project” alternative would be a violation of state law. MIG devised two alternatives, both of which drew praise and criticism. Both would result in fewer new homes on the coast. The “reduced utility impact” alternative focused on housing sites where water and wastewater systems were less strained, served by large districts like Marin Water and municipal sewer systems. Under this alternative, nearly 900 units would be relocated to large sites in eastern Marin.
The “reduced vehicle miles traveled” alternative removes 354 West Marin units from consideration, including all the sites identified in Olema, several in Tomales and a few in the San Geronimo Valley, with the goal of concentrating more development around the 101 corridor. The smallest sites in West Marin remained on the map. The “reduced V.M.T.” alternative is the preferred alternative because less driving would reduce impacts to traffic, air quality, emissions and noise.
But many at last week’s meeting had questions about the lengthy, byzantine environmental impact report. Comments from the public, county supervisors and planning commissioners highlighted the shortcomings of the document, which could only tackle the major changes to housing policy on a programmatic basis.
Some of the thousands of developments the county identified will need to undergo their own CEQA reviews, and some will not, making the E.I.R. seem overly broad and vague to some commenters.
“When it’s not specific, you sort of throw up your hands,” said Ted Von Glahn, a Lucas Valley resident who said he supported building more housing in his neighborhood.
Ken Levin, president of the Point Reyes Station Village Association, told county staff he thought there would be more public comments if the E.I.R. were easier to grasp. “Laypersons are really at a disadvantage because of its length and its difficulty in understanding,” he said.
Supervisor Dennis Rodoni said he felt a blend of the “reduced V.M.T.” and “reduced utility impact” alternatives could be successful, and CEQA allows agencies to work freely within a range of alternatives. But he echoed Mr. Levin’s concerns about the vast E.I.R.
“We do need a way to explain this to the public and to elected officials in a simpler way,” he said. The county will publish a final environmental impact report on Dec. 19, and supervisors expect to approve it in January.